You're citing an openly right wing media watchdog whose goal is to perpetuate the narrative that right wing ideas are suppressed. It calls CNN "hacks" in it's headlines. That's not a reliable source.
An academic source that can describe a pre-propoosed methodology and doesn't have the appearance of being explicitly anti-CNN.
You can't seriously think that "the only people we can believe are people who openly call CNN hacks". That's just an admission that you only believe people who agree with you.
Put another way: there was a recent article on HN about using sources who you had uncertainty about, because those sources give you the most information (in a bayesian sense, they cause you to update your priors the most). The source listed gives me no reason to update my priors, because I could predict the result from the source.