Christopher Rollston, perhaps the greatest living authority on Hebrew epigraphy, maintains that it is a forgery. He states this several times in his 2010 monograph Writing and Literacy in the World of Ancient Israel.
His book includes mention of the political and religious overtimes of the inscription as a common aspect of forgeries (p. 140), and the forger's ignorance of Hebrew scribal practices regarding the morphology and spatial relationships of Old Hebrew letters (p. 104 n. 3).
Martin Heide also has much to say about the forger's errors (epigraphic and physical) and the tablet's connection with other known forgeries in "The Moabitica and Their Aftermath: How to Handle a Forgery Affair with an International Impact", in New Inscriptions and Seals Relating to the Biblical World, 2012.
You specify 2016 news, but it doesn't appear that much attention is being given to the tablet any more. There seems to be little dispute over its inauthenticity.
The Israeli Antiquities Authority has determined that the inscription itself is forged, although the stone itself may be genuinely ancient. This was concluded because of mistakes in lettering and in Hebrew vocabulary. There are some other arguments against authenticity as well, including testing that shows a modern patina and that the stone originated outside of Palestine, probably in Syria. The person who presented the tablet was the same person who presented the James Ossuary, a guy by the name of Oded Golan, who was caught with forging tools in his home along with other items still in the process of being manufactured. Forging inscriptions onto genuinely ancient material is a common strategy in antiquities fraud, which is lucrative and ubiquitous in Israel.
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Irvine_Isbell_Jehoash.shtml