I think trust is sort of an odd word to use given that reviews are simply professionally stated opinion. Now, of course, that doesn't mean they are not to be believed or anything silly like that, it's just that "trust" seems to be overstating what I look to reviews for.
In any case, if I'm looking at reviews, I don't ever go with any single source regardless with my history with a certain one. I will always compare and contrast reviews from different sources and I wouldn't say I automatically rule any source out. My goal is to simply look at general opinion on a game from people I believe to be more swayed by professionalism and less swayed by fanboyism (hence why I almost never consider user reviews). If the general belief lines up with what I find appealling about a game, I may end up buying it. If the general belief doesn't, I may not. If I'm on the fence at all, I go past reviews and head to sources for actual Let's Play or Let's Look At type videos so I can actually see the game in front of me in action. At this point, and barring any of the weird system spec related glitches and errors found mainly in the PC gaming realm, I just don't see any honest reason for anyone complaining about having bought a game they end up hating, "trusted reviewers" be damned.
While I would always suggest looking into the details of reviews, I find that things like metacritic and gamerankings get way too much flak for this sort of average appraisal. Sure you may not agree with the details but if you see a game scoring poorly on metacritic it's probably a bad game and if it's scoring well it's probably a good game. It may or may not be to your tastes, of course, but the general professional opinion is usually a pretty decent guideline.