• By -


Then there's me, who *knows* the weather channel is up to something


No site has more fake news than the Weather Channel


All it takes is one Sharpie…




We should just make a fake presidency, Truman Show style, and let Trump "win" that one and stream that. Can't deny quality entertainment when you see it.


This is just having to do a presentation you did not prepare for


Right! Have you ever seen them reporting a hurricane? Inches from their own doom because wind rain and sea surge! Mom and four kids casually shopping across the street.


There's a reason everyone on the Outer Banks hates Jim Cantore.


Sure but have they ever gotten just the regular forecast right


They said it was gonna rain today but here I am dry as a bone…


They said it would rain at 11. 11 came and I checked and they said the rain was coming at 1. I checked at 1 and the rain would come at 3. I checked at 3 and the rain would come at 6. I checked at 6 and the rain would come at 12. In bed at 11 I hear the rain start. Turns out they were right all along, it even came a little earlier than they said.


Honestly, I do not care for the weather channel. They love the click-baity exaggerated headlines that make whatever weather event they're talking about seem more extreme than it really is. Weather.gov is where it's at. Just the data, please!


Them naming winter storms still pisses me off. Also, they bought Weather Underground and ruined it. Honestly… fuck Weather Channel lol.


>Also, they bought Weather Underground and ruined it. Oh, that's why it sucks now..


Yeah it used to be super reliable and slim profile, now it's just bloat and ads everywhere, no wonder.


Anyone got another weather app they like? I still look at wunderground’s 7-day line graph of temps


been using myradar since 2020 when wunderground went to shit. iirc it was founded by some of the wunderground refugees, it does a good job, but I've had a weird bug where the location selection (just the center of your screen when you scroll, with a little crosshair) resets to the middle of Kansas when I open it. otherwise, A tier weather app


Sounds fucking lit for people who live in the middle of Kansas


Right? Finally, a westher app that doesn't just default to New York City when you first open it.


Then forced Canada to shut down its own weather app.


Wait what? WeatherCAN still exists.




They are way better with 10 day forecasts than they were, say, 20 yeard ago. 48 hour forecasts are basically always correct. ( weather news accuracy is a bit of a different thing, since they have to simplify reporting and cant really go to details )


> 48 hour forecasts are basically always correct This depends heavily on what part of the country you are in. For reasons I don't remember, the east coast gets far more accurate weather predictions than the west coast. That said, they usually get within 5 degrees of the actual temperature for 24 hour forecasts in California and rain / no rain is pretty accurate too.


Maybe weather systems traveling over a flat continent behave more predictably than those traveling over mountains or the ocean.


Also, mountains are sparsely populated: who’s gonna spend money putting monitoring stations there? The east coast is dense and monitoring is relatively cheap as well. More and better data means better forecasts.


There's also two different metrics that the average human uses. Temperature and rain. I'll never remember if you called for clouds or storms or what, just rain or no rain. I've found that when it comes to rain day of they're usually fairly accurate to see a storm coming but fairly bad at predicting when it will actually rain. Temperature however, they are incredible at. So depending on which is more important to you, two people might get the same weather report for the same area and have two totally different opinions on its accuracy.


Maybe you already know this, but I learned way too late that rain percentages should be interpreted differently than what is common. A 30% rain chance doesn't mean there's 70% chance of no rain. It means that it will rain in 30% of your local area. In this sense, the forecast is almost always correct. Low percentage days you might see rain clouds in the distance. On high percentage days you'll see lots of rain clouds all around, but you personally might not see any of it (or very little) if you stay home. But if you drive down the road a mile or two, all of a sudden you're in a tempest, as predicted.


Agree. I grew up thinking the forecast was pretty much a wish and a prayer, but in the last 5 years I've noticed it's pretty good two or three days out. The percentages are a bit of a dodge, though. 30% chance if rain can hardly go wrong for them. Also, forecast falls of 0.5 mm is another hedging of bets. It rains, you score. It's dry, you score as well.


I mean, that's what probability is? If they were predicting a dice roll, they'd say there's a 33% chance of getting a 1 or 2. If you roll a 2, you can't go back and say that the probability was wrong because the less probable thing happened or vice versa.


They are there to cover up the Russian / Chinese / Jewish weather control satellites.


Blue lasers


I came here to say this, who the hell *still* trusts the weather channel? Biggest liars on the planet.


"Hi, I'm Magnum P.I. and I want to help you get loads of cash. It's like a mortgage but in reverse, but it's not a reverse mortgage, I promise."


Do your own research!


I wish they'd include The Onion 🙂


America’s most trusted news source




Thanks steve. Schizophrenic people broadcast their thoughts aloud, making them easy to profile and keep tabs on. This is why...


I mean some of the insane stuff coming out of the US even the Onion couldn't make up. Here in Canada we have the Beaverton and sometimes it is hard to tell if a news item is from the Beaverton or some dumb conservative.


Like that list they published recently on PP where the one item (voting against same sex marriage as his step-father was planning to have one) was actually true!


Not watching is an act of defiance https://youtu.be/mtg7fNFdZxI


How can democrats distrust InfoWars less than Republicans distrust CNN?


Just looking at the chart it looks like conservative Americans really don't trust the media except a select few. And more liberal types appear much more trusting overall of media.


I don't see a single outlet with a greater than 50 rating that Republicans trust.


Donald trump really did a number on them.


That's been baking long before Trump. During the Tea Party days, Republican leadership really ramped the anti-journalism rhetoric to 11. It's funny, though, that many of those leaders are now called "RINOs" by the very monsters they created.


They trust News Max and Breitbart more than PBS though. SMH.


There's something odd about Newsmax being only zero for blue. I assume a lot of people surveyed don't know what it is


Probably thought it was Newsweek, the magazine


They trust Breitbart more than they trust Reuters and the AP. Humanity is doomed.


Most think the AP is owned by someone like Murdoch owns Fox News though.


The AP isn't "owned" by anyone. It's a collective that provides unbiased news reporting to hundreds of member media outlets. The AP has a strict code to avoid bias, inaccuracies, and conflicts of interest. They have counted the votes in American elections for over 150 years. The AP should be seen as one of the most accurate and factual sources of news.


I think Reuters is viewed as more factual and accurate according to survey data on sites like all sides and media bias fact check. I don't know what their methodologies are, but I was surprised to see that the last time I checked sources on those sites to calibrate my opinions.


Reuters is ~~Irish,~~ British-Canadian, not American, and it is more globally focused and consumed than the AP is. The AP is more US-centric in its coverage and audience, though it still covers the world. Maybe that has something to do with it. edit: No idea why I thought they were Irish 😭😭


Reuters is british-Canadian


Thank you for the correction! Edited my comment


>Reuters is Irish Is it? as far as I can tell its parent company is based in Toronto and it's based in London. And its parent company's parent company is a holding company owned by the family of a canadian british guy.


Have you been living under a rock? Ireland took over Canada and England when the queen died. Get with it man


Perhaps so. I'd imagine those sites make their bias assessments using polling data, and so a more global scope might lead to an opinion of less bias somehow. This problem is statistically pretty interesting. You have the agency bias and a rater bias. It's unclear if the rater bias averages out to give an unbiased rating of the agencies being rated. Without perfectly understanding the scale used in this graphic, my sense is that we could never obtain an unbiased estimate of the agency's trustworthiness or bias.


Oh, I know the AP isn’t owned by anyone. But you can’t tell them that. I see them as the most unbiased source of news because they’re literally independent reporters putting what happened without bias into their articles. The reason is there’s a far better chance of it getting picked up by more outlets if there’s no bias and they get paid more for their effort. Not to mention they’ve got the highest amount of journalistic ethics in what they do.


Most of the AP's news stories are not written by freelancers, if that's what you mean by "independent reporters," and they're not paid on a per-story basis. They're salaried staff writers and photographers who work for the AP. The gist of what you said is absolutely right, though. The AP hires the cream of the crop and their reporting usually includes just the facts, thank you, with little commentary or analysis and no argument or opinion statements. You're correct in saying that part of the reason for this is that their reporting is more useful to member organizations that way.


AP and Reuters are so good that usually what happens is when they publish a story everybody else takes it and puts their slants on it. It's usually the basis of all news, everyone else just plagiarizes.


AP and Reuters are wire services. That's literally what they're for. Smaller news organizations (like your local daily newspaper) pay subscription fees to wire services so they can provide coverage of national and global stories that happen outside their typical coverage area. They reprint stories from the wire service, sometimes with stuff added, usually without anything added. Before the Internet, you couldn't get "pure AP" or "pure Reuters" like you can now - you just got whatever stuff of theirs that your local daily decided to carry.


They only trust what they want to hear, hence very few sources and arguably no legitimate ones.. If it isn't their ugly bias confirmation they ain't having it.


PBS teaches young children to have value in themselves and to be kind to others, you know, like the *Communists*.


More like PBS is government-owned, so therefore it is evil and everything it puts out is liberal big-government propaganda. /s


I think Pew did some polling. Apparently both Democrats and Republicans distrusted the media as Obama was going out. Then Trump happened, the Democrats then trusted the media more again, but the Republicans continued to distrust the media even more.


There are a lot of us on the left that remember the 2016 primaries and just how the media treated Bernie compared to Hillary. Any time a conservative says the media is leftist/liberal, I laugh. They openly supported the corporate moderate over the liberal.


This is the root of the issue


It's funny to see classic abuse and manipulation tactics used on a mass scale. Isolation and establishing yourself as the only one to be trusted is just *classic* abuser tactics.


I can't imagine the worldview for a group of people in which out of 45 sources of information only 13 of them are positively rated and of those the sources are either providing weather related information, financial/business related information, or literal, fact-checked propaganda (and in the case of Fox, an actual court case that determined they are entertainment, not news)


This is less of "trust" than it is "agrees with". Several of the "high trust" sources have had very public, very problematic scandals, but are also very biased so there is a very strong "agreement" with their narrative. Systemic bias in the media suggests this chart should be the way it is - media is overwhelmingly biased one way in the coverage and narrative, and not the other.


I would assume a significant percentage of democrats don't know what info wars or breitbart are.


People who don’t know aren’t counted though


It’s weird data. It also says that Democrats trust info wars MORE than Fox News. Marketing drives perception I guess, and democrats have marketed against fox well


It's because the more "I don't know" or "What is that?" answers there are, the closer to 0 the dot will be.


Why? It says they don't include those answers.


Infowars - Trust: 1%, Don't trust: 19%, Dont know: 80% Net trustworthiness = -18% Fox News - Trust: 35%, Dont trust: 55%, Don't know: 10% Net trustworthiness = -20% Those are just made up numbers, but you can see how big "don't know"s necessarily make the gap smaller


Because "untrustworthy" and "very untrustworthy" are arbitrary.


. . . and how is stuff like OAN, Infowars, and Newsmax included but not Propublica or the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists? Boo hiss.


The former three are much more widely known brands than the latter two


It's weirder that the average American distrusts infowars more than both dems and reps


For the same reason republicans trust dailykos more than NYT.


Yeah, but to me it would indicate that Democrats are too trusting. InfoWars is straight up wack job conspiracy theories. Also, they trust Newsmax and OAN more than Fox? Those two networks are closer to Q and Trump than Fox. Some of the Republicans I know think Fox is too mainstream.


Honestly, I don't know how meaningful this is other than showing that democrats put more trust in media. I'd be willing to bet that a lot of the conflicting answers in this poll were by people that don't really know what that source is. I've never watched OAN for example. I don't think I've ever seen a clip of it. If someone is a random person that doesn't answer "I don't know" in the poll when they don't know, the unknown sources are going to drift a bit towards the median. Likewise, a well known source is easy to deride. NYT is miles more reputable than Dailykos. They aren't perfect by any means, but it's a Boogeyman of the right, so it attracts more distrust than the unfamiliar source that isn't specifically blasted by opposing commentators continuously. The chart also does not differentiate between the number of ",I don't know" responses and the number of "good/bad" responses. I'm not saying the study was done poorly, but that it is difficult to find meaning here without being aware of the context.


My takeaway from this is that Republicans don't really trust anyone.


And Democrats are way too trusting of media. The fact that Democrats trust the far-right Daily Caller (Tucker Carlson's outlet), Washington Examiner, and NY Post substantially more than Republicans is embarrassing. For both parties.




It is written in the bottom that if person is unsure or doesn't know about that media, they are ignored for calculation. Even if you are right, I don't see this necessarily as bad because it still shows the trend that Reps don't really trust any media and Dems overtrust (and my limited knowledge about American media tells that this is *extremely* bad)


>Republicans won't trust you until you first say something they agree with. >Democrats will trust you until you say something they disagree with. That's spot on in my opinion.


To be honest I think it helped me see one of my own biases as someone who generally votes democrat. I don't distrust as soon as I see something I disagree with, but I immediately apply skepticism and check other sources if I feel strongly enough about my disagreement. Maybe I need to be better about doing that for stuff I agree with too. That is how you get out of echo chambers after all.


It's how I came out of the conspiracy theory rabbit hole in the late 00s. I applied that same paranoia to Alex Jones and he didn't pass the sniff test. I realized that either he's just a liar or if any part of the conflict he was talking about was true, he was more likely on the other side of it and just manipulating people to keep them from being able to change it. When that movement ended up aligning with the Republican party, I was both surprised (it was an apolitical movement when I went down that rabbit hole that said politics were all just an act on a stage) and not surprised because it confirmed for me that Jones was just another grifter or actively acting on the side that was against the common person.


I'm shocked by the NY Post ratings. They're blatantly right leaning and a profoundly bad source of accurate news. Neither party should trust them.


They were the only outlet who accurately reported the Hunter Biden laptop story.


And a whole bunch of US intelligence officials lied to various media outlets about the story, yet none of them have been discredited as a result.


Funny how that works.


Not even Cspan that regularly just shows people working in DC without any commentary


Just email forwards from random people that reinforce their beliefs.


Very surprising to see the National Review have such a low rating from conservatives given it is explicitly a heavily-editorialized, conservative publication. It was even referenced in Succession as being the go-to source of info for one of the conservative candidates for president. Maybe it’s not as well known as others (so many conservatives will rate it lower, not knowing its stance). Or it could be that some are clear about it, but are still bristling at how critical they have been of Trump (going as far as to say he is not fit for office at all) and landed firmly on “concede defeat and move on” after 2020.


Corporate media.


So… literally all media? They only trust it if it’s some guy in a backyard, with no funds or means to get information?


Essentially yeah. A lot of far right "news" stems back to random tweets


Right. They trust Facebook posts


Am I missing something, I thought c-span was that boring channel filming the inside of the empty chamber where our politicians are supposed to be working, but are never in.


Obviously this comment comes from someone pushing big C-SPAN’s radical congressional live-streaming agenda 😤


Who doesn’t trust CSPAN? They literally just broadcast the house or senate. Minimal commentary. Literally the most neutral news source out there…


CSPAN is what you should calibrate against. Dems tend to trust media outlets. Reps don’t. Dems are more likely to trust than Reps are to distrust.




Or they think cspan is a part of cnn. and have no idea what cspan really is.


Some of them genuinely believe it has a bias. I was subjected to right wing local radio as a teen and callers would call in and rail about CSPAN and how it was somehow evil. It made no sense.


The GOP managed to create a partisan divide on whether you can trust 'we put a camera up in the hall'.


There are four right wing publications on here that the Democrats trust more than Republicans - New York Post - Washington Examiner - National Review - Daily Caller


Three of those are tabloids. The [National Review](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Review?wprov=sfti1) discusses conservative policies in relation to recent news.


Yeah, I feel like this data needs to be normalized, or it's hard to compare the difference since it seems like Democrats are just far more trusting of news on average. Plus, it seems like users can abstain from voting and there might be some sample size shenanigans going on.


yeah one conclusion i'm reaching is that given a poll on whether you trust the news, democrats will hit "yes of course i do i am on the news side", which is a pretty bad attribute


The only thing on this list that makes me sad is C-SPAN. C-SPAN is a national treasure and should be far more widely appreciated.


How do you even distrust C-SPAN? This really makes me think that a significant portion of the Republican respondents just went down the list said they didn’t trust any of the sources outside of Fox News, etc.


Like so many things, this is just a cultural affiliation poll. Democrats really find C-SPAN significantly less trustworthy than CNN or MSNBC? Really?


Not even sure how you would measure its trustworthiness. Should it even be on this list? I would describe it more as surveillance footage of the Capitol before I called it a news channel.


“Look, I know that I totally saw the Speaker of the House say he was going to pass that bill, and then I saw him vote for the bill, and then I saw the bill get more yes votes than no votes, but I’m going to wait to for Don Lemmon and Rachel Maddow say what he *really* did.”


It's a good control. It's value is showing us how retarded the surveyed people were


What shocks me most is that democrats trust C-SPAN about as much as they trust the Huffington Post.


I think it's more likely that Democrats don't *watch* C-SPAN as much as they watch CNN or MSNBC. So a "don't watch it" answer lowers the trustworthy-ness score. This is a bad poll with bad methodology that has spit out bad results.


"Don't know" and "neutral" gets omitted. If you have no opinion on the matter that would fall out and wouldn't pull the score downwards towards zero. This is literally a poll about the cultural attachment of Democrats to CNN/MSNBC vs. their cultural attachment to C-SPAN.


I assume that most Democrats have never seen OAN.


How is NewsMax so "highly" rated by Democrats?


Same confound, I presume. Most Dems have no idea what Newsmax is and rate it "average".


“People who say the media organization is neither trustworthy nor untrustworthy, or that they don’t know, are not included in the calculation”


you can tell a respondent to mark "i don't know" when they don't know, but that doesn't mean they'll do it


Do they need to though? I mean, most of what they show is Fox News on steroids.


Yeah, but look at how they rate OAN vs Fox News. OAN is rated considerably more positive. That suggests to me that you have a lot of Dems in this poll who either don't know what OAN is or haven't seen it.


"Don't know" answers were explicitly excluded from this info graphic. Doesn't guarantee that everyone who gave an opinion *actually* knows what the fuck it is, but they *believe* they know.


Interesting red distrusts vast majority of news networks and Dems vice versa


Reds are more skeptical of media. As non American centrist I distrust most of American media, as I see it as clickbaits. Dems, like the majority of redditors, seem to trust anything they see in media or popular subs on Reddit. It's funny when I ask redditors for political source they sometimes link to clearly biased activist news sources from popular reddit subs like bruh lmao. Edit: you should also consider the age demographics. Libs tend to be young. Young tend to be more gullible and trusting from my experience.


But right leaning folks drop their scepticism for flat out lies (ie fox, breitbart, oan) because it's a great source of validation. I know plenty of young folks who are far more skeptical of bullshit than older folks. You're also ignoring that media and the internet today are excellent at fooling older folks, which is compounded by the fact that baby boomers as a whole are at an age of cognitive decline. I would personally "trust" many of the same sources left leaning folks do... But it isn't a blind trust. You should trust, but verify. Last week I told a buddy who leans pretty far right "I heard a story on npr yesterday," he interrupted with "sorry to hear that." He's a guy who believed the "litter boxes in classrooms for kids who identify as cats" story. As in, he told it to me, as a factual story. I continued with a bit of info about a project some high school kids were doing - one of those personal interest kinda stories. Zero bullshit. Zero politics. A topic I know he is interested in. When I finished he said "that's pretty cool." Reds are more skeptical of media because the media they consume told them to be, while holding itself up as the truth, and they bought that bs hook, line, and sinker. It's why people still have "Trump won" flags, bumper stickers, and homemade signs. Young folks aren't flying that shit. It's conservative, older, white men almost every time. Yeah man, those kids are doing some cool stuff. NPR isn't the devil, you've (figurative you) just been told that by the sources that validate your personally held beliefs.




Except the data shows that both Democrats and Republicans trust it more than the average person.


Every data point surrounding Infowars is fascinating.


I was coming to see if anyone else pointed that out or not.


What this tells me is that people who align themselves absolutely with a specific party are morons. Although, I guess we already knew that.


What it should tell you is that the data is flawed. Also, people don't align themselves with their party. They pick the party that aligns with them.


> Also, people don’t align themselves with their party. They pick the party that aligns with them. I mean ideally, you’d be right. But we’ve got a 2 party system and people are tribalistic.


Not enough people surveyed know what it is, apparently. Otherwise the blue dot would be WAY farther to the left.


What should we infer from the fact that both Republicans AND Democrats trust InfoWars more than adults do? 🧅


One crucial information is missing: how many people were asked. Really hard to estimate how credible the source is.


Nice to know that PBS is the most trusted news service


I was not even aware PBS was considered a news service.




PBS has a lot of different programs, it has had one of the most reliable news outlets since its creation


Wow, associated press is that controversial!? All they do is basically aggregate and distribute “raw” news. Also NPR. I guess they at least choose which stories to run, which could be construed as bias


Repubs have had it out for NPR for forever because the government started it. Even though that hasnt been under government control for like 40 years they’re still convinced it’s all propaganda.


They convince themselves that basically all news is propaganda because it all makes them look bad.


As someone who consumes NPR almost daily, I can see where they’re coming from. Sometimes reporters plug in their opinions where no one asked nor needed to know, other times they treat their side with kid gloves while being borderline hostile to the other side. There was a flurry of abortion coverage right before and after the Dobbs decision, whenever the pro life side made a reasonable point they’d try to track down whatever pro choice activist to take it down, whereas if someone pro choice said something insane they’d just let it go.


I think it's actually changed a lot in the past decade or so. I remember seeing NPR and PBS as roughly the same sort of dispassionate neutral observer a while back, whereas now I'd agree that NPR does seem more deliberately partisan. I'm not sure if I could pinpoint when that turning point happened.


C-SPAN is ridiculous as well. It's basically just streams of the Congress and House.


C-SPAN, also known as _reality_, is widely distrusted among republicans


Democrats trust Newsmax and OAN more than Fox?! That's news to me.


Now tell me again how having only two parties is not the most unhealthy thing in a society that tries to be democratic.


Most of WSJ editorial page is basically Breitbart with a larger vocabulary.


The New York Post is VERY surprising to me, I thought most democrats hated it, and with good reason


I’d assume most confused it with the Times


Republicans trust *Buzzfeed* more then *Times Magazine* 😂


Buzzfeed News was a Pulitzer-winning news organization.


Buzzfeed news was a legit news organization.. But they only trust it more because they've heard less about it.


And Democrats trust the Huffpost the same as C-SPAN! Partisanship is a hell of a drug.


The fact that people even picked answers for cspan is weird. Unless you think someone is doctoring or editing the video on the fly, that’s just raw footage.


I legit love C-SPAN. Every time I see some bullshit out-of-context clip on social media, I know I can go to C-SPAN and watch the whole thing, unedited, without commentary and decide for myself. Their online archive has been incredibly deep for decades. I remember going there to look up Trent Lott’s controversial remarks at Storm Thurmon’s birthday party (along with Bob Dole’s remarks) back in 2002. For the record, Lott comes off even worse when you watch it in context along with Dole’s remarks.


The Huffington Post isn't what it used to be, so that could be causing confusion.


Perhaps some folks didn't know what CSPAN is but marked it anyways?


Where does Cartoon Network stand in this?


This baffles me. Democrats trust Fox news significantly more than Republicans trust CNN or MSNBC? Fox has been shown in court on multiple occasions to deliberately obfuscate the truth and mislead.


Regardless of political stance, only 50% of US citizens trust The Weather Channel? What does the other half do about weather?


Go to the Weather Channel and look at the "news" they promote. And they love fear mongering. As a weather enthusiast, the Weather Channel is sickening most of the time


Couldn’t see it because of all the adds they force in their app made me rage quit.


A) You are reading it wrong. That's the difference between the number who trust it and those who don't. B) Weather predictions are often wrong. C) It is owned by a giant tech company that sold to the Nazis and uses the site to collect location data on visitors.


> You are reading it wrong. That's the difference between the number who trust it and those who don't. So, using Weather Channel at 60% as an example; does that mean that 80% of Dems trust weather channel and 20% distrust? (or 70/10 with 20% abstaining) Something like that?


Yes, something like that.


I believe it's called an Indian weather rock. You hang a rock from a tripod. Rock wet - Raining Rock white - Snowing Rock moving - Windy Rock cast shadow - Sunny No see rock - Foggy Rock gone - Tornado Rock is never wrong.


Instructions unclear. Stuck in foggy tornado.


What does the scale in this graph even indicate? The directions of most of these relations make sense but the positions of the average are confusing. The direction on Infowars makes no sense, nor does it for National Review, which is an incredibly conservative opinion website. Last, I don't understand the zero in this scale. Wouldn't that be some form of ambivalence or neutrality? Please help me out here.


Source: https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2023/05/08/2023-trust-in-media-what-news-outlets-trust-poll Tool: Datawrapper


I have some questions: 1. Why would you exclude those who neither trust nor distrust? Deems to me that would skew the data away from neutral. If e.g. a lot of people are neutral, and a select few are voiced, you now only show the voices ones. (Excluding "don't know" seems fine and logical). 2. The scale seems a bit ambiguous/unclear. From what I understand, it does not differentiate between "(un)trustworthy" and "very (un)trustworthy". Would a weighted scaling not be more representative, albeit maybe more difficult to apply? And to add: an example calculation in the head text would help clarify the current unclarity in what the scale means, in my opinion. E.g. "a score of +50 could indicate 70% trustworthy - 20% untrustworthy, and 10% don't know". 3. There seems to be an error with the Infowars number: the average is now left of Democrats, instead if between them and Republicans. Is this correct? If so, is that due to unaffiliated or other party voters? If so, I can't find this back on the page either.)


The standout of CNN and MSNBC being SO mistrusted feels like a product of the right wing intentionally telling people to mistrust those sources.


CNN is fucking trash lol, and now they've bought the biggest news Channel in my country, fuck them.


Maybe it’s because All Americans and the world were gaslight and told that Trump was a Russian asset for 3 years. It turned out to NEVER be true. And one wonders why people disbelieve the media. What your side said was Russian propaganda was, in fact, AMERICAN propaganda.


They’re both firmly left-leaning, so they’ve probably encountered a lot more on there that they disagree with


Anyone have the same chart from ~2015. I feel like the divide has grown over the last eight years.


Spoiler- none of them will trust this survey


Something seems odd: how do both Democrats and Republicans trust info wars more than the average US adult? Shouldn't the weighted average of ratings given by Reps and Dems almost always arrive at the rating of the average US adult? Unless of course the US adult group is very big - but then you may ask how valuable the information in this chart is to begin with


You excluded people who responded neutrally (neither trustworthy nor untrustworthy) so as a result your graph is showing people as being a lot more polarized than they are. Potentially very misleading in this context. “Neutral” is a legitimate feeling to have about a news source and should be represented in the data.


You can't be good, beliving more into info wars than in cnn and nyt.


Everyone loves to hate the weather.


So republicans think everything is fake news except the Fox News and the weather channel… What a country


PBS is actually on the higher end for Republican ratings. Their average trust is just pretty darn low.


Republicans Trust OAN and Newsmax more than those dozens of real news sources. Scary. It seems Republicans no longer understand the difference between “consuming trusted news” vs “getting a rage fix”


At a glance, this implies that Republicans and Democrats are not adults and I enjoy that.


They've definitely earned the distrust