What is required for something to be considered truth. What we can learn from the rules that govern what is considered legitimate evidence in court. The purpose behind what the exploration is to help folks realize how seldom we hear the truth from our 'press'.
1- In court testimony of truth is given under penalty of perjury, the media often swears they tell the truth but do not do so under pains of perjury. Under such a strict definition, you in court could not tell the truth about yourself and reasonably expect it to be admissible evidence.
2-In court there must be more than one witness, it requires two or more witness to corroborate a story. Otherwise it is little more than hearsay and no judge outside of a bannana court would allow it. Little better than gossip under the scrutiny of justice and law.
3-Uncontested Affidavit, once written and provided it requires action from opposing parties to contest the claims made in an affidavit, otherwise it is admissible as fact.
Maxims of law and commerce follow the maxims found in the Bible....interesting how often the Christian conception of justice, truth and fact are so vehemently opposed.
Be careful what you believe in these times of toxic liars.