T1000,
Your question gets to the heart of the weakening of Democracies around the world and the ability of citizens to understand the world based on reality.
Timothy Snyder in his book " The Road to Unfreedom" wrote " 'Information' in the digital sense is infinite, knowledge ever scarcer, and wisdom fleeting".
(I highly recommend this book, though it might be a struggle for those not used to Polish, Russian and Ukrainian names. Familiarity with some history of those countries would help also, but not a must for an attentive reader).

The rise of Fascism and authoritarian sympathizers has lead to an explosion of fake news, revisionist history, and a significant weakening of trust in the ethical standards of those who actually engage in the truth and reality of the world. The harm done has hobbled our ability to make any political sense of the world.

From a journalistic standpoint, go with long known sources and well staffed editorial oversight. That means places like the BBC. The 3 major networks in the USA. The AP. Reuters. Long established, well funded newspapers.
Long established academic institutions and communities have earned respect and trust for similar reasons....peer review and rigor imposed by those other than the author. There are reasons that certain subjects achieve a professional consensus.
To sum up....long established entities have become so due to a long period of professional and ethical conduct. Ironically, they meet the very definition of conservatism, which is often under attack from reactionary nihilists who self identify as conservative.

Whom not to trust? Any website that just collects stories from anywhere and then disseminates an edited, abbreviated version. There likely is essentially no oversight or attempt at vetting. They don't have the resources for vetting and often are actively involved with a particular party or movement.
Also distrust podcasts and blogs. For the same reason as the websites. It has an editor of one, and like the many websites, has a particular conclusion that the facts must be made to fit into.

The best defense is knowledge derived from foundational reading. If you have some background on a given subject you will often spot BS. My personal background is from an era and culture that treasured books and the insights to life that they can bring. At the risk of sounding like some old grump, being well read does not seem to be a feature of our modern society or its leadership. This makes us vulnerable to the cleverly written sophist argument.
Instead of books we use the internet. As someone on this thread with Delta in his name said: 'the internet is a mile wide and an inch deep'. I very much agree. It is an excellent source for checking on specific facts.
It is a terrible resource for developing any depth of understanding on just about any subject. The worst part is that we read an article or two on a subject we know little of and we come away with an inflated view of our knowledge. The Dunning-Kruger Effect writ large.
Forgive my bit of pompous soapbox, but the tone of your question struck me as an honest inquiry. As I stated at the beginning, we must learn how to separate Truths from a Fictionalized world, or Fascism (which thrives on Fiction and Falsehoods) will gain more and more power over us all.