I think the parent's comment was saying to find reviewers whose tastes align with your own, then trust their reviews for new content. This requires 1) that the media they publish through prints the name of the author; 2) when you read a review, you pay attention to who is writing it; and 3) a period of time to establish a relationship with a reviewer and build a sense of how much your tastes align.

I find the easiest way to do that is to generally read reviews, and when you go see the thing/buy the thing that got reviewed, think back to which reviewers closest aligned to your reaction, then read more of them, and eventually you'll find a small group of reviewers who you trust.

I admit that I haven't found "my" TV reviewer yet, since it seems the world of TV critics is afraid to offer any significant criticism of the shows they're reviewing. I'm not sure if that's an industry thing or if I've just been looking in the wrong places.

I'm split about this. Is it good or bad? Should we only read and appreciate what the masses read and appreciate? On one hand yeah it would make sense, confirmation of the masses is a thing and not everybody can be wrong. But on the other hand everybody is different and different biases make for different preferences. When I read reviews on the web I always take time to read the negatives to see what they found as negative. Many times that's just bull (valid also about the positives btw), people having beef with whatever, but sometimes they point out interesting bits. And it takes me much less time to read such reviews (and I also learn more) than by watching the entire contents.