I'm an engineer in the nuclear industry. Everything I write is independtly verified by at least 2 people. Once upon a time Editors ensured stories were somewhat factual. Not anymore (except for maybe the Wall Street Journal that still provides references for most of there stories).
In most areas of life, people rely (because they have to) on the twin legal criteria of "on the balance of probability" (the standard of proof in civil cases) and "beyond reasonable doubt" (the standard in criminal cases).
I always laugh when anyone brings up the idea of objectivity in journalism, because it fails to address too many questions:
Who is the target audience?
What is the breadth of their experience?
How honest are they about what they are willing to believe?
Will they buy the publication?
Who decides which stories to put in? (Editor, publisher....)
At my school, in the 60s, the VIth form common room (mostly 17 to 18 year olds) in my house subscribed (at my prompting) to both the North Vietnam Peace News and the British Union of Fascists newsletter. It taught everyone who bothered to read them that (a) not all papers report the same events and (b) that the same event may be reported in very different ways.
Believing everything you read in your favourite source, regardless of how it is 'fact-checked', and no matter how many people 'verify' it, is a recipe for severe hardening off the categories.
The Buddha is reputed to have said, "Test everything I say as a goldsmith tests refined gold, and if it does not accord with your own knowledge and experience, set it aside." Note 'set it aside', not 'reject it', because there is always the possibility that you may re-evaluate it in the light of further knowledge and experience.
Indeed, science works pretty much the same way: many things can neither be proven nor shown to be false -- until we know a bit more.
Cheers,
R.