I assume this is a joke? These are two news companies famous for people not believing anything they say.

I believe they are famous for not being believed by the other side's partisans.

I.e. US republicans most often won't believe CNN and US democrats most often won't believe Fox.

The point here is, there are plenty of topics on which CNN and Fox coverage is very very similar: off the top of my head events in Israel and Taiwan

And on those topics, plenty of people just "trust the consensus" (or what appears to be the consensus, in western media)

https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/out-of-bounds-how-media...

Non-Americans should not, and usually do not believe either. It's funny when Republicans/Democrats treat either as reputable.

They're politicking 101 made into 24/7 news media panic.

They're both charlatans and peddlers of lies and cheap tricks; they engage in propaganda and employ journalists who seem to believe that they're anything other than foot soldiers to stir up the masses against XYZ.

Everyone knows Fox News is trash, it's laughable when some continue to argue that CNN isn't.

Where XYZ can be anything, depending on which way the wind is blowing, sometimes it's each other, sometimes it's internal to the US, sometimes it's external

They're both plain ragebait. I wouldn't even take their world news seriously, mainly cause it's low quality. We have better options for mainstream news here, even though it's also under control.

> I assume this is a joke?

There's no need to be condescending.

Pointing the finger at another is often not a very compelling argument.

what I'm saying is that there are very few sources that don't publish lies or have bents, so we have to do with what we have. Use many sources and triangulate. Some sources are more believable in some areas, less believable in other areas. Some contributors are more believable/truthful than others. It's not all on or off.

Of course. Why you would read any source which was caught lying?

Yes, that's exactly how I treat them.