Best of friends? Graffiti artwork depicts Russian President Vladimir Putin and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump on the wall of a bar in Vilnius, Lithuania, on Oct. 30. (Mindaugas Kulbis/AP)

In a campaign season in which news had been speeding above the legal limit for months, Friday gave us just what we didn’t need: a sudden downshift, followed by roaring acceleration.

Now the dizzying pace is appropriate only for the Autobahn. Some news consumers, no doubt, have simply covered their ears and issued a Munch-worthy scream: “No more!” Others may be trying to stay tuned in and hoping that it will all be over soon, given that Election Day is only days away.

“This afternoon and evening beats the hours after 9/11 for the most hysterical news cycle I’ve ever seen,” Michael Dougherty, senior correspondent for the Week, tweeted Monday.

Meanwhile, the scoops keep on arriving, and some of them are even holding up longer than a souffle. Some are based on something resembling adequate sourcing. Others, not so much.

Since Friday’s development — that the FBI would look into more Hillary Clinton-related emails — we’ve been told:

That the FBI has been investigating links between Donald Trump’s former campaign manager and the Russian government. (Seems true.) That FBI Director James Comey refused to go public with this investigation because he was worried about affecting the election. (Could be true.) That there are ties between a Trump computer server and a Russian bank. (Clouded by reasonable doubts.) That Trump used an obscure loophole to avoid paying tens of millions in taxes. (Apparently true.)

My Post colleague Cal Borchers summarized the supposed findings of the various Putin-Trump stories, concluding that they each sounded explosive — but “after all that ink, it would be hard to say that we know anything more definitive about Trump and Russia than we did before.”

[Comey was concerned about blaming Russia for hacks of Democrats]

Many of these stories are based on leaks from government sources — or sources formerly in the government — who, as usual, have some kind of partisan purpose behind their decisions to come forward. Their stunning courage is made considerably easier by expert journalistic blurring of their identities or motivations.

Everybody, it seems, is doing it.

“This is probably an ideal time to commit a federal crime, since most FBI agents seem to be busy calling their favorite reporters,” Bill Grueskin, a professor at Columbia University’s Journalism School, wryly noted on Twitter.

Meanwhile, even stories whose essence is true can be distorted as they are shared across social media. The tax story mentioned above is based on documents discovered by New York Times reporters as they looked into bankruptcy filings related to Trump’s casinos.

But I saw them referred to as “leaked” documents, and I made the mistake of retweeting that misinformation. (That was especially embarrassing since, earlier that same day, I had enthusiastically supported the idea of “triple checking before sharing.”)

What’s a news consumer to do — especially at a time in history that’s been described as “post-factual,” when established truth is hard to come by, often obscured by conspiracy theories, half-truths, hyperbole and flat-out lies?

Here are a couple of recommendations:

●Don’t believe your friends, followers, barber or nail technician. And by that I mean that what comes across your Facebook or Twitter feed, or is heard in other assorted echo chambers, may not be the best source of anything except new quinoa-salad recipes.

●Give it a few hours. The initial burst of new information — and excited distribution and accompanying exaggeration — is often followed by a swift debunking. Some corrective information may arrive that can bring a report much closer to the realm of truth. (It will probably not come from InfoWars.)

●Compare and contrast. Even the best single sources of news can be wrong. If you’re seeing the same information from multiple, normally trustworthy news organizations, it may be reasonable to feel some confidence about it.

If none of this works — and it probably won’t, not entirely — you can always go off the grid and simply wait it out. A week from now, with any luck at all, the stakes will be far lower and exhaustion will have set in.

We’ll know who the next president will be, God help us, and maybe have a revolution. Or at least some decent rumors about one.

For more by Margaret Sullivan visit wapo.st/sullivan.