> one of the mistakes I often see people make is to either give too much or not enough credence to whether the facts in a news story (or op-ed) are true.

Sure, (subject to the limitations of "true/false" in context as many others have posted). (Warning: All of the below is US-based, because I know squat about politics elsewhere)

But I feel like the major problem is a total lack of critical thinking from readers. Confirmation bias is real, but very few are doing anything to try and compensate for it. So while I'd love to teach people the nuances of fact-checking, I'd first start by having them question what they read at ALL.

Gun Debate: Liberals think more guns = more gun deaths because there are too many trigger happy macho gun nuts. Conservatives think Sweden is a hellhole full of grenade throwing terrorists and rapists because guns don't keep them in check. Almost no one even TRIES to validate facts. If they did, context would become (very!) important...but they haven't gotten that far.

Terrorism: Liberals think Conservative policies spread fear and hate that increases terrorism. Conservatives think Liberals turn a blind eye to the problems "outsiders" are bringing in.

Immigration: Liberals think immigrants are good for the economy, and regardless people deserve a chance. Conservatives think immigrants are bad for the economy and that people deserve a chance _if_ they follow the rules.

You can even get to more basic, easy questions:

Build a wall: Liberals think it's an ineffective waste of money. Conservatives think it will reduce economy-draining illegal immigration and drug traffic.

Cut Taxes: Liberals think the rich have benefited more from the society and should pay back more. Conservatives think that the rich have earned their money, and that cutting taxes on the rich will increase growth which will actually raise govt income.

Climate Change: Liberals think it's human-caused and likely devastating to humans. Conservatives think it's highly disputed by scientists, and potentially good even if true.

Filibuster: Liberals think the Republicans have been so obstructionist and extreme, staring with Clinton and accelerating in the Obama years, that we've gotten where we are. Conservatives think Democrats have been obstructionist starting in the Bush years and were the first to go nuclear.

Voter Fraud: Liberals think it's rare, tiny, and efforts to combat it are just window dressing over minority voter-suppression. Conservatives think it's real, with large groups being bussed in to commit fraud in multiple places.

Benghazi: Many investigations. No charges. Yet most people on both sides don't actually KNOW that notable investigation has happened, so their opinions on what has/hasn't been investigated aren't based on reality.

It is completely true that with the above issues there is a lot of nuance, and fact-checkers like Politifact should but can't completely handle the nuance of context. But the average person doesn't consider that their "facts" can be biased, don't even bother to check fact-checkers, and usually don't even understand the position of the other side.

When people consider that a statement from either side may be wholely made up, or just misleading, then I'll worry about how we as a society hone their skills to determine that. But first we need to get them to even consider it.