That's an insightful question that got me thinking - so it's quite a long reply (I'm on an instance that permits a relatively large word count)
Trust and understanding are not the same qualities. Generally, we can demarcate the media into social information (e.g., general news & politics) and empirical evidence (science).
Empirical evidence is scientific information based on experimental data. For example, anyone can develop a basic scientific experiment such as measuring the average temperature at 12 am every day of the week. In that context, they'd follow a method that would mean they are personally confident of the results of the experiment (if they used the right methods and instruments). I used that example of a basic experiment as a basis to show how science is the most accurate method to collect real-world data.
As you infer, the problems occur because on social media there are less or more trustworthy intermediaries (agents) between that scientific information and the public. So, even if a member of the public was sincere and wanted to be informed of that data (science), some biased agent may try to disinform people about the science (as happens with climate science, because there is a lot of money, business interests, and lifestyle bias, associated with ecological degradation). Or some people may misconstrue that science and pass on misinformation (unintentionally).
In this context, I'd advise people to go directly to the source of the science. That being the scientific publications (The abstracts provide a general overview). Or an established scientific organization's website. Science journalism may also be a credible source of information (if the articles are well-referenced with scientific publications).
The other source of information is generally social media. News and political media are more or less accurate sources of information (& maybe biased towards only reporting certain news and political agendas).
However, having a broad scientific education helps in all walks of life (it's never too late to learn more science. Start with the philosophy of science not specifically the subjects).
For example, a basic understanding of biochemistry, biology, ecology (life science), and physics can inoculate people against misinformation and help them make better personal choices (e.g., health-related choices). The only reason why people can be, for example, greenwashed is that they don't have a sufficient understanding of the relevant subjects and they trust those who are either misinformed or out to disinform them.
The only substitute for knowledge is faith. Even in science, we have to have some faith that the paper we are reading has not been based on intentionally false data. However, as scientists we learn to cross-reference our understanding and base our understanding on multitudes of converging data sources (interdisciplinary research). For example, if I reference one scientific paper that's only because it references the general literature that I have already studied. One paper's new discovery should always be considered tentative evidence.
We could also take the same approach regarding our news feeds. Don't rely on only one source of information (e.g., one News provider). Depending on the country that could be more of a problem (e.g., state-owned media is by definition a biased and restricted source of information). That's the other important point, who owns and controls the media? (a free press is fundamental for a healthy democracy)
For example, people began leaving #Twitter because the new owner is clearly using the social platform for his own business and political agenda. In this context, #mastodon is better because it's less centralized so information can flow more freely. Though of course what quality of information is spread through the #fediverse network is dependent on the people using it & the instance moderators.
