Game press, sites, reviewers etc. is all a bunch of trash now.
Well, I wouldn't generalize that far. I met a lot of reporters/reviewers that seem like pretty solid people at E3...and those that weren't.
I prefer to get to know individual writers. For example, Matt C. at IGN Nintendo. I know he's an Apple fan, he's a self-proclaimed "graphics whore", he'll nitpick over certain minute details (Twilight Princess' music not being MP3s), but he can also appreciate attention to details and artistic style.
Thus, when I read a review of his, I know really to take certain parts with a grain of salt, things that I know will bother him but won't bother me. I ignore the score althogether, and skip straight to the review, in which I know what things I should trust his word on and which I know won't matter to me.
I stick to a small set of sites, get to know the writers by their work and know how much I can trust.
I would say that word of mouth beats just about anything though (forums).
I would also say that my site is fairly unbiased; primarily because we already chose to write about what we are biased towards (specifically, Nintendo) so no further bias exists!
Specialty sites are great. XBox fans can gravitate towards XBox sites, etc.
I remember when the DS first came out I was frustrated with Craig Harris, who runs the IGN DS section, because every time I read something he wrote I got the distinct impression that he'd rather be writing for the PSP section as he obviously liked the PSP better (ironically, some of the PSP writers preferred DS), and a distinct negative tone appeared for a while. He's warmed up to it a ton recently, but I really disliked IGN DS for a while over it. With special sites, people are writing about something they like; with a big site, sometimes people don't get the assignments they want, and that bleeds into their writing.
Sorry for the huge post, but as a gaming journalist I just wanted to throw some of that in.
