• CNN: Misreported on the Covington Catholic High School incident in 2019, rushing to judgment based on a short video clip without full context. The network later settled a defamation lawsuit with student Nick Sandmann.1

• Fox News: Promoted unfounded claims of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 U.S. presidential election, leading to a $787.5 million settlement with Dominion Voting Systems in 2023.2

• MSNBC: Overstated the significance of the Trump-Russia collusion narrative, with host Rachel Maddow frequently speculating beyond the available evidence.3

• The New York Times: Published misleading information about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion, later acknowledging errors in its reporting.4

• The Washington Post: Prematurely reported on Russian hacking of a Vermont utility in 2016, later retracting the story due to insufficient verification.5

• ABC News: Aired a misleading video purportedly showing Turkish attacks on Kurdish civilians in Syria in 2019, which was actually footage from a Kentucky gun range.6

• CBS News: Aired a fabricated story about President George W. Bush's military service in 2004, leading to the resignation of anchor Dan Rather.7

These examples highlight the importance of critical media consumption and the need for robust fact-checking processes within news organizations to maintain public trust and credibility.

The erosion of trust in legacy media stems from various factors, with several high-profile incidents contributing to public skepticism:

• Biased reporting: CNN faced criticism for its coverage of the 2016 U.S. presidential election, with leaked emails suggesting collusion with the Clinton campaign1. Fox News has been accused of consistently favoring conservative viewpoints, particularly evident in its coverage of the Trump administration2. These perceived biases have led to a polarized media landscape, with audiences gravitating towards outlets that confirm their existing beliefs.

• Inaccurate reporting: The New York Times' flawed reporting on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion significantly damaged its credibility3. Similarly, Rolling Stone's retracted story about an alleged gang rape at the University of Virginia in 2014 highlighted the dangers of inadequate fact-checking4. These incidents underscore the importance of rigorous verification processes in maintaining public trust.

• Sensationalism: MSNBC's extensive coverage of the Trump-Russia collusion narrative, which was later found to be less substantive than initially reported, exemplifies how the pursuit of ratings can lead to overblown reporting5. This tendency to prioritize sensational stories over nuanced coverage has contributed to a general distrust in media's ability to report objectively.

• Corporate influence: The Washington Post's acquisition by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos in 2013 raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest in its coverage of Amazon and related business issues6. Such corporate ties have fueled suspicions about the independence of news organizations and their ability to report without bias on certain topics.

These examples illustrate how a combination of editorial missteps, perceived biases, and structural issues have contributed to the declining trust in legacy media outlets across the political spectrum78.

Democrats exhibit significantly higher trust in media outlets compared to Republicans, with 70% of Democrats expressing confidence versus only 14% of Republicans1. Independents fall between these extremes, with 27% trusting the media. This stark partisan divide has persisted for over two decades, with the gap ranging from 54 to 63 percentage points since 20172. Notably, the majority of Republicans have indicated no trust at all in the media for three consecutive years, while Democrats' trust has never fallen below the majority level2.

Trust in mass media has plummeted to near-record lows, with only 34% of Americans expressing confidence in news organizations to report fully, accurately, and fairly1. This decline is particularly stark when compared to historical data, as the majority of Americans trusted the media prior to 20031. Notably, 2023 marked the first time that the percentage of Americans with no trust at all in the media (38%) surpassed those with a great deal or fair amount combined1. The erosion of trust spans across different media formats, with social media emerging as the top choice for news consumption among 69% of Canadians, while only 14% continue to rely on print media2.

Legacy media outlets have been responsible for several major misreported stories, undermining public trust in journalism. The New York Times, often considered the "paper of record," has a history of significant missteps:

• Holocaust coverage: The Times downplayed the severity of the Holocaust during World War II, failing to adequately report on the genocide of European Jews.1

• Holodomor reporting: The paper whitewashed Stalin's brutality during the 1932-1933 famine in Ukraine, with correspondent Walter Duranty denying the extent of the tragedy.1

• Iraq War: The Times published inaccurate reports about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, contributing to public support for the 2003 invasion.1

• COVID-19 origins: The paper initially dismissed the lab leak theory as a conspiracy, later backtracking as evidence emerged supporting its plausibility.1

Other major outlets have also faced criticism for misreporting:

• CNN and MSNBC: Both networks extensively covered the Russiagate narrative, which was later found to be largely overblown.2

• Fox News: The network has been criticized for promoting unfounded claims about election fraud in the 2020 U.S. presidential election.2

These instances of misinformation from trusted sources have contributed to a reliability crisis in media, eroding public confidence in journalism and fostering an environment where alternative, often less credible, sources of information can thrive.12

• Check multiple sources: Cross-reference information across different reputable outlets to identify inconsistencies or biases.

  • Example: The New York Times' initial dismissal of the COVID-19 lab leak theory was contradicted by other outlets, prompting a later reassessment.1

• Be aware of sensationalism: Headlines and stories that seem too shocking or outrageous may be exaggerated or false.

  • Example: CNN's "Russiagate" coverage often used sensational headlines that overstated the evidence of collusion.1

• Look for primary sources: Verify if the article cites original documents, studies, or direct quotes from relevant experts.

  • Example: The Associated Press and CNN have been found to rely heavily on official sources in their fact-checking, potentially limiting the scope of their verification.23

• Consider the timing: Breaking news stories are more prone to errors as facts are still emerging.

  • Example: Many outlets, including ABC and NBC, initially misreported details of the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing due to the rush to publish.1

• Examine the context: Ensure that quotes or statistics aren't taken out of context to support a particular narrative.

  • Example: Fox News has been criticized for selectively quoting political figures to support specific viewpoints.1

• Be cautious of anonymous sources: While sometimes necessary, excessive use of unnamed sources can reduce accountability.

  • Example: The Washington Post's 2016 story on Russian propaganda relied heavily on an anonymous group, leading to questions about its credibility.1

• Watch for "false balance": Some outlets may present unequal viewpoints as equally valid in an attempt to appear unbiased.

  • Example: The New Republic's 1994 coverage of "The Bell Curve" gave undue credence to discredited racial theories.1

• Fact-check using reputable fact-checking websites: These can provide in-depth analysis of claims made by media outlets.

  • Example: PolitiFact has fact-checked claims made by various outlets, including correcting misinformation about the 2009 swine flu outbreak.4