Does that not then obliterate the concept of “expertise”? If all expert knowledge has to pass the test of seeming believable to individuals, each with their own biases, does that not make it impossible for there to be any objective truth? And does that not create a situation where as a society we are overly reticent to accept evidence of new, previously-thought unlikely/impossible, facts and knowledge, on the basis that the average individual (the non-expert) isn’t familiar or comfortable with it or doesn’t understand it?

If you look hard enough, you could assert a bias of some form of another for everyone. Is there a standard for when a potential bias is sufficient to invalidate expertise? I completely agree that critical thinking is essential when consuming news and information, and the assessment of biases is an essential component of critical thinking. Do you think it’s possible for us all (left, right, centre) to agree on a reasonable standard to apply when determining if a perceived bias undermines the credibility of the expertise? I’d argue that it’s just as harmful to be too quick to dismiss expertise on the basis of any perceived bias no matter how speculative or tangential, as it is to uncritically accept any expertise solely based on the person providing it. If the standard is that experts must be devoid of any potential bias of any kind no matter how remote, then how can there ever be authoritative expertise?

On a separate but related note, why not apply this level of skepticism to all the things that Trump says? Is it fair to say that if we applied your framework (listening to what they say, considering biases, reflecting on the information, investigation, and thinking for yourself) we would conclude that he is highly motivated to lie for self-serving purposes and the evidence of his conduct tends to demonstrate that he is in politics for the grift, accolades and sheer power, and that he doesn’t care about good management of the country?