You apply the term MSM and thus must have a notion of what constitutes the MSM, right? So which media sources don't count as MSM? If you can't name such sources then why use MSM instead of "mass media"?
We are completely gone off-subject, but here is my take: I don't believe the MSM/Non-MSM divide creates any magical trust or value. The national (or international) household names (say WaPo, NYT, CNN, Fox, Slate, BBC, The Guardian, The Times, The Independent, Le Monde, Le Figaro, El Pais, Al Jazeera, etc.: extrapolate worldwide...) just have the power to do more harm/control/propaganda. Non-MSM (or non household recognizable names) are not more trustful in my view, obviously. In short: read, contrast, doubt, apply common sense.
Then why use MSM instead of just “mass media” or instead of just saying, “verify sources to the extent possible”? My claim is that Facebook has far more power to do damage than the sources you’ve stated.