Truth is elusive even in science but that does not mean you can not get closer to it.

Truthful information really is "infrastructure" as well. Therefore government must support it. What if you can not trust the government? That is why we need total transparency of governance and we need democracy to vote bad actors out.

If you want to find out about wrongdoing in a US corporation, a US advertising funded channel is likely to avoid upsetting a sponsor. On the other hand, someone actively pointing out flaws in the US to sew division, like RT, has a strong incentive to do so, and try to retain credibility, and build up their viewers trust to use later as a wedge.

On the other hand, they will never say anything bad about Russia, other than trivialities.

Always keep in mind, incentives and the narratives those incentives align with. The higher the stakes, the more uncertain you should be.

You also have to try to keep in mind your own emotional and cognitive biases. Those are the ones that social media feeds on. If it upsets or delights you, you're more likely to react, as is everyone else. Which the advertising driven media will then feed on top of.

"Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”

Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.

Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.

Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.

Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.

Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.

If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.

Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.

Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle — an electron, say — in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result."

From https://www.themarginalian.org/2014/01/03/baloney-detection-... and his book The Demon Haunted World