> That's the reason to ask for the source: so you can judge whether it's reliable.

So the solution to checking whether an article is reliable is to check whether its sources are reliable? How far back do you go? Or do you disregard immediately any article that does not cite only sources you already trust?

You find a primary source.

If I want to know "Did Christopher Columbus believe the earth is flat?" I could read modern day articles about it, but I'm going to ignore any that don't include direct quotes from either him or people that knew him. And then I'll double check those quotes to make sure they're authentic.

If I want to know "does more resistance or more volume lead to better muscle growth?" I can find a million fitness blogs about it, but I'll only trust the ones that name specific studies, and even then I'll probably ditch the article and read the study itself.

Great, I dismissed it.

Unfortunately, the several million other people who live in the same voting unit as me didn't and ended up electing an asshat anyway.

Yes, I wish there was less trust in non-primary sources of information anymore. It's such a cliche, but critical thinking should be taught in schools.