Trust? Sure, unless I have specific reason not to. But I'm going to verify as well before plopping down my cash. That means looking at every review I can find, published, online, offline, friends, in-laws...every review, weighing their cred and sniffing for fluff and payola.
The one type of review that turns me off is the unqualified glowing review. No acknowledgement that this gun is good for this purpose but less than ideal for another. Not even the slightest mention of ergonomic quirks or discomfort. Addressing accuracy vaguely or even evasively. Usually padded with fluff which might evoke feelings in a potential buyer (or just to make up for the lack of hard facts). Generally aimed at less experienced buyers. You may as well read the company brochure.
As the OP implied, the positive may or may not be true but the negative usually will be valid, at least for the example at hand. American Rifleman (and others I imagine) are not shy about reporting when they had to return a sample gun for repair/replacement. Their accuracy testing protocol is fairly rigid and meaningful, even though YMMV. The results are often not what you might expect, which in the real world is exactly what any experienced shooter has learned to be the truth. YMMV.
I got a kick out of it years ago when American Rifleman used the same exact target in reviews of two different pistols (Llama Max 1 and H&K USP, IIRC) in the same issue. Pretty sure that was an innocent oversight though. If intentional, they would have been a bit sneakier than that.
Every review is just a data point and due to the many variables, even objective facts will vary. As a whole, better than nothing.