How do correction and retraction rates compare across CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News over the past five years?
Executive summary
There is no comprehensive, published dataset in the provided sources that tallies “correction and retraction rates” for CNN, MSNBC and Fox News across the past five years; available reporting instead documents individual high‑profile retractions and third‑party evaluations of accuracy and fact‑check scorecards (examples cited below) [1] [2] [3]. Reporting and academic commentary show recurring controversies and differing responses to errors — CNN has a record of on‑air retractions and internal investigations in past major episodes, while commentators and fact‑check projects report higher proportions of false or problematic claims associated with Fox programming; PolitiFact/PunditFact historical scorecards and media summaries are cited as the primary comparative sources [1] [3] [2].
1. No single public source measures “retraction rates” across networks
A direct numeric comparison of correction/retraction rates over the past five years is not present in the collected material. The search results include individual controversy timelines (e.g., CNN controversies) and analytic pieces about how networks handled specific retractions, but none publishes a five‑year table of retractions or corrections for CNN, MSNBC and Fox News that can be cited to compute rates (available sources do not mention a compiled five‑year retraction-rate dataset) [1] [4] [5].
2. What the reporting and watchdogs do provide: episodes and scorecards
Existing sources document high‑profile episodes and provide network‑level fact‑checking scorecards. CNN’s controversies page lists discrete incidents where the network retracted stories and ran internal probes (for example, the 1998 Tailwind story and the 2017 Scaramucci fund report that led to resignations) [1]. PolitiFact/PunditFact historically maintains network scorecards and has noted percentages of checked claims rated Mostly False or worse for MSNBC and other networks — these scorecards are useful for directional comparisons but are not equivalent to a count of formal retractions or corrections [3] [6].
3. Differences in how networks respond — documented contrasts
Independent retrospectives highlight different institutional responses. A Benton Institute analysis contrasted CNN’s relatively quick retraction and internal investigation in one case with Fox’s slower retraction and lack of an on‑air apology in another case, illustrating that networks differ not only in error frequency (as alleged by some studies) but in process and transparency when errors appear [7]. That qualitative difference matters for any rate comparison because a network that documents and announces corrections will by definition produce a visible record that others may lack [7].
4. Fact‑checking studies show divergence in claim accuracy, not formal retractions
Researchers and commentary cited in the results say the proportion of claims rated Mostly False or worse is substantially higher for Fox programming in some analyses — “almost 50 percent higher than for MSNBC, and more than twice that of CNN” in one summary — but such measures evaluate on‑air claims and pundit statements rather than labelling formal newsroom corrections or retractions [2]. PolitiFact/PunditFact scorecards have been used to argue CNN’s on‑air claims historically scored better in sampled checks, but these are selective checks and reflect editorial choices about what to fact‑check [3].
5. Ratings and controversies are often reported together but are distinct metrics
Multiple sources in the set focus on ratings swings in 2025 and public controversies in overlapping timelines; higher audience share is not the same as greater accuracy or fewer retractions, and none of the ratings pieces provides correction/retraction counts [8] [9] [10]. Where a controversy produces widespread attention, independent outlets and watchdogs document it [1] [7].
6. How to get the comparison you asked for — practical next steps
To produce a defensible five‑year comparison you need a defined methodology: decide whether to count formal on‑air retractions, online corrections, editor’s notes, or fact‑check rulings; then compile primary records (each network’s corrections page, press releases, archives) and independent watchdog logs (PolitiFact/PunditFact entries, Benton analyses). None of the provided sources offers that finished dataset, so the next step is targeted data collection from the networks’ own correction archives and fact‑check databases (available sources do not mention a completed five‑year comparative dataset) [1] [3] [7].
Limitations and competing viewpoints: the sources show a mix of empirical fact‑check scorecards and individual controversy narratives; scorecards sample statements and carry editorial selection bias (PolitiFact/PunditFact), while controversy timelines can overrepresent dramatic episodes. Some commentaries emphasize Fox’s higher incidence of problematic claims [2], while network responses and formal retraction notices are unevenly published, complicating any raw “rate” comparison [7] [3].