CNN and ABC would have a simple way to combat it - stop lying, start telling the truth. This would, of course, work only in the long range. But they have time - four years. And it would work. Because it is not that difficult to distinguish honest attempts of neutral reports of the truth from intentional lies.
The conflict between the truth and intentional lies is not the main issue at CNN and ABC - at least, not from an outsider's perspective (if they cared about the truth, handling Trump's outright lying would only be a problem for them because of their business model, and the outsider doesn't care about their profitability).
Their central problem is their prior conversion from news to show - not truth/lies, but reality/bullshit. And the property of bullshit that makes it so dangerous is not that it's simply or directly or entirely false - it's often true or accurate, by coincidence - but that truth and falsehood are irrelevant to it. They are both irrelevant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit And so these former news organizations have lost the ability to distinguish them in practice - a professional skill, not nearly as easy as it looks.
Trump, for example, lies continually. But he also says true things, mixed in there, quite often - as is common with bullshit. And CNN, ABC, MSNBC, etc, have as much trouble with that as they do with the lying - in their show format of "both sides", that's a "side".
So it's not a matter of CNN, say, presenting honest attempts at reporting the "neutral" truth (it's not the truth that's neutral, in an honest news report). It's a matter of them learning how to do that - starting with distinguishing "neutrality" from "bothsides bullshit".
And that would mean firing most of their upper echelon punditry and management - because guys like Mathew Dowd (enforcement head of news analysis at ABC), or Chuck Todd (talking head in the bothsides crew at MSNBC) or Wolf Blitzer (feeble rider of the wind at CNN) are not going to be able change their spots on demand, not in this lifetime.
What they are doing instead is raiding Fox for high-rated female "talent" - because Fox is where you go to get the kind of expertise they are actually interested in.
Here's Dowd, devotee of Twitter (a kind of status fad being picked up by pudgy white bully and sycophant types throughout the executive world these days, for some reason), on the issues of the day:
driftglass said:
Matthew Dowd
✔@matthewjdowd
If media wants good read, shouldn't focus on Trump fans. They should focus on 25% of Trump voters who weren't for him, but against Clinton
7:57 AM - 21 Jan 2017
and an example of the kinds of consequences that such "analysis" has on the daily news:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/abc-news...tion-that-fox-news-bought-off-a-lot-of-women/