[isthatafact]

Unfortunately, unless you already know fact from disinformation on the specific topic, it is not possible to robustly identify which youtube channels are even attempting to deliver reliable facts. You may get hints because misinformation often tends to be self-inconsistent and illogical, but you may just end up following a trail of confidently-presented lies.

Traditional media, however, at least has a traditional foundation of journalistic standards, even if they might also be biased toward augmenting fear or controversy, or giving equal weight to completely irrational viewpoints on a topic.

[Rochus]

In theory, yes. But our society depends on and works with division of labor. Even science depends on it. Verifiability is a fundamental requirement in science, but barely anyone personally does or has the resources to do verification. Instead we trust in (specific) authorities. This admittedly is a potential weakness. But otherwise we would spend our entire lifetime on verification (and possibly die out). However, thanks to our experience or through recommendations, we can choose who we accept as an authority to do this work for us. The difference compared to the past is that the big media houses were automatically considered authorities back then, but not anymore because they have ruined their reputation (because they regularly and obviously violate the standards you mentioned). So today we have more choice but also more work to find these authorities. But it is still feasible. And as you say, there is still common sense and critical thinking, even if those seem to be a vanishing quality.