I think this video from Random Rants of Ryan is particularly hard-hitting, albeit in a subtle way: https://youtu.be/BAnqKfe5mmY

He explains the situation InfoWars got itself into by reporting on that "menu" prematurely and talks about the coverage of pizzagate that may have been, by conventional journalistic standards, unfair to JA, but then proceeds to point out some of the biggest red flags with JA and his associations. He ends it with Jones' recent "apology" video.

I don't know how intentionally this video was structured, but regardless, I think it's a great example to follow: He starts off explaining the position of the other side and how, in everyday circumstances, they could have a legitimate case/point/etc. making concessions where necessary. (I.e., JA and his businesses were reported on with association to human trafficking without proof .) This way, anyone who thinks pizzagate is bullshit is most likely agreeing with everything that he's saying. He explains the point fully, but then starts dropping highly curious/suspicious facts (I.e., our circumstantial case) right afterward, all the while using language that gives the benefit of the doubt.

"Agreed, people have said things about you without proof and have also said false things, for which you deserve an apology, but you made people think it with X, Y, Z, etc. etc. etc., which are pretty weird."

It redpills while not making accusations. "Semantically surgical," you might say. I think this sort of thing is what content creators should aim for and there are also other ways of basically achieving the same effect. Form is absolutely key.