They were all over the (as far as I know) totally unverified document that an intelligence agency decided to leak to Buzzfeed for some reason.
They wonder why no one trusts them anymore...
So tell me again how they lost credibility by reporting the story as it is.
The New York Times, CNN, Guardian etc all reported the verified facts. Which is that a report was produced by an ex-MI6 spy looking into allegations that Russia had amongst others compromising video involving prostitutes/golden showers and President Elect Trump. This report was obtained by John McCain and passed to the FBI for verification. They didn't publish the report. They didn't publish the allegations. The presence and gist of the report is newsworthy because the spy in question has by all accounts impeccable credentials which McCain and the CIA/FBI made statements about. That is all they reported.
BuzzFeed were the ones who decided to publish the report and all of the above organisations heavily criticised them for it afterwards questioning their ethics etc.
The report was verified to be written by the ex-MI6 spy. The claims in the report are what are yet to be verified.
That just makes it worse, doesn't it? The actual allegations are so insane it's obvious they're fake. By hiding them, they make it appear credible.
So if they do publish the report (ie, Buzzfeed) then they get blamed for publishing false news.
If they report that the report was published, they get blamed for making it appear credible
I'll also point out that if they don't report things they get accused of being involved in a cover up.
What do you propose here exactly?
With the former, we have the press doing the job of internet trolls, shoveling serious allegations with absolutely zero evidence given.
Through a political lens it makes perfect sense, it's very sad, and I can't trust anything the main stream media tells me anymore. They've lost me forever unless there's a serious 'come to jesus' moment and they confess their bias and rectify it.
...turns out it was because they were implicated in them.
Their most egregious breach of ethics to date: On October 31, 2016, the New York Times reported: "CNN has severed ties with the Democratic strategist Donna Brazile, after hacked emails from WikiLeaks showed that she shared questions for CNN-sponsored candidate events in advance with friends on Hillary Clinton's campaign." CNN said it had accepted her formal resignation on October 14, adding: "We are completely uncomfortable with what we have learned about her interactions with the Clinton campaign while she was a CNN contributor."
What exactly did CNN do wrong here ? By your definition every company that has a employee who makes an egregious mistake is corrupt.
You can't just say everyone is corrupt simply because on one specific day from one specific publication they failed to report their own corrupt behaviour.