I agree in principle, but this rationale isn't applied consistently. It's applied selectively and it's hypocrisy of the selective application that I'm trying to tease out.
As a thought experiment let's imagine a parallel universe where we replace NPR with RT. Now imagine a Russian HN where two people are having a similar discussion about RT being Russian state-sponsored media. In that context would Occam's Razor apply? And if not, why? Pointing to Western fact-checkers isn't going to convince a Russian living in Russia any more than an American pointing to fact-checkers from RT is going to persuade an American. They've been indoctrinated by the public school system from an early age.
In this imaginary universe Russia still doesn't have a 1A, but even without one, it doesn't follow that RT wouldn't be able to exert the same creative control as NPR. Any fact that could be seen to reflect poorly on the government is very easy to omit without compromising control and ensures no direct or indirect evidence of collusion.
Another option would be to rely on a neutral third party. The problem with that is if the majority of institutions are already captured, a third party reporting the truth has to overcome an overwhelming counter-narrative of "fact-checkers" and imbeciles parroting rhetoric like "surely all of these people can't be wrong" and other appeals to authority.
I'm not entirely convinced this is true, but suppose so. How would you go about proving or disproving the validity of this capture from within the system?