I don't trust any of the institutions or organizations on your list.

There are a couple of politicians I trust - Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich - but I don't trust them implicitly (no questions asked)

I don't trust any MSM news organization and haven't for decades. As soon as I started to know enough of what really happened in the world and that it was NOT what was being reported.

However, not trusting institutions and sources of official power and voice does not mean there is no one or nothing to trust (or to build trust).

To the best of my knowledge there are a number of folks who have never lied to me. They may have had a blind spot or a perspective that obscured or colored what they communicated, but they did not lie. Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Michael Parenti, Amy Goodman, Sy Hersch, Rachel Maddow, Maya Angelou, Angela Davis, the list could go on and on.

I see the way of "fighting back" against the lies and deceptions by finding and telling the truth, by debunking systems and rhetoric, by doing the hard work of making sense of things and not letting the "lies" pass unchallenged.

Do I think things will improve? Not unless we make them better, and that will not happen without ongoing effort. It will also not happen without a number of people changing the frame of understanding and assumption. We need to realize that the issue is not "bad" actors corrupting a "good" system, but that the system is creating and recreating "bad" outcomes.

Like BevD, I have been reading Family of Secrets and am not much in the mood to rely on much more than who knows the password to my bunker that I encrypted last night.

But your question about dependence upon other people's narratives reminds me that the idea of what is real cuts a lot of different ways. So I would like to lay out two completely non-complimentary points of view without pretending that they eventually meet up to make a comprehensive point of view.

The first is that there are a lot of people in government who signed up for the purpose of serving the public and that their motivation and work has given them a ground to stand upon concerning the matter of what is actually happening versus whatever political message might be crafted in their name. Their work is a "balance of power" element that isn't exactly underlined in the Constitution.

The second point is that the alienation pointed out in your question whether we can trust any narratives in a world of self-interested narratives becomes a philosophical matter. In this regard, maybe our standard of skepticism is too trusting.
Jean Baudrillard talks a lot about how the demand for the absolute real that we all can experience is itself a narrative subject to manipulation. In this vein, he says something that at first glance would seem at odds with your questions:

The absolute rule is to give back more than you were given. Never less, always more. The absolute rule of thought is to give back the world as was given to us - unintelligible. And, if possible, to render it a little more unintelligible.

Well, let me say this:

You learn to trust from your family. If your mother or father says, "Yum yum," you take a bite. You go to the lake and that same mother or father says, "Jump! I'll catch you!" You wake up in the morning hungry and that same mother or father feeds you.

That is where you learn trust. Where you learn DIStrust is when you have an administration that ruins the water you drink, the meat you buy, the vegetables you cook, etc, etc, etc.

Adolescents, as a part of what they must do -- separate from their parents. Those people they have trusted to be perfect all their lives are suddenly scrutinized.

In order to become adults they must challenge all their childhood memes -- painful for them and also for their parents, but it is the only way to get adults into the next generation.

When these children of ours see that the "trusted family" screwed them out of clean water and more, they hopefully will rise up.

But they have no examples to follow. BINGO! Neither did we in the 60's, so maybe they will do it on their own.

I'm getting tired now, or I would go on about how the Viet Nam War brought a whole lot more push-back since everyone's son was at risk (except HW Bush and whatever Cheney's father's name was).

You show an image of a face. Cut to an image of a kitten. What is the face thinking? "How cute"

You show an image of a face. Cut to an image of a bowl of soup. What is the face thinking? "I am hungry"

Same face.

I guess what I am saying is that we are being presented a disjointed melange of images and information, and we each piece the info presented to us into a cohesive story that conforms to our beliefs. Then the pundits appear to massage the beliefs into comfortable categories of right and left.

How can any of it be trusted if the truth is cut apart and presented in such a mishappen manner? And how can we trust our government when they rely on this muddled spectacle to operate. Zero transparency. Zero.

As a writer or a painter creating something, I believe in content over form. Content is the essence. People disagree. But in politics, form mostly determines content, or at least dominates. And in both, pattern recognition is the key. Like Bateson said, there’s just something about repeating patterns that we recognize and have in common with everything else. So the inclination to orderly systems seems inevitable. The paradox is that the random produces the new. So maybe there is hope.

In sociology, trust assumes that the form of the system determines the outcome. Gary, are you talking about the content like in psychology where the content determines the form – the people are the content and the system is the form? The good people make the good government?

I’ve lost trust in the form of our government because it no longer works for the people, as I've witnessed. And I’ve lost trust in most of the people who work it from the top because they don’t represent the people’s needs. The MSM is mainly about predictable form and barely worth a mention.

I can’t affirm those things you listed above. That’s why I think humor helps. It’s a survival mechanism.

On a personal level, I mostly trust individual people unless they give me reasons not to. You have to read the patterns. I trust that the content holds the truth, regardless of the form.

At least once a week I call my senators and representatives office and give them an earfull. Everyone should do this. It is at least soothing even if it doesn't do any good.

Yesterday I called both about leaking the plant layouts for our nuclear generation facilities all over the web. Gave them both barrels. Just silence on the other end. Told them both they were dumbasses. Unless we explicitly express our outrage at their stupidity they'll never change.

I believe that trust is based on one's accumulated past experience with the dependability/accuracy/truthfulness of an interaction with a thing. Trust is increased as new experience validates whatever current level of trust exists (if any), and trust decreases as new experience invalidates such. It's like Reagan used to say about arms limitation agreements with the former Soviets, trust but verify. Trust is a feedback based process and is developed or retarded by our on-going positive or negative feedback (verifications) of our experiences.

The trust of government, or news sources, or churches, or our mothers and fathers, for that matter depend on our accumulated validations of their past dependability. Our current low trust of our institutions is well earned by them. We will give them more trust only after our future experiences with them validate that such increased trust is warranted.

And the loss of Trust leads not to Revolution but to Apathy.