How did CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News compare on factual reporting in recent studies?
Executive summary
Recent comparative studies and scorecards show mixed findings: fact-check tallies have at times rated large shares of claims on MSNBC as Mostly False or worse (about 44–45% in PolitiFact scorecards) while other research finds the proportion of false statements on Fox News has been substantially higher than MSNBC and CNN (Wikipedia summary citing research) [1] [2]. Audience trust and usage remain sharply polarized—YouGov finds CNN and Fox are among the most politically polarizing outlets, with Fox most trusted by Republicans and CNN/MSNBC far more trusted by Democrats [3].
1. How fact‑checking scorecards compare: headline numbers
PolitiFact’s network scorecards have repeatedly flagged substantial error rates across cable outlets: one PolitiFact summary noted roughly 45% of claims checked from NBC/MSNBC pundits were rated Mostly False, False or Pants on Fire (PolitiFact’s network files and commentary) [1]. A related PolitiFact item put MSNBC/NBC at about 44% of claims rated Mostly False or worse in an update [4]. Those figures illustrate that established fact‑checkers find frequent inaccuracies across cable news punditry, especially among commentary and opinion segments [1] [4].
2. Academic and meta‑analyses: sourcing and error patterns
Scholarly analysis of cable news sourcing and framing shows structural differences among the networks: a social‑network analysis found CNN using the smallest source network, MSNBC the largest, and Fox in the middle when covering policy debates such as the ACA and Clean Power Plan, with all three exhibiting fragmented sourcing patterns that can amplify selection bias [5]. Separate summaries of research cited on Wikipedia report that the share of Fox News statements rated “mostly false or worse” was nearly 50% higher than MSNBC and more than twice that of CNN in certain studies, indicating some research finds Fox’s factual error rate materially higher than rivals [2]. Available sources do not mention a single, definitive head‑to‑head ranking across all program types and time periods.
3. Ratings and trust: context about influence and reception
Audience size and partisan trust complicate the factual‑reporting picture. Recent ratings reporting shows Fox often leads in total viewers, with sizable month‑to‑month and year‑to‑year swings across networks; e.g., in January 2025 Fox averaged 1.92 million total‑day viewers vs. 506,000 for MSNBC and 421,000 for CNN (Deadline reporting), and other months show different margins in demos [6] [7]. YouGov polling documents a stark partisan split in trust: CNN and MSNBC are far more trusted by Democrats, Fox by Republicans, and net trust moved among Republicans in 2025 [3]. High viewership or trust does not equate to accuracy; it affects reach and political impact [6] [3].
4. What these measures do—and don’t—capture
Fact‑check scorecards (PolitiFact) focus largely on discrete claims made by pundits or on‑air personalities and therefore measure veracity of assertions, not broader news‑gathering practices [1] [4]. Academic SNA studies examine sourcing diversity, which affects balance and selection bias but is not a direct accuracy metric [5]. Wikipedia’s synthesis cites research comparisons but aggregates varied studies and methodologies; it should be treated as a secondary summary rather than a single study [2]. Available sources do not mention a unified methodology that simultaneously measures sourcing breadth, factual claim accuracy, and audience effects across the three networks.
5. Competing viewpoints and implicit agendas
Independent fact‑checkers and academics present competing emphases: PolitiFact quantifies claim accuracy; SNA scholars emphasize structural sourcing; other commentators point to partisan trust and ratings as political influence metrics [1] [5] [3]. Wikipedia’s section on controversies highlights research conclusions that can be framed as critical of Fox News; Fox and pro‑network outlets frame ratings gains and reach as validation—ratings press releases emphasize audience leadership but do not address accuracy [2] [8]. Each source carries implicit agendas: fact‑checkers aim to hold claims to evidence, academic studies test structures, and industry releases stress performance.
6. Bottom line for readers
Multiple sources indicate factual problems across cable news opinion ecosystems, with PolitiFact documenting high rates of Mostly False-or‑worse findings for MSNBC/NBC pundits in its checks and other research summarized as finding higher false‑statement rates at Fox relative to MSNBC and CNN [1] [4] [2]. Sourcing studies show structural differences that can create selection bias and fragmentation [5]. Polling shows partisanship heavily conditions trust and reach [3]. No single provided source offers a definitive, methodology‑uniform ranking; readers should weigh claim‑level fact‑checks, sourcing studies, and audience dynamics together when judging “factual reporting.”