Well, I will fully admit that's not what I expected or want to see in a credible paper, but it in itself does not actually affect the credibility. It's purely a flavor and opinion piece, and is not actually stating any facts.
It does make you wonder about the credibility, but without anything concrete to point to where they were wrong, I would just hold it up as a mistake and in poor taste.
Giving credence to whether or not a black hole was the cause of MH370 disappearing (bonus points: its crazy only because 'a small black hole would suck in our entire universe', according to the expert):
Comparing CNN to the New York Times or Washington Post is ridiculous. No matter how much bias those publications might have, at least they don't have just generally -bad- reporting. I actually encourage anyone to watch an entire day of CNN to see if you can even bear it.
What I'm saying is that there's a difference between credible and good. It's entirely possible to believe CNN will deliver facts credibly but their editorializing will be crap. A source is credible when you can trust that the facts they are presenting are checked and correct, and their opinions are at least plausible. That's doesn't seem like a high standard, but unfortunately some sources are having a hard time meeting it. It's just not the major ones having that problem, as has been insinuated. I've debunked more than a few alt-right news blogs stories in the last few months, and the difference is stark. Opinions in one blog reported as fact in another. Completely reading numbers in a spreadsheet wrong when presenting a summary and assessment (that or it was purposefully misrepresented). Basic facts completely wrong.
It's fine to point out that CNN is crap, and their editorializing sucks. But let's not go so far as to say they aren't credible without real evidence, because that puts them on same field as some of these other "news" sites, and there's still a world of difference between them.
> Comparing CNN to the New York Times or Washington Post is ridiculous.
I didn't do that. Perhaps you are mixing up a different thread with this one?
> Giving credence to whether or not a black hole was the cause of MH370 disappearing
I don't think that's what they were doing. They used a rhetoric of acceptance to bring up the subject so it could be addressed. If people are bring up crap theories online, addressing them quickly and definitively in the negative is just what I think they should have done. Sure, she overreached on the black-hole thing, but I think the segment served a purpose. It just wasn't aimed at you or me.
Posted in the politics section.