I don't think that's an accurate statement to begin with. The media has a strong incentive to cause hype over anything that drives ratings, so using mainstream media coverage to forecast the severity of a once in a lifetime event such as a viral pandemic just seems like a bad idea in my opinion. There are much better ways. 

I don't know what you're even implying about the Fauci email drop. If you dig even a little into that story it's clear there was nothing there and it was the typical media tactic where they dig through thousands of emails and quote tiny snippets out of context to people who don't know better and will take the bait. If stories like these are popping up in the media you consume, that means you're consuming entertainment media, not actual journalism. Even if Fauci contradicted himself or made a mistake, who cares? He is one of the foremost public health experts in the world and his credentials are impeccable. If you listen to experts, you're going to be on the right side of the vast majority of issues. 

...which is why I don't agree that trustworthy sources "no longer exist". For people who are sufficiently motivated and good at doing research, it's never been easier to find accurate, trustworthy information. Why would you bother going to the mainstream media for news on a virus when you can get that information directly from the world's top physicians and research scientists? They're all on Twitter and many of them have blogs or podcasts. 

When you're getting your Covid information from an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins or the Harvard School of Medicine, you aren't worried that it's poorly sourced, second hand information revolving around some political narrative.