I like to use easily verifiable facts to sow doubt about the media's reliability. For example, Martha Stewart was in fact cahrged with insider trading, but it's not reported. The ladies who expressed outrage at the GOP 9/11 ads are members of Peaceful Tomorrow's, and the media knew these people demonstrated against the Iraq war. FR is full of specific examples of media shenanigans. Use the fact to sow doubt about the media in the minds of strangers. Some seeds will take, some won't. But sow, sow sow!
I do find you Pravda metaphor troubling - that was perhaps the most rapacious totalitarian society in history in which they, as you say, "laughed at Pravda." I assure you that they did not dare to laugh out loud, as tens of millions of people confined to the gulag could atest too. They did not laugh at the political police much either. I know I spent some time there during the height of the cold war and no one much had the idea that there was anything too humorous about the "thought control" apparatus in the USSR, of which Pravda was only a minor component.
Socialist regimes tend to require outside forces to be overthrown. When we go, that is really about it for the world.
I should also say that while you are correct is your assessment of other threats such as wealth distribution, etc. it seems on to me to confound a means (e.g. propaganda) with and end (e.g. socialism.)
Again, we shall see. If there ever was a clearer testbed for you proposition this election is it.