I'm trying to think of a point during my lifetime (I'll be 52 in a few months) when the news media (or any other media) could be trusted. You might have to go back further.

I know there were news anchors/commentators that were trusted in the 60s and 70s, but were they actually providing the news as it was, or were they just better at tweaking it? Or were we more unified then?

Narratives are powerful things. Whoever controls them, controls the masses. So, as you say, it is imperative that we really trust no one source, from any side, and do our best to verify what we hear or read from more than one source.

As for anonymous or unnamed sources—those became pretty popular during Watergate when it might have mattered a little more. Now, it gives everyone license to divulge things that wasn't their place to divulge, or, just flat twist or make it up.

How are we to know the difference?

The smell test, I suppose. Using your mind to reason things out. Still, there's bound to be information we need in order to even adequately do that, information we probably don't have access to, unless someone on the inside is being a citizen journalist.

But even so, can they be trusted? So much for living in the (dis)information age.