Your position implies that there is no way to determine the difference between reputable media and disreputable media; that all stories must be considered with equal weight in the equation that is "the media". I can form an opinion of something without personal experience by considering the reputation of the source(s), and when reputable sources tend to agree and only the low-value sources dissent, I can have a confidence in my opinion that is better than just plotting all points on a graph with equal weight.

Once I feel that I have a good view of an issue, using information weighted by reputation, I can make a statement like "This article appears inconsistent with the likely narrative, but consistent with someone who has been conned by a conman" without needing to justify my position directly, or abstracted away from the story. If you have a real alternative, you need to present it, but simply questioning someone's methodology is somewhere between irrelevant and disingenuous. At the very least, it adds little to the discussion of the issue at hand -- even more so in casual conversation where people are expressing a personal opinion of little or no real importance beyond this tiny little puddle. I mean, who is really going to respond to something like your comment with a couple of paragraphs to justify one sentence? ;)