When it's not possible to accuse opponents of spreading false informations, accusing them of spreading "misleading" ones.
When there are compromising official documents (quotes, mails, statistics, studies, etc.) that refute the mainstream narrative and the latter cannot hide or directly discredit them in any way, "debunkers" try to downplay their signifiance by discrediting the way they're been reported instead; for example they keep repeating that such domuments "never stated" what reporters are saying, and deny any implication (no matter how strong) on the basis of a lack of an explicit statement in the same exact terms.
If this can't be done, they claim that reporters tried to distort the content of those documents, then justify this accusation by making up their own alternative personal interpretation of what those documents are "really" supposed to say, one that assolves the establishment from any charges and saves the mainstream narrative, presenting their own interpretation as it was somehow more accurate than the basic one, without ever addressing how.
In alternative, they might accuse reporters of taking quotes "out of context" in order to "mislead" the audience, then add irrelevant information and red herrings to present as the alleged missing "context" that somehow debunks their claims.