I look at it from two ways:

1. What management says from their own mouth.

2. What bankers say from their own mouth. 

Next, identify the conflicts of interest:

1. Management holds shares but they must report factual and material news. They cannot lie, only spinning the truth, if they dare. The conflict is that they hold options. 

2. Bankers hold shares. It's a conflict for them to provide buy/sell advice... Because they hold shares. But they still come out with price targets anyways. 

Questions to consider: 

Why are there multiple PT from many "professional" financial institutions? Why are they legally allowed to give people buy/sell advice when there's a conflict? What could their objective be? Control? 

What stops the bankers from spinning news or controling the news and SP? Especially if they have deep pockets. Factor this into float size. Also factor timelines.

What horse am I trusting more, if we are thinking of... Not news, but facts. Easier to measure than to "trust" imo. I would weigh more of what clients had to say rather than bankers because of the conflicts.