They "seem" to point out at the opinion pieces? For someone who is adamant that CNN is credible, why are you using qualifiers? You're basically making shot-in-the-dark statements without putting in any effort to verify. Whether you think that is a viable substitute for presenting a good counterargument, be my guest. I don't think it is, however.

Anyways, if you subscribe to The Knife Media, you get access to their raw data. Even without the raw data, they do take their time to explain their reasoning. They also have a few videos on their Youtube channel. There aren't a lot, but you will be able to figure out their thinking process. That said, you said that you read the link, but you have not addressed a single one of The Knife Media's arguments. Are you in agreement of what they are saying? Are you in disagreement of their evaluation, but unwilling to explain why for whatever reason?

Lastly, bringing up Trump is still not on topic. The topic is about CNN's credibility in which I have adequately shown that it's sorely lacking. You, on the other hand, have responded by attempted to pivot the discussion to an unrelated topic. You maintain your high regard of CNN? Okay, but how does that prove that CNN's credibility is high? It's the same assertion with a different coat of paint. And here, I thought you were taking your time to organize your thoughts and provide a convincing rebuttal, so this is very disappointing.

BTW, to everyone who enjoys a good laugh about the state of "journalism" in germany; this is a screenshot of a piece of information that the german "Correctiv" published right after Trump won the election:

http://meedia.de/2016/11/09/peinliche-letter-panne-wie-correctiv-hillary-clinton-voreilig-als-praesidentin-feierte/

Basically, it states that Clinton had won the election, and that Trump is acting like a sore loser. And that Trump will now fall into depression because of losing, just like George Foremam when he lost to Muhammed Ali at "Rumple in the jungle".

While that is quite funny in itself, what really made this so embarrassing is the fact that the organization "Correctiv" (officially a non-profit organization, but with dubious funding), who published this, is well-known in germany for being made one of the few official german "fact checkers" who are tasked with hunting and flagging "fake news" on german Facebook. And this was not written by some drunk apprentice, it was written by their founder David Schraven himself. Apparently, he wrote the text earlier that night, absolutely sure that his favoured candidate Clinton would win, then went to bed and let the information be automatically published at a certain time in the morning. Asked about the incident, he blamed "technical problems".

Strangely, while this was obviously extremely embarrassing for Correctiv and its founder, not a single MSM reported on Correctiv's embarrassing incident. You're also not going to find even the slightest mention of it in the Wikipedia articles on "Correctiv", neither in the german nor in the english version. Whenever someone tried to edit the Wikipedia articles in order to mention the incident (or certain donors), this information is instantly being removed.

Sigh... apologies that i don't know every site out there and i am not focused on an issue that isn't that important to me just cause some retard president from a country known to not care about facts decided to bring it up in light of his negative publicity. Also, don't expect me to take an unscientific source as gospel. That will never happen.

I am educated and intelligent enough to be able to make the distinction between opinion and fact. All news networks will give different opinions every day. Their word is not gospel. Think for yourself. Educate yourself and you will be able to tell the difference between facts and opinion.

What matters to me is whether the reporting is accurate. I have seen no evidence of this inaccurate reporting. Only conjecturing from the opinions of hosts and guests.

I completely disagree with your assessment. CNN isn't doing anything terribly different from anyone else. Honestly, it looks like a goose chase from where i'm looking. Spurted by the same president you say is completely off-topic but jump started this whole conversation for not being able to take criticism.

thats how you brainwash people in america.

Guess what? We have a thread that is dedicated to Trump. You can complain about him there. However, the topic of this thread is about journalism. CNN is part of that discussion. Trump is not because he's not a journalist. It doesn't take that much thought to figure out that complaining about Trump derails the conversation, especially when my criticisms are mainly aimed towards CNN.

In addition, in what way is the source "unscientific"? Considering how often I criticize your lack of elaboration of reasoning, you continue to make the same mistake over and over again. I would say that I and no one else have reason to take your assessment seriously either as your assertion is even less "unscientific". And thanks to reading The Knife Media's stuff, I can tell that you are slanting with this phrase: "Also, don't expect me to take an unscientific source as gospel". Adding the bolded to the end of that sentence makes it appear as if my goal is to take The Knife Media as gospel. However, that is not the case. The same applies with this phrase: "apologies that i don't know every site out there". Did I actually expected you to know every site out there? Why are you suggesting that I've imposed irrational standards when I never did? Actually, did you just admit that you don't want to take the time to verify? That would mean you have been disagreeing without making further research.

This is just useless preaching and virtue signaling. There's this clichéd, but still meaningful saying: "Talk is cheap, but actions speak louder". I don't particularly care how educated and intelligent you are. What I care is finding out what about The Knife Media's assessments that you disagree with and what examples can you provide? Your second paragraph is once again an assertion without evidence. "I have seen no evidence" is not a refutation as I already provided mine and you have not pointed out at any specific instances where the evidence is not valid.

It's not my assessment to begin with, it's mainly The Knife Media's. So, I will need to ask you again what parts of The Knife Media's assessment do you disagree with and what specific examples do you have? This is something that you have continued to ignore and at this point, I would say you're doing this not because you don't know any better (I mean, you said you're intelligent, right?), but you're doing it deliberately.

Also, how can I not being take criticism when there was no criticism aimed at me in the first place? All of the criticism has been aimed CNN (and other new outlets, in general) and your reluctance to take the extra step to make your counterarguments and provide evidence. I would say that the last sentence applies more accurately to you. So to recap this whole exchange, you have done the following:

• Making assertions without providing specific pieces of evidence ad nauseaum.
• Attempting to derail the conversation by bring up Trump even though the thread is about journalism, where CNN would fall under that category while Trump does not.
• Claiming the source is "unscientific" without explaining why, which ironically made your assertion even less scientific.
• Using slant words to imply that I've imposed unrealistic expectations on you even though I have not.
• Continuing to avoid the topic at hand by resorting to pontification and virtue signaling.
• Resorting to character assassination by claiming that I'm unable to take criticism when the criticism was either aimed at CNN or your reluctance to further elaborate your reasoning.

Having reviewed the entirety of our conversation, I can conclude that you do not want to engage in an honest discussion. If you were honest in the first place, you wouldn't be deliberately avoiding to address the arguments and resorted to character assassination. Overall, you have inadequately argued how CNN is a credible news source. This isn't just a matter of me disagreeing with your opinion. Your responses can speak for themselves, so I don't need to do much from this point on. But if you want the last word so badly, go ahead. I don't expect anything substantial, though, considering your pattern of not wanting to take the time to verify.

You yourself gave a quote on wich i pointed the "likely" being taken as fact.

From your own links i could see at the bottom for example: 

This one. https://www.theknifemedia.com/world-news/the-media-coverage-of-trumps-tweets-on-comey-was-less-distorted-than-the-tweets-themselves-but-not-by-much/

“It was a test page of insults and rebuttals, a see-what-sticks strategy for a President who finds himself under increasing siege amid multiple investigations and legal battles.”

This is an opinion. This is not what was reported as fact. It was someone's opinion on it.

Aka i don't have much patience for chasing ghosts. There is nothing out of the ordinary here. If they were lying in the reporting, i would agree. But they are not. Your site literally points out opinions and says they are not integral. Well, networks don't have a collective voice. Individual people have their voice.

This is beyond ridiculous.

“But even [Trump’s upcoming meetings with the leaders of Japan, France Germany and North Korea] are unlikely to divert the President’s mind from the ever-expanding controversies.”

Another "unlikely" one. Who is taking these things as fact? Is this what the fake news are? Well, then newsflash! ALL networks and everyone who tries to interpret facts in their own logic is making fake news.

Goose chase. Reality is slipping away from people in the US. There is nothing out of the ordinary here. Just people being people and giving their opinion. As it happens, they are prone to being disagreeable.

Bring me proof that CNN has lied in reporting the facts, not their interpretation and you will have my support. What they think about it? That's not news, it's conjecture. What happened? That's news. Make your choice on wich channel you watch, or just don't watch until the reporting of the facts is over and they move to commentary.

Reports should be without opinions unless those articles are labeled under the "Opinion" or "Editorial" sections. That is what honest journalism should be. The first quote you mentioned is CNN playing mind-reader. That's not a factual assessment. The same applies with the second quote. "Unlikely" is a qualifier and even worse, CNN does not go out of its way to explain why.

If you want to prove that CNN's article is an opinion piece, then you need to provide the proof. The burden of proof falls on the person making the positive claim. Here, I will help you out. This is the link to CNN's Political Op-Eds page. The article that The Knife Media cited is titled "Trump unloads Twitter fusillade as Comey interview nears". Now CTRL + F that title. That article was published on April 15, 2018. The oldest article in the Political Op-Eds page was published on January 8, 2015 so I'm not manipulating the search results. Let me know if you get a hit. What you describe as a "wild goose chase", I managed to find the referenced article and the Op-Ed page within a minute. Pure hyperbole on your part and I would say you just don't want to put in the effort to verify.

In response to "Bring me proof that CNN has lied in reporting the facts", I never claimed that CNN lied in reporting the facts. Bad reporting extends beyond dishonesty as I already made that clear earlier in the conversation. In The Knife Media's article about Elon Musk, they mentioned how they rate each outlet:

"There are four parts to The Knife’s ratings — spin (the amount of subjective and dramatic language in an article), slant (how much an article supports a single viewpoint), logic (the amount of faulty reasoning in an article), and data (inaccuracies and missing information). Below we’ll examine how spin, slant and faulty reasoning contributed to the overall objectivity ratings for these outlets."

And you should have already known this just from reading from the other article I shared already as well as pointing to their YouTube channel. However, you seem to be more content in shooting down a strawman and argue in bad faith. Your response was ultimately well within my calculations. Anyways, let me know what you go on your CTRL + F search. If anyone else wants to verify, feel free.