I don't think all information is equal, accurate, or worthy of our attention. There is truly a spectrum of information available out there, ranging from good to bad and with all sorts of "in-betweens". Good information is characterized by being reliable, understandable, up-to-date, and sources of the author's data should be cited. Some information may be more suitable for laymen, but the content could be so light, allowing for slanting of the information. Information can be adulterated with images and headings contrived by the author to get the readers attention, however the information itself could be flawed. Some forms of information are heavy in content, scripted solely to appeal to a select sect of individuals.
Personally, I tend to obtain my information from a few reputable resources that are well known to those in the healthcare field such as E-medicine, Web MD, NIH, CDC, Up-to-Date, MD consult, and a whole host of textbooks that I am familiar with from my med school days (updated versions of course). If I stumble across any alternative sources of information, I try to fact-check by analyzing who the author is, what sources they quote, how reliable those sources are, the date the information was published, and when was it last updated. I teach my students these same principles of information literacy.