During the cold war I was trained by the US Army to translate Russian. As part of the training we read Russian media, in fact at one school we had an instructor who had been a newscaster on the Moscow TV station, so I got to see a lot of propaganda. I had already seen that the International Herald Tribune (European joint venture between the New York Times and Washington Post) could report the same story as the New York Times but leave you with a completely opposite conclusion. The same facts reported but different assumptions expected of their audiences. People accept propaganda because not everything they say is a lie, sometime its the truth, sometimes it comes with unstated assumptions. If I find I've been lied to I switch from accepting the source unless proven otherwise to disbelieving the source, on all matters, unless confirmed elsewhere. For instance, if you see a news item where its obvious the reported doesn't know the first thing about firearms, doesn't that make you trust the publisher less? What makes you think they're more knowledgeable about anything they report?
So at this point I don't believe anything until I've had a chance to hear/read other sources and evaluate which story makes the most sense based on my knowledge and experience. Basically, they're all either lying or ignorant and its up to me to figure out what is most likely true.