Is CNN and MSNBC considered reliable news sources?

exthrower wrote:

The White House press corp doesn't have ONE registered Republican in it's ranks....Human beings simply cannot hide/mask their bias.

According to a recent Politico survey, there are three members of the White House press corp who are registered Republican.

Jay min wrote:

"Rigged" is a pretty broad, simple word (a favorite of Trump's). But when Mattis says Russia hacked the DNC with the intention of helping Trump win the election, I find that more credible than an assertion from a guy who tweets WWF GIFYs.

You don't get it. Your OPINION of which person is more credible has nothing to do with the truth and facts of a situation. Someone's pattern of credibility is irrelevant to whether something actually happened or not. There is either proof or there is not. You don't know when the credible person will make a mistake or lie. You don't know when the incredible person will actually be correct or not lie.

Even pretending your viewpoint is legitimate, your comparison makes no sense - what do WWF GIFYS have to do with credibility??? Someone can't be credible if they like WWF?

Huckleberry wrote:

Jay min wrote:

"Rigged" is a pretty broad, simple word (a favorite of Trump's). But when Mattis says Russia hacked the DNC with the intention of helping Trump win the election, I find that more credible than an assertion from a guy who tweets WWF GIFYs.

You don't get it. Your OPINION of which person is more credible has nothing to do with the truth and facts of a situation. Someone's pattern of credibility is irrelevant to whether something actually happened or not. There is either proof or there is not. You don't know when the credible person will make a mistake or lie. You don't know when the incredible person will actually be correct or not lie.

Even pretending your viewpoint is legitimate, your comparison makes no sense - what do WWF GIFYS have to do with credibility??? Someone can't be credible if they like WWF?

Daddy just signed a bill (after he was handed a veto proof bill by congress) placing sanctions on Russia for hacking into our election process. Are you saying Daddy and all of congress lied to you?

Born this way 2.0 wrote:

I say no. They are tabloid newspapers

I agree, but so is Fox, just on the other side of the spectrum, which happens to be my side, but I still see it for what it is.

I wish there could be a news org that had zero political agenda and went out of their way to take themselves and their perspective out of the story and out of the process of which stories they choose to cover. Seems like that was more of the norm many years ago, but I don't know for sure. I thought those things were basic tenants of the journalism profession, but those standards are LONG gone. I think they (e.g. the AP) even officially acknowledge this as an intentional effort to have a "voice". I hate it!

The WSJ is the best I can think of, but I'm too cheap to pay.

john utah wrote:

I wish there could be a news org that had zero political agenda and went out of their way to take themselves and their perspective out of the story and out of the process of which stories they choose to cover.

BBC and the Economist do not have any dog in the fight as far as American politics is concerned. They may have bias regarding British politics, but that's another matter.

Just Another LRC Idiot wrote:

john utah wrote:

I wish there could be a news org that had zero political agenda and went out of their way to take themselves and their perspective out of the story and out of the process of which stories they choose to cover.

BBC and the Economist do not have any dog in the fight as far as American politics is concerned. They may have bias regarding British politics, but that's another matter.

agree somewhat, but....

economist is way too euro/world-focused, also, it's just a magazine, and not free

bbc - I'm not reading a brit news org to get usa news

The most reliable and trustworthily news source is one you probably never heard of and/or probably don't have access to and that's Newswires. A customized 500 word press release is over $1,000. Only businesses can afford to purchase the 'product' Newswires. I think they have a watered down generic service for a $200 a month. (Not cheap!) Newswires is owned by Dow Jones, which is also the parent company of the WSJ. Newswires like the other Dow Jones index products are about as rock solid as can be. Newswires tends to focus on the big stories and has the budget, staff and processes to get stories right. The news provided by Newswire and the other wire services like Rueters, PRNewswires, AP and UPI, etc., they produce what is known as 'Hard' news. Hard news is objective, unemotional, factual and not as interesting as what's regurgitated for the general public and the opinion stuff.

The news outlets you watch and read, purchase a portion of their news from the wire services and then write their based on the stuff they purchase from the wire services. I am familiar with Newswires and I assume the other wire services are all similar. The wire services' audience is primarily businesses, news outlets and decision makers. The wire services business model is based on coverage, speed, accuracy and credibility. With out credibility, they would quickly go out of business. Even the wire services don't always get it right, but they are quick to offer an explanation and retraction when they make a mistake.

Btw, CNN is a large corporation with bureaus around the world and in every major city in the U.S. They gather the majority of their own news. Fox on the other hand operates sort of like an entertainment company and in fact the majority of their on-air staff are personalities who came to journalism from other careers. CNN correspondents like Wolf, Cooper and Carol Costello for example are hard core career journalists who can up through the ranks and have put their lives on the line gathering news.

With all the said, I use to read the WSJ and USAToday when I use to get them for free. Nowadays, I get my news from YahooNews, MSNNews, I watch CNN, Fox, BBC and I listen to NPR, BBC and Rush on the radio Yes, I know Rush is a joke, but I do find him entertaining and don't ever confused what he does as journalism. Yes, CNN is feasting on Trump, but they are not making stuff up and when they get it wrong the do correct themselves whereas Fox is wrong at lot and could care less. I am tiered of CNN's constant Trump coverage and most of which is negative, Yes, CNN has a slight liberal bias and perhaps more so now than ever, but a lot of that is because of their Trump coverage. However, I have seen CNN hammer on democrats as well, like the Whitewater story, You can keep you PCP, Fast & Furious, Clinton/Monica Lewinski, etc., whereas Fox will almost ignore and provide cover for Republican misdeeds. I prefer to get my news from a variety of sources, but I think CNN even with all of the Trump coverage is hands down the best in the world.

lol dwumpfkins gone crazy wrote:

Daddy just signed a bill (after he was handed a veto proof bill by congress) placing sanctions on Russia for hacking into our election process. Are you saying Daddy and all of congress lied to you?

I don't understand why some of you are having so much trouble with facts vs opinions. Just because someone says something incorrect does not mean they are lying. Making that logical leap makes you look stupid.

Anyone who thinks Russia hacked into our elections and hasn't seen proof of it is forming an OPINION not a fact. This applies to Clinton, Trump, "all of Congress", and whoever else.

Is this concept really that difficult?

rekrunner wrote:

That would place you in the biased ideologically conservative minority. According to a Pew Research study (from 2014), which surveyed respondents and broke down "trust" by ideology, CNN and the more liberal MSNBC are still ranked as news sources that are more trusted than not.

But if you want trusted journalism in America, it seems that the UK's Economist and BBC are among the best places to get it.

See:

http://uk.businessinsider.com/most-and-least-trusted-news-outlets-in-america-2017-3?r=US&IR=T

See also one man's list of top 10 journalism sources for real facts. CNN didn't place top-10, but did get mentioned as runner-up. MSNBC did not.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/berlinschoolofcreativeleadership/2017/02/01/10-journalism-brands-where-you-will-find-real-facts-rather-than-alternative-facts/2

And finally, these charts are interesting:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-does-your-favorite-news-source-rate-on-the-truthiness-scale-consult-this-chart-2016-12-15

Born this way 2.0 wrote:

I say no. They are tabloid newspapers

Rekrunner over the years I have pulled my hair out some of the suggestions in the Economist. Many times they are plain wrong. I actually found the FT to be superior and better researched, for a while I watched France24 (???) and found them more pure news than the BBC which when push comes to shove is compromised mildly with a left-wing bias.

The news outlets named are two of the most corrupt in all of American media.

Jay min wrote:

. His coordination with trump in the Seth Rich lie .

The Seth Rich lie is that Russia hacked the DNC. Seth Rich leaked those emails to wikileaks. Being a Berniebro, he was mad the primaries were rigged for Hillary and decided to sell the emails to wikileaks. He ends up dead, conveniently by a botched robbery and now the investigation has been covered up. His poor family wants everyone to move on because they do not want Seth's name besmirched because he was selling those emails.

CNN is every bit as biased as Fox. i cannot fathom anyone not seeing this. I would equate this attitude with the craziness of the flat earthers.

exthrower wrote:

Studies have shown that our national media vote 85-95% Democrat......

Google it....How can they possibly be fair and objective?

Because reality has a liberal bias.

The alternatives that are more reliable than a CNN or MSNBC are? Briedbard? Fox? Cool story, bro.

I understand individual opinions can vary widely. For example, if you are more right then center (not you specifically), then something leaning slightly left is going to blend in with the background that is far left, and you would not be at the best vantage point to see the difference between Fox News compared to CNN or MSNBC.That's why I found the chart on the Pew Research interesting, giving a collective summary of opinions, and breaking it down by which ideology said they trusted which publications.While individual opinions can be highly biased, the survey ranked CNN above MSNBC above FOX News with Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh scraping the bottom of the barrel where trust rises to the top.Interestingly, Fox News still makes the cut, as being more trustworthy than not, for example, ranking higher than the Daily Show. This seems to contradict another finding that the Daily Show, despite being a comedy show rather than a news source, was generally more factually accurate than Fox. Maybe it's because Fox News was considered separately from other broadcasts, like Hannity (ranking at the bottom), or O'Reilly's Spin Factor (not in the list).Another unrelated thought -- are there any conservative comedians? Why not?I've never found the Economist "plain wrong", except perhaps some editorials, and I always appreciated their broad coverage of world news, and business, combined with the deep coverage that a weekly publication can provide. The problem was that with a weekly subscription, I simply didn't have time to read it all in a week. I have seen France24, but not often. FT and France24 weren't in the chart. The Forbes link I gave did mention FT as a good source.

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

Rekrunner over the years I have pulled my hair out some of the suggestions in the Economist. Many times they are plain wrong. I actually found the FT to be superior and better researched, for a while I watched France24 (???) and found them more pure news than the BBC which when push comes to shove is compromised mildly with a left-wing bias.

Jay Min wrote:

we've never had a president that hates America to such a degree that he convinces vulnerable people that the election is rigged if he doesn't win, while simultaneously teaming up with a communist adversary for personal gain.

What rock of stupidity did you crawl out from under? The election was rigged against Trump, but it backfired. Russia had nothing to do with any of it. And they're not communist, more's the pity.

Nearly all the corporate media, all major newspapers, and 500 million Citizens United dollars (a 3-1 advantage) backed Clinton, and to top it all off, half the GOP leaders wouldn't even go to their own convention and refused to endorse their candidate. It can't get any more rigged than that.

Just Wow... wrote:

They are not.

Davis' role in the CNN story also offers a window into the kind of anonymous sourcing common across newsrooms. Some news outlets have a policy to not let sources speak "on background" — that is, as a “person familiar with the matter” or some other unnamed moniker — and also be allowed to decline to comment on the record.

“We should address Lanny Davis’s comments in our reporting and be more transparent with our readers about our reporting,” one CNN staffer told BuzzFeed News.

And while Davis looks bad, it is CNN whose credibility is getting crushed (admittedly from record lows).

Born this way 2.0 wrote:

I say no. They are tabloid newspapers

LOL....

I see someone is a parrot of dumb a$$ Trump.

I like how the 24 hr networks always have at least one member of the “other side” on panels. However, they always have the most idiotic representative of that group. The host always makes them look like an idiot.

CNN, Fox, MSNBC...they all do it.

Bututrer wrote:

I like how the 24 hr networks always have at least one member of the “other side” on panels. However, they always have the most idiotic representative of that group. The host always makes them look like an idiot.

CNN, Fox, MSNBC...they all do it.

+1 spot on, it is so pathetic

(back to the doping threads for me)