As I understand it, the sloppiness of "old media" sources is due (at least in part) to the need to compete with "new media" sources. When people started turning

As I understand it, the sloppiness of "old media" sources is due (at least in part) to the need to compete with "new media" sources. When people started turning to blogs and twitter and such sources because they were quicker to break stories and/or more entertaining, the "old media" sources had to try to break stories quicker than their processes currently did in order to catch up, which in general means less verification and proofreading and such than they used to do. So now you get things like this where Vice corrects a CNN story. This is exactly the type of correction that the old media places would do to the new media stories, and then new media (and those who looked to them for news) would just call them sore losers. Please don't mistake this one instance (or even the few instances that are probably already jumping to mind) as being indicative that CNN and its ilk are less reliable than Vice and its ilk. I'd be willing to wager that on average, the old media places are still quite a bit more reliable than the new media places. Things may indeed be changing, but I don't think we're there yet. Edit: I just wanted to say: All that said, I still don't think CNN is necessarily a good source of news. It was a lower rung even before any changes due to new media's rise.