Regarding the media. This is how I try to approach it:
The sources cited. Where does this information come from? Who is being quoted? What is their expertise? Does it give me enough information to make up my own mind? Look out for those who deem themselves the source of the information.
The language being used. Are they using phrases like "might," "may," could," "seems like," etc. A lot of times the speculative nature isn't addressed directly, but instead implied through language. It's not just the media, you can see this a lot in this thread. I'm guilty of it myself sometimes. Something "seems to be true" or "is probably true," that means it is true, right? Wrong.
The website or channel itself. Is it a major newspaper/news site/network, a website akin to Buzzfeed-ish/We Got This Covered, some sort of "(insert political affiliation) Daily" Facebook page, or is it just some dude on YouTube shouting in his truck? I'm not saying the media is perfect, but the other three are far more untrustworthy as they rarely cite sources nor approach the information presented with critical thought, and prey upon your angers, fears, and doubts regarding the media (or other entities).
If someone is ranting and raving like some angry lunatic, I immediately click away.
I had a speech teacher in film school who hammered this all this into us. I'll never forget what he told us on the first day: "You are not a source for information." He then would ding us for us for making bold claims, implied statistics ("most people this, most people that"), stating something as a fact without either citing a source or at least explaining what it is that makes us an expert on the subject (ex. "I worked in this field for 5 years").