Damn good question. If there is one unintended effect of all the changes in media since the three network days, it's the loss of people/institutions in the media with proven credentials and widely accepted integrity who you could rely on to be fundamentally trustworthy. And even non-profit media like NPR, where you would assume the lack of profit motive would insulate them from the worst effects, has also gone off the rails in the last few years, though nothing on a par with commercial media.
Now TBF, I think most mainline newspapers are still good sources for primary events coverage, you just have to ignore everything where they are writing opinion. Technical press in any given field is usually trustworthy.
But I came across one today that just made me scratch my head. WaPo story about the US/Iraqi raid on some ISIS targets where some US personnel were wounded. It was fairly straight up news reporting right through to the last paragraph, where the writer just inserts "Iraqi's oppose the continued presence of US troops" Bang. Just an assertion of what, since there was not a shred of evidence supplied, is simply an opinion. Not even "most Iraqi's we have talked to" or anything. So maybe that is true - probably is, but maybe not - I'm sure it depends on who in Iraq you ask. I'm sure the Iraqi military doesn't feel that way. But regardless of whether they are right or wrong it just violated every rule of good journalism to not keep fact reporting and unsupported opinion assertion separate, and immediately made me question whether anything related in the paragraphs above was trustworthy. That's where we are in today's journalism.