Most Media Doesn't Use Hard Evidence

Is there enough hard, public evidence behind the assumption that foreign powers are likely responsible for this campaign of psychological warfare? When do such assumptions based on weak evidence grow to make one reality-narrative just as guilty as those who spread "fake news"?

Without strong evidence, isn't it equally likely that U.S. intelligence has [also] been fanning this weak conspiracy theory's flames to discredit the alternative media? Isn't it safe to assume that U.S. intelligence is also fighting with psychological warfare, in both alternative and mainstream media, targeting both foreign and domestic audiences? This is a battle in an information war.

Perhaps both 'sides' of this info battle would attain more desired results by acknowledging how little evidence and certainty we actually have for the vast majority of claims we might hear and repeat. Contradictory reality-narratives cannot be reconciled with more polarizing division. Might asking these important questions find some common ground toward shared goals with 'the other' reality-narrative?

One source: https://theintercept.com/2016/12/14/heres-the-public-evidence-russia-hacked-the-dnc-its-not-enough/