The fundamental problem to all of this is those who believe they are righteous (on any side of politics) will use whatever methods they can to promote their "truth". This includes infiltrating "credible" sources. So it's impossible to have an entire organisation that can be universally considered to be an arbiter of truth, because you can be fairly certain at least some of its members are bad actors. That's not to say some organisations aren't more accurate than others – of course some are. But if you can't entirely remove the need for critical analysis on the part of the reader, you would be better off teaching the reader to be critical than attempt to "fix" a system which fundamentally can't be fixed.
Deciding who we should and shouldn't silence is not the solution. Whatever one chooses, some propagandists are going to win. Giving people the tools to determine the veracity of a statement themselves is (usually this is simple common sense, the ability to reason, some knowledge of rhetoric and an understanding that personal bias in prevalent in themselves and others - that it's human nature). Throw in a bit of knowledge about politics (both domestic and international) and armed with these tools I'm confident the majority would be able to come to accurate conclusions on their own.
Deciding who we should and shouldn't silence is not the solution. Whatever one chooses, some propagandists are going to win. Giving people the tools to determine the veracity of a statement themselves is (usually this is simple common sense, the ability to reason, some knowledge of rhetoric and an understanding that personal bias in prevalent in themselves and others - that it's human nature). Throw in a bit of knowledge about politics (both domestic and international) and armed with these tools I'm confident the majority would be able to come to accurate conclusions on their own.