I will start
1. The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence has to be.
An oldie and a goodie which we routinely used to counter evidence for miracles. A story about Donald Trump saying something really outrageous, would help if there is a video or audio recording of him saying it (which there are).
2. The use of emotive language
Language that tries to get you riled up. I don't mean to generalise, but this might be a bit harder for Americans to see on television, compared to say Australia, or BBC. The few times I have seen US news, a lot of it seems sensationalised by Australian standards. That automatically makes me suspicious. Australian news by comparison, seems dry.
Now in printed media its a bit harder as there are less cues to follow, unlike on television where you can see and hear the journalists sarcasm. But there are a few terms with connotations or very emotive language, which people use rather than a standard more neutral term. For example, the word infanticide for abortion (not that it is accurate, but anyway).
3. Check the original source
Very useful for science based stories. Potholer 54 on youtube does a great job with climate change deniers. He follows the source and finds they say the opposite of what the article claims.
Another case of be suspicious is if they link to a source in another language. Some countries now publish in English to get their POV out. Russia and China do this. So when they say Chinese government says x, but they don't link to a source in English, (when Chinese publish in English, Mandarin, Arabic, French and Spanish), I get very suspicious. Especially when I find an article published by Chinese news media in English saying the opposite.
**** The above was in reference to law the Chinese government supposedly announced. So if government's own mouthpieces and everyone of them announces the law inaccurately, either Western news are lying, or the CCP's own mouthpieces are all incompetent they really say the opposite of the government tells them to say.
4. Ask yourself if you were a journalist, what you want to know
A lot of the time, the narrative is deceptive by what they don't put in. For example when two countries have dispute, I want to know why? Saying they have territorial disputes is only the tip of the iceberg. I want to know what is the historical basis of this.
5. The 3 D's
Coined by Israel's defenders, however its useful for anything really and can even be used against Israel.
a ) Double standard
b) demonisation (which feeds in with point 2 I raised)
c) Delegitimisation
