I generally have supporting evidence when I contradict a media narrative. For example, the coofid vax - there wasn't exactly a shortage of peer-reviewed studies, official statistics, and even older news stories contradicting the new ones to use as sources for refuting various inaccuracies in this narrative. In fact I would say that people actually looking at these data sources, and citing disagreeing experts were what made any sort of mass resistance to this possible.

If you cant support your positions with more than dogma, you arent any different than the propagandists. Whether I default to always believing or always disbelieving the media, I am still letting them determine my position without me having any real information, or exercising any agency. The media will tell you whatever is good for their agenda, it can be the truth, a lie, or better yet spin and half-truths that are more difficult to pin down

Alphix - for what it's worth - this is currently the top post in /s/subscribed. (Congrats - and I think Saidit has officially jumped the shark.)