Fact check: What are the most trusted online news sources in 2025?

1. What the surveys actually claimed — clear winners, clear losers

Two recent, independently reported surveys published in May–June 2025 identify The Weather Channel at the top of public trust rankings and the National Enquirer at the bottom, with legacy public broadcasters such as the BBC and PBS also performing strongly. The May 30, 2025 survey reported a net trust score of +49 for The Weather Channel, positioning it above major cable and network brands; the June reporting corroborated that pattern and noted a slight overall uptick in trust from 2024 to 2025. These pieces present a consistent primary finding: audiences trust outlets tied to public service, consumer utility, or perceived impartiality more than partisan or sensational outlets ^{[1] [2]}.

2. Party lenses matter — trust is not uniform across the public

The same datasets underline that trust is heavily filtered through partisan identity: Democrats report higher trust in CNN and NBC, while Republicans report higher trust in Fox News, producing polarized trust profiles across the political spectrum. Detailed interactive tracking tools allow analysts to segment trust by age, party, and media consumption habits, showing that national averages obscure these polarized subgroups. The Pew interactive tool and survey reporting highlight that who trusts a given outlet can be as important as the outlet’s overall rank, because the public’s information ecosystem is segmented, and that segmentation affects perceptions of credibility and exposure ^{[1] [3]}.

3. Methodology and framing change the story — “most trusted” depends on definitions

All headline claims rest on specific choices: which outlets were included, how “trust” was operationalized (net trust scores, likelihood to rely, or perceived accuracy), and the sampling frame. Some sources in the supplied analyses explicitly note differing approaches: one report used net trust scores, another offered interactive filters across 30 sources, while third-party raters focus on reliability and bias rather than public trust rankings. These methodological differences mean rankings are not interchangeable; a top position on a net-trust metric does not automatically translate to highest reach, nor does it reflect editorial reliability ratings from media-evaluation organizations ^{[1] [3] [4]}.

4. Independent evaluators paint a different, complementary picture

Organizations that systematically evaluate media bias and reliability — such as Ad Fontes Media and Media Bias/Fact Check — do not produce single “most trusted” lists but instead provide granular reliability and bias ratings for many outlets. These platforms are designed for educators, platforms, and consumers to assess content quality beyond popularity or public sentiment. Their value is in assessing editorial practices and evidence standards rather than recording public trust. That difference in mission explains why a channel might be widely trusted by audiences (utility, frequency of use) yet receive mixed reliability scores from evaluators focused on sourcing and fact-checking ^{[5] [4] [6]}.

5. What’s missing — reach, platform, and international nuance

The datasets supplied emphasize U.S.-centric public trust measures and focus on named outlets without fully addressing how platform (social, app, TV), international audiences, and topic area (weather vs. politics) shift trust. For example, The Weather Channel’s top ranking plausibly reflects consistent utility and daily usage rather than perceived fairness in political reporting. The provided analyses also do not supply cross-platform engagement or demographic reach data that would show whether a highly trusted outlet among one age or party group actually influences broader public opinion. These omissions mean readers should treat headline rankings as a starting point, not a definitive map of influence ^{[1] [2]}.

6. Bottom line — a nuanced takeaway for consumers and platforms

The most robust, multi-source conclusion from the supplied material is this: in 2025, utility-oriented and public-service outlets ranked highest in aggregate trust, partisan outlets remain highly trusted by their bases, and methodological choices shape every headline claiming “most trusted.” Consumers seeking trustworthy information should combine public-trust signals with independent reliability ratings, and platforms should present context about measurement methods when surfacing “most trusted” lists. The supplied sources make clear that trust is a compound phenomenon — shaped by audience identity, outlet function, and how researchers define and measure trust ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}.