Truth or Dare?

I was intrigued by a somewhat impassioned article suggesting that users of smart phones can, using artificial intelligence, manipulate voices and images 'up to Hollywood standards' and generate fake news (where have I heard that one before?) that is indistinguishable from real events (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/01/in-an-era-of-deep-fakery-who-can-we-trust-to-tell-us-the-truth). I am less concerned here with the mechanics of 'twisting' news items or with the issue of who should 'protect us' from this misuse of technology (although I can see how it makes living in a democracy difficult). What I struggle with is how, in the present age, can we tell what is 'true' in science and how can/ should we honestly attempt to convince non-specialists about its likely verity? The truth in science is never an absolute as it is always subject to later change. Back in a former era, most scientific 'truths' were dependent on papers being published on the topic (and became firmer if the findings were independently replicated). Publication took time and generally involved peer reviewing.  This was intended to assess whether the studies had been properly designed, the analysis was appropriate and the conclusions reached by the author(s) reasonable. The method was far from perfect and dodgy studies slipped through from time to time. Less admitted was that the reputation of the academic who was publishing the study (or his/her associates), the prestige of his/her University or Institution and the standing of the journal in which the paper was published, all influenced general acceptance of the work (especially if the results were unusual). All were assumed to have reputations they would be keen to preserve. Currently, studies that receive media attention, have to contain 'good' or 'shock, horror' news (I can safely predict that any study showing that things are pretty much unchanged, is unlikely to be featured) and are frequently 'revealed' before any peer review has been undertaken (sometimes, I wonder if actual publication subsequently takes place). The fact that your favourite politician, singer or sport's star can now be the person (generally without any training) telling the masses what to believe of the 'science' is also an issue. Of course, such people are entitled to their opinions (and they are likely to reach a much wider audience than a retired academic) but there is unlikely to be any reputational damage if they get things badly wrong. It is unlikely we would know if erroneous material is being presented, because most of the platforms deliver only views that their followers are likely to share. It can look, to me, more like a cult than an educational process. Even worse, media stars are often more commercially driven. They are also more likely to be successful if they have contrarian beliefs. Such items get more revenue-generating 'hits' and are more likely to be shared.  I accept that I am also in my own 'bubble' but a) I do have a wide-ranging science background, b) Am not interested in making money from this blog and c) Would be unhappy to be labelled as a 'flake'.I guess that what I am trying to say is that (without hopefully being arrogant) you are more likely to get something closer to scientific 'truth' from someone like me. I hope that you will tell me when you think I have deviated from this aim.