I think a lot about what is happening to this country, how we are being ripped apart by extremist politics and misinformation. I keep coming back to the idea that a lot of the discord depends on where people get their news. It used to be simple. You turn on the TV and Walter Cronkite gave it to you, straight up. Not anymore. Our relationship with the “news” has gotten very compicated. Heck, we don’t even know what the news is anymore.
https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2025/05/13/what-is-news/
The other day I was stuck in a waiting room for an hour and the TV was tuned to Fox News. I haven’t watched Fox in years, not since I saw Dr. Robert Malone on the TV screen falsely identified as a COVID expert.
What I saw in that hour left me speechless. It was one misrepresentation after another. I came away even more convinced, warped “news” is killing our country. So I asked, what are the most and least reliable news sources?
Here’s a neutral, sourced ranking of major news outlets by credibility/reliability, based on established third-party evaluations of journalistic standards and trust. Note that what “credible” means can vary by methodology (surveys, fact-checking, editorial standards), so this is a general comparative overview — not a definitive scientific scale.
📊 Credibility Ranking (Higher → Lower Based on Independent Ratings)
Top Tier — Broadly Recognized for High Reliability
These outlets are commonly rated high on reliability and journalistic standards by ratings services like NewsGuard and reliability charts:
Associated Press (AP) — Often cited as one of the most factual and neutral news sources.
Reuters — Known for clear factual reporting with minimal political bias.
PBS NewsHour/NPR — Public broadcasters with editorial standards focused on thorough reporting.
BBC (BBC News) — International public broadcaster with widely cited fact-checking divisions like BBC Verify.
The Wall Street Journal (news reporting) — In many reliability metrics, earns high trust among both sides of U.S. politics.
Note: These outlets regularly score at or above the top threshold on NewsGuard’s reliability criteria (often scored ≥75/100).
Middle Tier — Large National Outlets with Mixed Ratings
These outlets are prominent and widely used, but evaluations show mixed reliability depending on content type (news vs. opinion):
CNN — High overall visibility and usage with trust levels varying by audience group; opinion content often assessed differently than hard news.
The New York Times — Highly influential, frequently cited for in-depth reporting, but editorial choices sometimes affect aggregated credibility ratings.
The Washington Post — Similar to NYT in combined quality and editorial complexity; generally trusted by many but rated lower on some automated reliability scales.
USA Today / Other large mainstream outlets — Widely consumed; moderate trust in many surveys.
Important: These outlets may have strong newsrooms, but on some rating rubrics (e.g., NewsGuard’s criteria) mixed scores can reflect differences between straight reporting versus opinion or commentary sections.
Lower Tier — Outlets with Noted Reliability Concerns
These outlets tend to have higher partisan bias and lower overall reliability scores in independent evaluations:
Fox News (overall brand) – Rated at ~69.5/100 by NewsGuard, which places it in the “credibility with exceptions” category rather than highest tier. The score reflects a mix of factual reporting and notable instances of misleading statements by opinion hosts.
MSNBC / Other partisan cable outlets – Sometimes score lower than neutral providers, largely due to mixing heavy opinion content with news.
Newsmax & One America News Network (OAN) – Much lower reliability scores (e.g., ~20/100) on NewsGuard, reflecting documented instances of false or misleading claims.
Other hyper-partisan or fringe sources — e.g., outlets primarily focused on activism or niche politics often fall below traditional news organizations in reliability. (Not shown as complete examples here.)
🧠 Trust vs. Credibility: What Polls Show
Pew Research surveys show strong partisan divides in trust — e.g., Fox News is trusted by most Republicans but distrusted by a large majority of Democrats, while outlets like PBS, CNN, and NYT tend to be trusted more by Democrats than Republicans.
This doesn’t “rank credibility” per se, but illustrates that trust is not uniform across the audience.
⚠️ Methodological Notes
Different rating systems emphasize different criteria:
NewsGuard uses editorial criteria like factual reporting, corrections practices, transparency, and separation of news vs. opinion.
Pew Research trust surveys measure public trust — which is influenced by audience ideology as much as journalistic standards.
Media Bias Charts (e.g., Ad Fontes) combine bias and reliability dimensions but do not reflect a single “correctness” score.
Even respected outlets can have occasional errors; no single rating alone captures the full picture.
📌 Summary (Simplified Ranking)
Higher reliability (most consistent across sources): AP, Reuters, PBS/NPR, BBC
Moderate reliability (wide usage but mixed perception): CNN, NYT, Washington Post
Lower on reliability scales (more partisan or contentious): Fox News, MSNBC, Newsmax/OAN.
Then I wondered. Why is Fox so biased toward Trump? Is he “in bed” with Rupert Murdoch?
Short answer: There is no verified evidence of direct business partnerships, joint ventures, or shared investments between Rupert Murdoch and Donald Trump. Their relationship has primarily been political and media-driven, not a documented financial partnership.
Here’s what is known:
1️⃣ No Known Direct Business Ventures
There is no public record of:
Joint ownership of companies
Real estate deals between them
Shared corporate boards
Equity investments in each other’s businesses
Private equity transactions
Documented loans or financial transfers between them
Murdoch’s companies (Fox Corp, News Corp) and Trump’s business entities (The Trump Organization) have operated independently.
2️⃣ Indirect Financial Intersection: Media & Advertising
Where finances do intersect is indirectly:
Fox News & Trump Campaign Spending
Trump campaigns have purchased advertising on Fox properties.
This is standard political ad spending, not a private deal.
Fox earns ad revenue from campaigns across the political spectrum.
That is a commercial transaction, not a partnership.
3️⃣ Dominion Settlement Context
In the 2023 defamation case:
Fox News paid $787.5 million to Dominion Voting Systems.
That case stemmed from election-fraud claims promoted after the 2020 election.
Important:
The lawsuit was against Fox, not Trump personally.
There is no evidence Trump compensated Murdoch or Fox.
There is no evidence Murdoch paid Trump.
4️⃣ Editorial Influence vs. Financial Control
It’s important to distinguish:
Murdoch’s leverage over Trump is media-based, not ownership-based.
Trump’s leverage over Murdoch properties is audience-based (ratings and political relevance), not financial control.
5️⃣ Speculation vs. Documented Evidence
There are frequent claims online suggesting:
Hidden financial ties
Secret agreements
Coordinated funding arrangements
There is no verified documentary evidence supporting those claims.
If such evidence existed (e.g., SEC filings, bank transfers, contracts), it would be legally explosive and widely reported.
Bottom Line
Their relationship appears to be:
Strategic + political + media-driven
Not a documented financial business partnership.
Yes — there has been mutual benefit, but it’s primarily political and commercial (ratings/attention-driven) rather than a documented financial partnership.
Where the Mutual Benefit Shows Up
1️⃣ Ratings & Revenue (Benefit to Murdoch/Fox)
Trump drives audience attention.
During the 2016 campaign and much of his presidency, Trump-centric coverage coincided with:
Higher prime-time cable ratings for Fox News
Strong advertising demand during election cycles
Elevated digital traffic and engagement
Cable news revenue is driven by:
Advertising rates (which rise with ratings)
Carriage fees from cable providers (strengthened by high viewership)
Result: Trump’s political prominence likely boosted Fox’s commercial performance during key periods.
2️⃣ Platform & Legitimacy (Benefit to Trump)
Fox provided consistent national exposure to a large Republican audience.
Benefits to Trump:
Direct access to primary voters
Friendly prime-time commentary during critical political moments
Narrative reinforcement during controversies
Rapid message amplification
In 2016 especially, this exposure helped consolidate GOP base support.
3️⃣ Agenda Setting (Two-Way Influence)
The relationship often functioned as a feedback loop:
Fox personalities frame an issue.
Trump responds publicly (tweets, speeches).
Coverage amplifies reaction.
Audience engagement rises.
This created a powerful ecosystem of influence — media ↔ politician — that benefited both in visibility and energy.
4️⃣ When the Relationship Strains
Mutual benefit does not mean perfect alignment.
Examples:
Fox’s early Arizona call in 2020 angered Trump.
Some Murdoch-owned editorial pages (e.g., The Wall Street Journal) have criticized Trump.
After the 2020 election, tensions rose around coverage tone.
But even during strain, the broader commercial-political ecosystem persisted.
Strategic Reality
This looks less like:
A hidden financial alliance
And more like:
Two powerful actors whose incentives often align.
Murdoch:
Benefits when politically engaged audiences are highly activated.
Adjusts tone based on business and political realities.
Trump:
Benefits from high-reach platforms that speak to his base.
Publicly pressures media when coverage shifts.
Bottom Line
Yes — there has clearly been mutual benefit, especially in:
Audience growth
Political mobilization
Narrative influence
But there is no evidence of direct shared financial ventures or profit-sharing arrangements.
Fox News did not broadly argue that it is “just entertainment” rather than a news organization in the Dominion Voting Systems v. Fox News Network.
That claim is a common oversimplification/meme based on narrower legal arguments about specific programs.
What Fox actually argued
In the Dominion case, Fox’s defense focused on First Amendment and defamation standards, including:
The broadcasts involved newsworthy allegations made by a sitting president and his lawyers
Some statements were opinion or commentary, not factual assertions
Fox lacked “actual malice” (the legal standard requiring knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth)
These are standard defenses in U.S. defamation law — not a blanket claim of being “entertainment only.”
Where the “entertainment” idea comes from
The confusion comes from two related but distinct legal arguments:
1️⃣ Opinion vs. Fact (Specific Hosts/Shows)
Fox’s lawyers argued that certain prime-time segments (e.g., commentary shows) should be viewed as:
Opinion-based
Not literal statements of fact
Interpreted by a reasonable viewer as commentary
This is very different from saying the entire network is entertainment.
2️⃣ Earlier Defamation Cases (Not Dominion)
In prior cases involving individual hosts (e.g., commentary programs), Fox lawyers argued that:
Some hosts use hyperbole, rhetorical exaggeration, or opinionated framing
A “reasonable viewer” would not interpret every statement as a literal factual claim
Those arguments often get misquoted online as:
“Fox said it’s entertainment, not news”
—but that’s not what courts actually ruled in a broad sense.
What came out in Dominion instead
The Dominion case revealed something different and more consequential:
Internal messages showed some hosts and executives privately doubted election-fraud claims
The court allowed the case to proceed because there was evidence a jury could find actual malice
Fox ultimately settled for $787.5 million (without admitting wrongdoing)
Bottom line
The viral claim is misleading.
Fox did not argue it is fundamentally an entertainment network instead of a news outlet.
It did argue that specific programs/hosts engage in opinion and commentary, which is a normal legal distinction in defamation cases.
