Talk:MSNBC

Liberal Bias

I agree it is absurd that FOX News's page (as well as CNN's page which took a while to get passed) continues to point out the "bias" of the network, yet a network that is by far the most bias (MSNBC) can go by without anything. Its ridiculous. You would think Wikipedia wouldn't be as effected by political agendas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.126.77.23 (talk) 04:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You do realize there is a rather large and informative section at the end of the article titled 'Allegations of political bias', right? NcSchu_(Talk) 14:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree NcSchu that is great. But the point they are trying to make is that FOX News (and CNN) have a sentence in the OPENING PARAGRAPHS that usually say something like "critics have said x has a y bias, to which x has feverishly denied.". MSNBC faces the same criticisms so why are they without that sentence. If not MSNBC then why for CNN and FOX News? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MASTERuser (talk • contribs) 02:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems here there's criticism on both sides of the political spectrum that result in no actual conclusion of its overwhelming bias. The criticism of Fox News is almost all based on it having a 'conservative bias', therefore it seems appropriate to reach that conclusion in the opening. CNN doesn't have that kind of conclusion in the opening paragraph for what I believe to be the same reason—that the criticism of is split. CNN also seems to have a lot of other allegations of bias that are more than just political affiliation. Each case is independent so I don't think it's right to compare the situations. NcSchu_(Talk) 13:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I added an NPOV statement to lead section, modeled after Fox News article. With bias charges being thrown around from inside MSNBC itself in addition to recent and ongoing analysis by multiple news sources, I believe the article now warrants the statement. --Textmatters (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The point of a lead is to summarize and introduce the article, not to be a news medium. The statement you added in no way was an accurate summary of the criticism section. NcSchu_(Talk) 19:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't really want to put a bee in your bonnet, but you're going to have to address this sooner or later. I read the criticism section and the only assertions of conservative bias are coming from two self-professed liberal/progressive organizations. I think it unseemly that such POV cites can be used to imply an "equality" of bias claims. Consensus in commentary seems to agree. Do with it what you will, but the reason you stated above for why such a statement belongs in the Fox News article is that the perceived bias is "overwhelmingly" conservative. With both the "Liberal Bias" section and the "Obama Bias" section pointing out bias in favor of the more Liberal candidates, and the "Conservative Bias" section citing only Liberal/Progressive sources, I think the argument for inclusion of the NPOV statement has been reinforced rather than refuted. I guess the only question that remains is what is threshold that would create the consensus that MSNBC leans left? Most people seem to be there. --Textmatters (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you happen to see the rest of the talk page that deals with this section!? I think we're trying to address it, so it didn't really help that you ignored current discussions to put this in. We can't just pretend the section doesn't exist; despite their biases they made the criticisms repeatedly and they're recognized as doing so. The Obama section is all in regards to the primary, and it's your opinion whether Obama is more liberal than Clinton. There are plenty of biased people and organizations making the criticisms in each of the sections. If you disagree with the criticisms that specific ones make then too bad. We give all complaints recognition if we include them, and the current consensus is to include them. NcSchu_(Talk) 21:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I did in fact read the entire page. Pull out the references by MMfA, MRC and FAIR. This would seem to match the consensus between you and Squicks (no reason for this article to further the citation of obviously biased sources just because other articles do). It would also accurately reflect the current state of affairs, which has multiple MSM organizations reporting the appearance of conservative bias, with no unbiased sources asserting liberal bias, at least none that have cites. The Obama section is more problematic. Certainly bias has been alleged and reported, although the only cites in the section are from Clinton campaign members or Clinton supporters. (The weasely worded first sentence is currently unsupported, and should be removed). I still believe an NPOV statement in the lead modeled after the one in the Fox News article is warranted, but I will drop that request. I would guess that events will overtake your opinion and mine on that matter. Furthermore, I appreciate the obvious time that you have put into this article amid much contention. Removal of the above mentioned cites will go a long way toward improving the NPOV of the article. --Textmatters (talk) 23:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A quote from the McCain campaign complaining of a liberal bias or the Clinton campaign complaining of an Obama bias is just as irrelevant, IMO, as one from a biased 'progressive' or 'conservative' watchdog group. They both have obvious agendas that focus them looking for biases when there may or may not be one. Either way I think it's wrong to give credence to their paranoia, however since we include them I don't like ignoring their inclusion in the article. I wouldn't call two people a consensus, but yes, we seem to both dislike these organizations. NcSchu_(Talk) 04:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, you don't have to convince me; I'd pull all those references out. What that would leave though is 3 well referenced cites of perceived liberal bias from presumed NPOV sources (NYT, WASH POST and MSNBC itself), no cites of Obama bias and no cites of conservative bias. Not to be pedantic(well, maybe!), but that kinda puts us back to the beginning. Let those who can find NPOV references of conservative and Obama bias find and cite them. Cheers! --Textmatters (talk) 04:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I'd be OK with having that statement in, though perhaps a bit less of a robotic copy of the one on FNC. Perhaps we should wait a few days for other editors to voice their opinion before removing this much text from the sections, however? NcSchu_(Talk) 14:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. I'll leave it for a few days. Do you have a statement you feel apt?--Textmatters (talk) 21:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps something along the lines of, "MSNBC has been criticized of and observed as moving increasingly liberal, especially in its prime time lineup." I know it's not drastically different, but I don't really like the wording of the FNC statement. Since they're obviously independent articles there's no need to keep them at all the same. I think it generally summarizes a bulk, if not all, of the criticisms, as they tend to point to that 5pm-10pm EST lineup as being on the left. NcSchu_(Talk) 00:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

NcShu, I can support that statement just as you have written it.--Textmatters (talk) 23:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

As a veteran of the FNC page, but being really uninvolved with the issue here, is there any way to clean up the "criticized of and observed" language? It does not seem very clear as is. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't really like that phrase either, but it seems to summarize the section. They're either criticisms from certain people or organizations regarding a bias or observations by an organization. NcSchu_(Talk) 19:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

How 'bout "MSNBC has been observed by some and criticized by others for seemingly moving increasingly liberal, especially in its prime time lineup"? Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't like the 'seemingly moving increasingly'—too many -ings. NcSchu_(Talk) 20:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't catch that. It was originally "its apparent advocacy of liberal positions" but I changed it because I wanted to keep more of your language, and apparent can be misunderstood to mean "obvious" when I'm trying to saying seeming. I guess my major problem is with of. It just doesn't seem like the right word, perhaps "for" would be more appropriate. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...it's definitely 'advocate of'. What about: "MSNBC's prime time lineup has been observed as and criticized for increasingly advocating liberal principles."? NcSchu_(Talk) 21:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Bingo! That's it. If no objections, I think that would work. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

MSNBC shows aren't that academic. I could see the magazine The Nation being described as "advocating liberal principles", but MSNBC's prime time lineup just features opinionated commentators who are critical of conservative American politicians. For example, Keith Olbermann is more often highlighting the hypocrisy and buffoonary of Republicans rather than say, skewering Ayn Rand. Switzpaw (talk) 00:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree; I mean, I don't think it's surprising that they inject their own political views...that's the whole point in the shows. But I guess some editors want the fact that MSNBC doesn't seem to be balancing out or trying to balance out the amount of commentators with a conservative bias with those with a liberal bias. It's probably for ratings reasons (their ratings have been skyrocketing since Olbermann and now Maddows have become more pointed), but it's true. It's also probably relevant via the NYT article that describes MSNBC's desire to become the anti-Fox News. NcSchu_(Talk) 01:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm ok with that phrasing. Perhaps someone will be able to improve it, but as stated it conveys both notability and accuracy, and that works for me. --Textmatters (talk) 23:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to piss on the parade here, but I think there's a big distinction between "principles", "policies", and "bias" -- all three seem to have been used interchangeably in this discussion, but each is a distinct concept. What exactly do the sources say with regards to all of this? /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The sources only say 'liberal' because in common U.S. parlance, that is an umbrella term for principles, policies and bias. However in an attempt to not write from an American-centric view I used principles because that would encompass liberal policies, and imply bias. I don't have a problem with just using liberal if that is where consensus goes. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Eh, you take the MRC, MMfA, and FAIR positions and chuck them, as MRC is of course a conservative organization and MMfA and FAIR are of course liberal organizations (so their positions are rather predictable), and you are left with the NYT, Washington Post and NBC News head all asserting, opining, or arguing (take your pick of the word you like best) that MSNBC has become increasingly biased in their treatment of news stories. Add in the notable removal of Olbermann and Matthews from the political anchor desk and the volume of stories in multiple AP and Reuters news service asking the question of whether MSNBC is skewing left and you get a group of editors trying to develop an appropriate statement for the lede section...and any suggestion you have would also be appreciated.--Textmatters (talk) 00:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The Who? What? When? Where? How?'s are important here. There's the perception that the network is biased because Keith Olbermann and now Rachel Maddow have prime time slots. And to another extent, there's the perception that opinion is creeping into what is supposed to be non-biased journalism (the news that isn't part of those programs). In the 9/7/08 NYT article MSNBC Takes Incendiary Hosts From Anchor Seat there's this quote: NBC Universal executives are also known to be concerned about the perception that MSNBC’s partisan tilt in prime time is bleeding into the rest of the programming day. On a recent Friday afternoon, a graphic labeled “Breaking News” asked: “How many houses does Palin add to the Republican ticket?” Mr. Griffin called the graphic “an embarrassment.” To me, it seems like most sources acknowledge that prime-time is 'liberal' and that NBC execs believed that allowing Olbermann and Matthews to anchor the election news coverage brought out some slanted commentary, but it would be unfair to make too many sweeping generalizations on the network as a whole based on that. Unless you're reading something I'm not. Switzpaw (talk) 01:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion for a summarization in the lead, based on the source I just mentioned, would be: "MSNBC has been observed as and criticized for featuring commentary from a liberal point of view during its prime time hours." I think it may also be notable to say something like "During the 2008 election season, fears have mounted among NBC executives that its election news coverage has become too opinionated." but I'm not liking that phrasing exactly. Switzpaw (talk) 02:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we need something a little different from "observed and criticized for featuring...". That is true, but to some extent ALL the cable news channels "feature" commentary from a liberal point of view. Frankly, if we don't think a straight copy of the tone of the Fox News lead is approprpriate, I like NuSchu's original phrasing: "MSNBC has been criticized of and observed as moving increasingly liberal, especially in its prime time lineup." I think that correctly states the perception of observers and the reality of the critic's statements.--Textmatters (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I can respect the original phrasing. It's a bit vague, but it's notable, backed up by sources, and the reader can read the "Accusations of Bias" section for more details. Switzpaw (talk) 21:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

After re-reading I think I should clarify...when I wrote that all news channels "feature" commentary from a liberal point of view I should have said that all news channels also "feature" commentary from a conservative point of view as well. When William Bennett is on an MSNBC panel and is asked a question, he is "featured", and his answer is conservative commentary. When Terry McAuliff is on "Hannity and Colmes" and he speaks, he is providing liberal commentary. The lead needs something less "wishy-washy", and as I said, I would still get on board with NuSchu's original. As a reader, I felt it immediately cut to the heart of the matter.--Textmatters (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Can someone clarify what they mean when they say Nschu's original version. If this is what you are referring to -- MSNBC has been criticized of and observed as moving increasingly liberal, especially in its prime time lineup.-- it should be noted that the bold language does not seem to be proper grammar. I'm assuming it should be ...criticized for and observed... in which case I'd support it as well, with the caveat that the term liberal by itself may be a little too U.S. centric. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I was actually wondering about that...I guess that's why I'm not an English major. NcSchu_(Talk) 22:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"Criticized for, and observed as..." is better. I'm ok with "liberal", but "left" works as a direct substitution both grammatically and descriptively.--Textmatters (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Left is sort of a slang, IMO. Also, can you use colons (:) when replying to people? Thanks. NcSchu_(Talk) 00:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Not a reply to any specific individual :), but are we clean on this yet? Or shall we still let it settle for the weekend? Ramsquire (I guess this is specific), is the use of the word "liberal" a stumbling block? I suggested "left" as a direct substitution, but didn't get any perceptible traction. Do you have a different suggestion in place of "liberal" in the proposed statement?--Textmatters (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

If everyone is cool with "liberal" I won't stop progress. But i think it would be better if we are more precise and less U.S. centric, by describing exactly what we are talking about, e.g. "liberal political positions", "liberal principles", etc. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

'Liberal political positions' is a nice phrase. I like it. NcSchu_(Talk) 19:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thoughts

If we are going to disregard FAIR and Media Matters as sources, doesn't that mean the wholesale deletion of the 'conservative bias' section? As for the 'liberal bias' section, Men's Journal-- which is not an ideological source like FAIR-- reports the Olbermann has said about the network that "I'd like it to be the accurate counterweight to Fox. My attitude is not to counterbalance them because they're conservatives; it's counterbalancing because some of their stuff is outlandishly in violation of every tenet of responsible broadcasting". They've also said that he runs the network. Given that, again- as reported by fair non-ideological sources, Olbermann has been embroiled in controversy after the DNC thing: Isn't this worth keeping? When it comes to the Obama bias section, the comments by a notable Barack Obama supporting magazine seem worth keeping. The fact that Chris Matthews claims MSNBC unofficially supports Barack Obama is also definitely worth keeping.

As for the complaints from the Hillary and McCain campaigns, I'm conflicted. It's at least far more notable than the FAIR, MRC, and MM stuff. I'm inclined to leave it in. The Squicks (talk) 05:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused as how we are allowing the "conservative" bias section to be included into this article. It is my current understanding that we are accepting one-liners from self-professed liberal organizations that don't see MSNBC as being "left-enough" given the content. We have given so much attention to the sources of conflicting sources, I think it's a bit hypocritical to accept these. Now, if there are complaints from the campaigns themselves, I think that is worth noting in an objective manner. Wikiport (talk) 09:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Read the section: yes by removing FAIR, Media Matters, etc. the conservative section would be dead. I don't see the point in having political campaigns quoted as sources; it's pretty obvious that they're going to try to cry 'bias' when they don't like the coverage about them, it's also pretty obvious as to which way they'll accuse the network of being biased. No political organization has probably ever accused a network of being biased in favor of them so the comments have to relevance. NcSchu_(Talk) 11:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No article on MSNBC is even close to being complete without a fair discussion of MSNBC's fairly dramatic change from an essentially neutral cable news channel to a clearly Left-tilting channel.

how come the fox news article claims fox has right leaning bias but msnbc does not have left leaning bias ? either this article should say msnbc is left leaning or they should remove the accusation of fox news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.80.96.75 (talk) 03:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the first part of your comment, the discussion is addressed in the Allegations_of_political_bias section of the MSNBC article. Regarding the second part of your comment, there is discussion above that discusses possibly updating the lead with a focus on bias with respect to the channel's prime time lineup, which has garnered media coverage. Whether or not the weight of that bias is on par with Fox News, I'm not sure. I've read (and also personally believed) allegations of Fox News bias for years -- probably since year 2000. MSNBC is a different beast, and we should consider how the sources are alleging bias. Is it the prime time lineup? Is it all of their reporting? Are reporters receiving memos from MSNBC execs telling them to steer their reporting to the left? I think the sources are only alleging the prime time lineup is biased, so the next logical question is: does that warrant a sentence in the lead, and if so, how do we write it? That's what the above discussion is about. Switzpaw (talk) 04:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

BIAS -

I've tried to eliminate more some of the bias in this article. Someone from Fox news has too much time on their hands... I've changed the fact that all the titles are followed by the work 'issues' e.g. 'ratings issues' and 'bias issues' Square126 (talk) 13:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

How can anyone claim there is a "conservative bias" at MSNBC. Whoever thinks that needs a head examination. They are witout equal when it come to liberal bias. And they cite two titans of objectivity in furthering this accusation: FAIR and Media Matters. Pathetic. This section should be removed, imo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.59.122 (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That is a bad assumption to make. Furthermore, some of your edits do not seem logical. KO is not a conservative. JS did not post a YouTube Video, his show was YouTubed. Discuss your concerns and we can fix them. Arzel (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Whatever they are smoking I want some because saying MSNBC is conservative is crazy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedarpointohio2 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Bloomberg crawl

"MSNBC is the only news network to keep the "crawl" on the bottom on the screen during commercial breaks. CNBC keeps their crawl, but they are considered a business network."

Bloomberg has the video box in a frame with three crawls and three data boxes. If you mention CNBC, you should mention Bloomberg TV. Also, both CNBC and Bloomberg are 'news networks' or 'business news networks' not 'business networks'. 202.82.171.186 02:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Logo

Please stop reverting the logo guys lets keep the new one and hopefully someone will SVG it. However until then keep the new one as it is used on air more now, and only one person keeps reverting it and is approaching the 3RR. - Mike Beckham 00:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Same logo

Can someone please explain the difference to me between the so-called 'April 2007-November 2007' online logo and the 'November 2007-Present' online logo? They look identical except for the background, which is by no means part of the actual logo. The images, on the other hand, are both copyright violations since whoever put them there obviously just ripped them off the website. I was going to replace both sections with one section and replace the logo with the SVG logo I created, however I'd probably be reverted again...thoughts? NcSchu_(Talk) 02:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree, apparently the only difference in the two is the background. I'd stick with the first one (blue background) and not even mention the "renovation" of msnbc.com. I would, however, keep it distinct, as the web logo is in a different font as the network logo. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Headline text

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events Current events not 24hr news?

MSNBC stops broadcasting news by 10pm and movies to stock documentaries from their vast archives, as well 2hours of repeat runs of Tucker Carlson and hardball till six. so how are they a 24hr news channel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.133.248 (talk • contribs)

FOX News Channel goes to tape at 11 until 6 as well. It's still news 24/7, no dramas etc... - Mike Beckham 05:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

As there are only 3 U.S cable new networks, can we change third to last? Giza D 19:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Uhhhhh, No, there is MSNBC, CNBC, Headlines News, CNN, Fox News Channel, BBC World News, etc et al.

Supreme left-wing bias

This article does not do much to express the true nature of the true nature of the extreme liberal bias on this network. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ohshorse (talk • contribs) 14:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

To put it in better words, this article was extremely biased in its prevelence of promoting Media Matters. MMFA and MRC should be equally mentioned in terms of criticism, and this was not the case - it was almost as if MMFA members deliberately came onto WP to distort articles regularly. Yes, this is the case - and yes, we should look out for it. Let's remind those users with bad faith of policy and be vigilant. Take no bias, report facts - assert nothing. --75.21.179.121 22:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, to say that MSNBC has a true network of reporters is incorrect. Second of all, to think that these media companies are working for the left or right wing politics is to truly misunderstand the state of our media and country.Slipgrid 19:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Slipgrid. I have watched all the major networks for quite a long time now and the only "bias" that seems to be evident is the bias toward sensationalism and possibly FoxNews' bias toward conservatism that stems from their special focus on addressing this make-believe bias. Wait for any major news event and flip back and forth between MSNBC, CNN, and FoxNews and the headlines will all be sensationalist and the news reports will all be sensationalist. They care more about hype than which side of this make-believe aisle they land on. JHMM13 15:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Please remember to keep opinions to yourself abide by WP:NPOV. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views, this talk page is to talk about the article and not the content of MSNBC and your views of it WP:TPG. - Mike Beckham 00:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

What is implied by the word "supreme" in this subsection? Would another word be better?

Addressing Controversy on Wikipedia

This article does not sufficiently address the controversy surrounding the firing of Don Imus. Among issues that should be addressed: the potential risk to free speech by pressure group tactics, the cynical misuse of an historically effective means for achieving civil rights, the fluid definition of hate speech which makes it difficult to determine the relationship of language to intent... for example is an attempt at caustic humor hate speech when Imus uses it? Is that same content hate speech when a rapper uses it to assert ego? Is the pervasive influence of hiphop culture on speech patterns in this country an issue to be addressed in the controversy? Should, as the above poster suggests, entries only report facts without addressing the nature and context of a controversy? Or should it, rather, present as many sides of an issue as possible so that readers will be able to understand a complex situation.

Scheduling and WP:NOT

In editing the Fox News Channel article in October 2006, a discussion started on determining whether a schedule should be placed on a television channel's page due to guidelines set by WP:NOT. The discussion ended with the editing of the removal of the times/schedule of the network on the network's page, leaving a list of programming without any mention of a schedule. I will concede, the discussion was between a smaller group of Wikipedians, but does anyone agree with this determination or should the schedule be left on a network page? Chris (Talk) (Contribs) 23:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant

"MSNBC has received criticism for its programming and journalistic ethics. Media Matters for America, a liberal group, has stated that MSNBC carries a conservative bias, meanwhile a conservative media watchdog group, Media Research Center, has argued that MSNBC has a liberal slant. Media Matters claims that shows such as Tucker, Scarborough Country, and Hardball show a conservative bias."

The world we live in, ladies in gentlemen. You cannot please everyone. 70.121.163.99 18:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I just want to put this out there, and I know I'm not the only person to think/say this, but I feel that the article, in its tone and its content, is far from neutral. allegations of liberal/conservative bias aside, it opens with comments on how bad the ratings are. Maybe it could be flagged? 71.232.226.76 (talk) 06:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Uhmmmmm... Bias Anyone?

Isn't this just a little bit biased?

"The network has the lowest ratings of the three major U.S. news channels."

Sounds like someone at Fox was here editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.67.30 (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Really look at the facts because they really do have some of the worst ratings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedarpointohio2 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Bias Removed regarding ratings...

There was no source for the accusations and therefore I removed it. I think FOX News Employees should refrain from editing here.

Nice try though.

-Chuck —Preceding unsigned comment added by K8cpa (talk • contribs) 18:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The network is third in ratings. http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/06/20/cable-news-ratings-for-thursday-june-19/4191 —Preceding unsigned comment added by MASTERuser (talk • contribs) 01:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of Bias: Department of Justice story

I've removed the following paragraph from the article: "Adding fuel to the fire of perceptions of a liberal political bias, in December 2007, the network ran a series titled Bush League Justice with the explicit purpose of attacking the U.S. Justice Department under the presidency of George W. Bush."

Not only is the tone inappropriately hyperbolic and POV, but its completely irrelevant. Similar criticism of the Department of Justice is widespread and hardly "proof" of the network's alleged liberal bias.

In addition to the above noted removal, I've also toned down some other outrageous POV problems the section had.-Hal Raglan (talk) 14:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've once again removed the paragraph from the article. In addition to the reason cited above, even if the material was relevant, there are major sourcing problems. Nothing in the provided source indicates that MSNBC ran the series "with the explicit purpose" of "attacking" Bush's DOJ. Unless there is a citation to internal network memos, or an interview with an MSNBC insider, acknowledging that the series was created solely to attack the DOJ and, by extension, President Bush, this material doesn't belong in a section devoted to alleged "liberal bias".-Hal Raglan (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed

Availability In the United Kingdom

Recently a Test Card (Colored Bars) has appeared on Eurobird 1 at 11307Ghz Vertical 27500 2/3. This is not the full channel, but instead a test channel for the new BET UK. But the audiofeed of MSNBC US can be heard on the feed. The channel can be accessed via Sky using the other channels feature, where its channel ID is 53370

This sounds like, "Hey, I was fiddling with my television the other day, and guess what I found?" It's clearly just someone's personal discovery, and therefore not verifiable from published sources, which should be a requirement for any addition to a Wikipedia article. -- Oliver P. (talk) 00:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

There are 16 pictures in this article, many of which are non-descript and don't flow with the section, I suggest than most of them be removed. Arzel (talk) 03:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that too. ---Ransom (--208.25.0.2 (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC))

Virginia Tech

I've removed, for now, the following completely unsourced paragraph:

In April 2007, NBC News and MSNBC received heavy criticism for airing pictures and videos sent to them by Cho Seung-Hui, the man who killed 32 people at Virginia Tech. By the next day, NBC news decided against airing the video and pictures sent by Seung-Hui.

--Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is this continually deleted?

It has been referenced time and time again that MSNBC has been poor in the ratings when compared with CNN and especially FNC head-to-head, and even its own article explains how its ratings have been terrible. With that said, why are we not allowed to mention them as the third rated network (which they are, and I can reference that) and FNC and CNN have their ratings (1st and 2nd respectively in overall viewers) in the opening paragraphs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MASTERuser (talk • contribs) 02:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

NYT says that MSNBC leans one way -- Why must this article be whitewashed?

If NYT is not saying that MSNBC leans one way, than what on earth could they possibly be saying? Even Keith Olbermann admits as such according the article: "“If you go into a burger place, and you go in there for the fish, you might want the fish occasionally but it’s probably a mistake,” he said. “Could you be utterly different politically and succeed in this format? You’d basically be throwing your audience away.”" The Squicks (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

We can't take statements out of context and present them as factual conclusions. One of the statements I removed in the article was about a proposed show that never aired, the other was about a denial from MSNBC executives. Using the article as a source is fine, cherry picking quotes and presenting them to push a particular argument is not. Gamaliel (talk) 23:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You can label me a troll and accuse me of whatever you want. I honestly don't care.

I just want to see something from that article quoted in this Wikipedia page. The general point of the article, the context of it, is that MSNBC is slanted. Any quote from the article except for the company's President's denial would follow this context. If you think that the quote Having a prime-time lineup that tilts ever more demonstrably to the left could be risky for General Electric, MSNBC’s parent company, which is subject to legislation and regulation far afield of the cable landscape. Officials at MSNBC emphasize that they never set out to create a liberal version of Fox News is inappropriate, than maybe the article can mention Olbermann's fish quote or anything else from the article. The Squicks (talk) 03:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Your suggested quote is original research. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not following you. OR is, by definition, putting my own personal ideas into the article. And I am obviously not doing that. I'm neutrally citing what a reliable news organization has said.

If you are accusing NYT of lying or of something else, than I respect your opinion. But my and your's opinion of the NYT as a paper is irrelevant.

If you're referring to WP:SYN, than I do see your point. You're worried that taking several quotes and mashing them together presents a problem. But the thing is: All we have from the article is MSNBC's response, which is ludicrous to put in the article just on its own without referring at all to the questions that they were asked! It's like listening to just one side of a telephone call. So, again, I'm asking you: Which quotes from the NYT article can I cite in this article? The Squicks (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

None -- as Gamaliel pointed out, you can't cherry pick quotes to spin an issue. One, it's an editorial opinion, not a news fact. Two, you've recognized the violation of WP:SYN, which is itself a subset of WP:OR. Three, the editorial opinion of one writer does not rise to due weight. Please check out Fox News Channel for an example of reliable academic sources that are acceptable within this topic. Thanks. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Please actually read the sources cited in this article before commenting on the talk page.

This is not an opinion article. It is a news article by a staff reporter.

If you believe that The New York Times is not a reliable source, than you have a right to your opinion. I respect that. But take it up at other Wikipedia pages and not here. The Squicks (talk) 19:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, this article as it stands now is--- by definition--- cherry picking. It includes the MSNBC head's response to several questions, questions that this article does not even bother to describe. This is, at the very least, unhelpful to the readers. The Squicks (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the objections to the material. You are ripping these quotes free of their context. The first troublesome one is in relation to a show featuring Rosie O'Donnell which never aired, the second is a clear denial from MSNBC execs. You are presenting them as if they had no context and are blanket statements about the channel itself. If you want to put in a hundred quotes from people calling this channel liberal, I don't care, but you can't do it like this and have the quotes saying things they were never intended to say. Gamaliel (talk) 13:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to me to be saying something along the lines of "The article said that MSNBC would be biased if and only if they adopted Rosie's show. Since they didn't, this article can't be quoted from." Please re-read the article. This is not a biblical script or something that there can be dozens of equally likely interpretations of. The context of it is clearly that MSNBC is biased and that getting a Rosie-based show would make it more biased.

The article says: The one early-evening program on MSNBC that is often most sympathetic to the administration, “Tucker” with Tucker Carlson at 6 p.m., is in real danger of being canceled, said one NBC executive, who, like those who spoke of Ms. O’Donnell, would do so only on condition of anonymity. Having a prime-time lineup that tilts ever more demonstrably to the left could be risky for General Electric, MSNBC’s parent company, which is subject to legislation and regulation far afield of the cable landscape. Officials at MSNBC emphasize that they never set out to create a liberal version of Fox News.

It also says: Mr. Olbermann acknowledged that for MSNBC’s nighttime lineup to ultimately work, viewers needed to be able to follow at least some common themes from one show to another. He likened himself and his fellow hosts, collectively, to the menu of a hamburger restaurant with several variations of the same dish. “If you go into a burger place, and you go in there for the fish, you might want the fish occasionally but it’s probably a mistake,” he said. “Could you be utterly different politically and succeed in this format? You’d basically be throwing your audience away.”

Suppose Chris Wallace over at Fox News had been quoted as saying that having different programming on the network would "politically... basically be throwing your audience away”-- what do you think the editors over there would do? Take a guess :-) The Squicks (talk) 19:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. It's my understanding that posting two paragraphs or less from an article is not a copyright violation. I'm sorry if I misinterpreted that. The Squicks (talk) 19:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Complaint by McCain Campaign

Actually, Blaxthos should be the one bringing this to talk before deleting article copy. I have no particular preference as to how the McCain campaign complaint is presented in the article and putting it in a window box probably wasn't the best way to do it. Just as long as it's in there. Claiming undue weight in this instance is absurd. A letter of complaint lodged by a presidential candidate's campaign staff is obviously relevant. The only folks exerting undue in this matter are Blaxthos and his fellow "let's make it as difficult as possible for right-wingers" cohorts. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I notice that the "Accusations of conservative bias" section of the article includes information about Alan Keyes's short-lived program on MSNBC. How long ago was that? And that information wouldn't be undue weight? Badmintonhist (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Dealing only with the substance of your argument, and ignoring the personal attacks and ose: A single letter from a political candidate is not de facto evidence of systemic bias. Presenting it as such is both misleading and presents the candidate's opinion with too much weight. I would suggest looking for some academic sources, preferably peer-reviewed academic journals, and see if there are any that deal with the reporting by MSNBC. If there are multiple reliable sources that indicate bias (as there are for Fox News Channel), then it is appropriate to mention them in context in the MSNBC article. However, listing a complaint by a politician hardly qualifies as objective or suitable as a reliable source when dealing with this issue. Hope this helps. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

An entire paragraph on the McCain campaign concern trolling that takes up a third of the subsection is undue weight. A passing mention of Keyes in a large paragraph is not undue weight. Gamaliel (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The article section, and I really shouldn't have to point this out, is on allegations of bias. It doesn't have to prove bias. It has to prove that allegations of bias have been made. Cut the peer review nonsense. What academic journal does Eddie Rendell write for? What peer reviewed sources are actually in any of this article? To add a just a bit more WP:OSE to the proceedings, I'm 58 and I was a public school teacher for 33 years. Do you really think that I don't know what's going on here? Badmintonhist (talk) 19:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Your previous career is not relevant to this discussion. I think we can mention this, but the source is rather vague on what the meeting is actually for beyond 'concerns of non-partisanship'. It all sounds kind of ridiculous. NcSchu_(Talk) 19:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

In all due respect NcSchu, you're missing the nub of the controversy. Whether or not The McCain camp and NBC news chieftains meet or resolve anything is not the issue. For the purpose of this article, the McCain camp has accused MSNBC of bias; to wit, "We are concerned that your (NBC's) News Division is following MSNBC's lead in abandoning non-partisan coverage of the Presidential race. It is the mere mention of this complaint in the Wikipedia MSNBC article that certain editors have been deleting. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, I agree, which is exactly why I wrote, 'I think we can mention this'. My issue was with how you added a lot of stuff that was entirely not included in the source... NcSchu_(Talk) 01:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

As NcSchu stated, it all sounds kind of ridiculous. Sorry to abandon the ship, but at this point it appears this is more agenda oriented than it is an encyclopedic concern. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Dare I think that we may be reaching an accommodation here if not an agreement? How about something like this right after Ed Rendell's comments in the Obama bias subsection?

The Presidential campaign of Senator John McCain, Senator Obama's presumptive Republican opponent, seems to have picked up on Rendell's theme. In an August 17, 2008 letter to NBC News President Steve Capus, McCain's campaign manager Rick Davis alleged that MSNBC had "abandon(ed) non-partisan coverage of the Presidential race." Badmintonhist (talk) 03:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I made that section for primary bias, and let me remind you, there's nothing in that statement that specifies what kind of bias they're talking about. It could be specific, it could be vague. NcSchu_(Talk) 03:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I used the word "seems," but, frankly, logically, at this point in the election process the only kind of bias that the McCain camp is concerned with is pro-Obama bias. They aren't going to be complaining about MSNBC's Olympic coverage's bias against synchronized swimming. Badmintonhist (talk) 03:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, I have read people accusing MSNBC of being biased on those things. I'll spare you of the details :-)

The McCain statement seems to yours truly to be accusing the network of both anti-McCain and pro-Obama bias rather than just solely pro-Obama bias. The whole Cone-of-silence-gate event was not sponsored by Obama. I've yet to see Obama himself ever attack McCain about it, I've only seen heresy reports from Obama supporters.

Anyways, the allegation about McCain was made before more clearly:

"It's an organ of the Democratic National Committee," says Steve Schmidt, a senior strategist for John McCain's campaign. "It's a partisan advocacy organization that exists for the purpose of attacking John McCain." -- The Washington Post The Squicks (talk) 04:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, and of course Olbermann, in particular, is virulently and vituperatively anti-McCain. In the zero sum game of Presidential elections, however, being pro one candidate is very closely related to being anti the other. Whether the emphasis is on the allegedly anti-McCain or the allegedly pro-Obama nature of MSNBC's news coverage, the McCain camp's basic complaint about MSNBC should at least be mentioned in article and I'd be perfectly amenable to you giving it another try. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but one politician complaining about a news network doesn't meet due weight. For an example of properly sourced, academically peer-reviewed allegations of bias, check out Fox News Channel. You'll have to present a little better sourcing than a politician, who obviously isn't objective regarding the subject matter. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems more like a complaint letter to NBC about the comments of Andrea Mitchel. The actual complaint or 'concern', as it's coined, about MSNBC/NBC isn't contained in the letter included with the source. NcSchu_(Talk) 12:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to avoid your comment NcSchu, but first I have to welcome back our pal Blaxthos. I thought he had retired from the fray in disgust but I see he is back trying to shed light on the topic. Unfortunately he is still pushing a red herring. There are no peer reviewed sources in this article. That's not to say there couldn't be, but if he is really so concerned with the matter then he should be the one who introduces them. What we already have here are a bunch of non-peer reviewed complaints about bias most of which have not been deleted from the article. They show that complaints of bias have been made. They don't prove bias which, technically, not even a well conceived peer reviewed study can do. I simply want to give the McCain camp the same consideration that the Hillary camp has already been given. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

As I've said, I agree we should include a sentence or two in the liberal bias section. This quote is just as significant as pretty much the other dozen or so in the political bias section, as the rest are simply allegations via a secondary source (some, not even), as this one is. But again (and I feel like I'm repeating myself), we must keep to what's in the source. No 'it seems', which is a way of injecting your opinion. NcSchu_(Talk) 16:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

As the saying goes, "I'm fine with that." Perhaps young Squicks, who is already doing barnstar-deserving work on this and other articles, should be given the honor of making the entry. I haven't looked lately, so maybe he already has. Cheers. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

So, I think I added in a good little paragraph that covers both criticisms. I noticed, though, that the most recent one that this discussion's about is actually directed at NBC. There is a funny allusion to their other accusation in it, however. NcSchu_(Talk) 19:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks pretty good. I edited it a little bit to fix the ref and other minor things. The Squicks (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"Passion and point of view" about what?

The subsection on alleged liberal bias begins by stating: "Senior vice president of NBC News Phil Griffen said in response to a question about MSNBC's "passion and point of view" that "it happened naturally." He stated that "there is a go for it" mentality anong their staff." I don't get it. Whose question? Passion about what? What point of view? A go for it mentality about what? Badmintonhist (talk) 21:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I like Jeopardy too, but we shouldn't be setting up a similar game here. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It serves as an intro, I really don't see what's wrong with it. It doesn't matter who asked it, it just serves to demonstrate MSNBC's official stance on it having a liberal bias. NcSchu_(Talk) 00:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

But why is it only okay to cite those two phrases? Why is it not okay to cite any other phrass/sentences/words from the article? The Squicks (talk) 01:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Did I ever say it wasn't? I don't understand what you mean. NcSchu_(Talk) 02:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not you NcSchu. It's... It's... Let's just say it's somebody else. Badmintonhist (talk) 03:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

'Pimping' controversy

News coverage here: [1]. [2]. [3].

The controversial statement is here. Mrs. Clinton's response is here.

If the Don Imus controversy is worth mentioning here, than is this also worth mentioning? The Squicks (talk) 22:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

In a word: No. This might be germane to David Shuster, but you can't take one commentators words and try to wedge it in as systemic bias. The Imus thing got a lot more press, and Don got fired, so likely that's a little bit more relevant... but again that's more about Don than MSNBC. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

What do mean you can't take one commentators words and try to wedge it in as systemic bias? I never said that there was a political slant to this-- I compared it to the non-political Don Imus thing (Imus is a liberal Democrat, isn't he?).

Anyways, the essential thing is that Shuster controversy is more germane to this article than the Imus thing since Imus was only simulcast on MSNBC, he was not their employee specifically and broadcast his stuff on CBS Radio along with other groups, while Shuster is an MSNBC journalist who made his comment on MSNBC itself. The Squicks (talk) 00:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Shuster was acting as a temporary host of a program when he said the comment, he wasn't being a journalist on behalf of MSNBC like he does on Hardball often. It has nothing to do with the network. I don't think we need a whole section; maybe a mention in the Obama bias section as it's related to that, but it was certainly not as serious as the Imus controversy, which was much more reported about on the mainstream media. NcSchu_(Talk) 00:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, a slave database error. The Squicks (talk) 01:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that's its not anywhere near as serious, but my point is that it is more germane to MSNBC itself than the Imus thing. Shuster said it while guest hosting MSNBC's popular 'Tucker' program. Whereas Imus's program was just simocast on MSNBC among other media groups (CBS radio, etc.) The Squicks (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It's worth a brief mention in the Obama bias section but doesn't deserve it's own section. Gamaliel (talk) 15:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the Imus stuff was given more weight than needed too and it can probably be shortened a lot now as time's gone on and it's probably had much less of a long-term significance, but it still got more widespread media coverage and Shuster was only temporarily suspended, not fired and taken off the air. It's apples and oranges, but like I said it probably should get a sentence. NcSchu_(Talk) 17:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I 2nd the idea of shortening/revising the Imus section. The Squicks (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Media Matters criticism of a criticism

Much as I admire the image of a young Mark Twain on your user page (though why the vulgar caption?), I can't let that sway my judgment. Yes, even the mere mention (perhaps especially the mere mention) of Media Matters' criticism of Howard Kurtz's criticism of MSNBC needs to go for the following reasons: (a) It gives MM "undue weight" in the article. MM's direct (albeit now rather dated) critique of MSNBC already occupies a full paragraph in the "Conservative bias" section of the article in question. (b) While I'm sure that many other individuals and organizations have also criticized the criticisms of MSNBC found in the article, those other "criticisms of criticisms", however cogent, aren't found in the article for good reason. They would make it too long and convoluted. Again giving MM, certainly no disinterested observer of the media, special dispensation to criticize the critic constitutes "undue weight," just as would including oh, say a Media Research Council's criticism of MM's "Conservative bias" comments. (c) As it now stands the sentence announcing MM's criticism of Kurtz stands out like a sore thumb (actually more so). It's abrupt and gratuitous. We could,of course, provide a very full exposition of MM's criticism of Kurtz's criticism but this would add even more to the problem of "undue weight" and, dare I say, editorial bias. Hope this helps. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we are going so overboard with these criticism sections anyway, so I really would like to limit the amount of back-and-forths criticisms. As such I don't see why we must include rebuttals by everyone and every single organization. Also, I think we should all sit back and take a break for several days from editing and discussing the section and revisit it at a later time. It seems obvious there are parties involved that want to include every possible criticism ever made against MSNBC and those that want to remove every possible criticism; we must come to some kind of equilibrium. NcSchu_(Talk) 18:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we are going so overboard with these criticism sections anyway. Please see CNN controversies and Fox News Channel controversies. MSNBC is getting way different treatment. Why? The Squicks (talk) 04:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

[That's not to say that I support forking things off of this page-- I don't. I'm just wondering about the double-standard.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Squicks (talk • contribs) 04:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

As for the point that Badmintonhist brought up, I don't really have any feelings one way or the other. Howard Kurtz is one of Media Matters' most devoted ideological enemies, in their eyes. They dislike him for him, so to speak, and not particularly for this exact article. Plus, MM has plenty of weight already. At the same time, I'd like to see the article acknowledge the fact that Kurtz's reporting is controversial. (Who isn't, in the internet age?) *Shrugs*

While I'm glad that NcShu wants to ensure cooler heads and more balanced editing in his/her call for a break, I don't really think it's a good idea. There's nothing wrong, IMHO, with active back-and-forth editing between two firm sides. The problem comes in when one or both sides refuses to compromise or breaks civility or things like that. The Squicks (talk) 05:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I never said I liked those two articles either; I think having entire articles composed of 'controversies' are a waste of time and have no encyclopedic value and therefore am strictly against them. My point here is that I'm really hoping to prevent such an article from being created for MSNBC. I definitely appreciate the debate rather than having a revert war. But to somehow give credence to the opinions of everyone that exists in regards to such biases is just absurd. I would much prefer to reduce the amount of quoting in the section and instead have a format such as 'x, y and z have all had significant criticisms of the channel...' instead of basically listing who said what and at what time. I don't think having the opinions of obviously biased watchdog groups to be helpful either as it's probably very obvious what they'll think. A lot of this section is based on the opinions of them as if they are reliable sources, when they all have their own clear agendas. NcSchu_(Talk) 12:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll weigh in briefly here folks. Airing Media Matters' criticisms of Howard Kurtz in an article about MSNBC is an example of what the sagacious Wikipedian cognoscenti call "coatrack(ism)", WP:Coatrack; i.e. using an article on one topic as an instrument (coatrack) to pursue another. MM's problems with Kurtz can be dealt with in the article on MM, or in the article on Kurtz, or in both. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

By that reasoning, I think, a lot of the bulk from these sections can be removed since a lot of it is criticism of one person on the network that has been synthesized with other comments to be a criticism of the entire network. NcSchu_(Talk) 16:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree with you that we as editiors should try our hardest not to do that. But it's not us who's making that synthesis, it's Media Matters itself. They claim more or less that "Tucker, Scarborough, Keyes, and others are conservatives, they are on MSBC, therefore-- MSNBC is a conservative propaganda outlet." The MRC does a similar thing. The Squicks (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

There are also a lot of these: "Hillary Clinton's campaign chairperson, Terry McAuliffe, has said that correspondent Chris Matthews has been 'in the tank' for Obama 'from Day One' and has labeled him 'the Obama campaign chair.'". This is one example of quite a few of quotes being changed from criticizing one person to an entire network. As I state above, I don't think we should use the Media Research Center, Media Matters for America, or Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting as sources. These organizations all have spelled out agendas that give their complaints little or no significance. NcSchu_(Talk) 20:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

As I state above, I don't think we should use the Media Research Center, Media Matters for America, or Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting as sources. I more or less agree with you, but the clear consensus of Wikipedia editors seems to be to treat them as sources. This article is not too bad IMHO since it at least correctly identifys them as sources whereas most articles, such as the article for the invasion of Iraq, state quotes/ideas from them without attribution. The Squicks (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

As for your main point, again, it's not us who's doing the synthesis. It's The Washington Post that's doing it. What they're doing may be (Naturally, good people can disagreee on this) pure quote mining yellow journalism, but that is what they said. The Squicks (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well we either use all of them or none of them. WP:WEIGHT doesn't refer to sources; sources can be used any number of times. And no, that quote has nothing to do with the Washington Post. The Washington Post just happens to be where the McAuliffe quote was obtained from. The context or subject of the article is irrelevant to the quote that is only talking about one fraction of the people that 'represent' MSNBC. NcSchu_(Talk) 19:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin introduction

I think that this story should be listed under "Liberal Bias":

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73968

I have placed this story twice and it has been deleted twice. I will not place it there again without consensus. This is why it should be placed there:

Multiple sources: World Net Daily. Fox News MSNBC itself.

This is an example of bias because MSNBC used a breaking news story about Palin to make a snide comment about McCain. This was clearly not a case of an MSNBC pundit making a clever remark. This was an extremely unprofessional attack on the McCain ticket under the guise of "Breaking News".

O'Reilly discussed it on his show. I don't see how the cases can be made that this is not liberal bias or how it is not noteworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.231.41 (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide reliable secondary references for Fox News and/or MSNBC reporting on the incident/accident? Regardless, we don't need to include every single event that happens that might somehow indirectly relate to a bias that the network has against or for a certain person. I've not heard nor read anything about this and I doubt it will exist in a few weeks as an outstanding example of bias. NcSchu_(Talk) 20:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is one from Breitbart TV which basically just took it from Fox News. http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=164143

I guess it's hard to understand what you're looking for as far as a source. You can clearly see that the incident happened and that conservatives are upset about it. Just google "MSNBC Palin Houses" and you'll come up with a lot of relevant hits from Sean Hannity to bloggers to all types of commentary. 75.83.231.41 (talk) 20:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Fusek

It doesn't matter that it happened. The basis of Wikipedia is not truth it is reliability (see WP:RELIABLE for more details, or at least see the summary: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."). Blogs are not reliable sources and neither are the two that you have provided. When I did the Google search all I saw were conservative blogs and pundits, nothing from a mainstream media source like a newspaper. If Fox News did a news report on it, then it could be sourced, but Fox News has not, Bill O'Reilly has, and that's not the same thing. The opinion of a commentator on a news channel is not the same as a news report from a news channel. Regardless if a reliable source is found, it's still unnecessary to include it as it's not as clear-cut as the other items in the section and not as significant or important; it's a criticism of the wording of the banner for a few minutes of an MSNBC broadcast, which I don't consider to be of the same caliber or importance as what's there already (which as you can see is causing enough debate as it is). NcSchu_(Talk) 21:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to wait and see how this plays out. It's not clear yet what media coverage this will recieve. Wikipedia is not a repository for current news. The Squicks (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I personally hold a very negative view of Worldnetdaily. So, I still advocate waiting. The Squicks (talk) 18:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Rosenburg's criticism

• Pulitzer prize winning media analyst Howard Rosenberg stated in a June 2008 Los Angeles Times op-ed that ""Countdown With Keith Olbermann" is the bean ball between "Hardball With Chris Matthews" and "Verdict With Dan Abrams" in MSNBC's weekday lineup. This trio has spent the election season heckling Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton from deep inside Sen. Barack Obama's hip pocket and hammering Sen. John McCain since Day One."

IMO, this is more notable and more encyclopediac than either Media Matters' blog or the MRC's blog. Rosenberg is a Pulitzer Prize winning writer who does not have a particular ideological ax to grind, and his article was not posted online-- but in The Los Angeles Times. The Squicks (talk) 18:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you actively search for criticisms directly or indirectly related to the network? Just wondering. I mean, sure it's maybe better than other sources, but it's still an opinion piece regardless of the author's stats, shall we say (see: Wikipedia:Reliable sources "Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact.") and like I've been saying in the numerous sections we have, how many people's opinions must we include? But to the subject matter, those three shows are what percent of MSNBC's programming? I think these entire sections are actually just criticisms on Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews; no one else seems to be the subject of criticism, so how does that exactly make sense given all the commentators and journalist the network has? NcSchu_(Talk) 19:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

But to the subject matter, those three shows are what percent of MSNBC's programming? Olbermann runs MSNBC. These programs are their most highest rated programs. Those three people are their network stars. They are the people in the ads for MSNBC. Given that Keith Olbermann "runs the network", it would make sense to mention criticism of him-- after all, don't we bring up Rupert Murdock in Wikipedia's long bloated tirades against Fox News?

You're worried about synthesis, and I share your concern. But, again, it's not us that's making that synthesis. It's a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist that's making that synthesis.

As a side note, why on earth did you take out Chris Matthews statement that MSNBC is/was biased in favor of Obama? I'm asking you honestly, if Chris Wallace had publicly said that Fox News was/is biased in favor of McCain-- would anyone here hesitate to put that on their Wikipedia pages? The Squicks (talk) 04:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I actually didn't realize I removed both sentences on the Chris Matthews thing until you mentioned it, so I'll add that back in; I only meant to remove the statement regarding him being 'in the tank' for Obama and not the one about him making the 'not official' comment. In regards to WP:Synthesis, you demonstrated it in your response by saying that because one source says Keith Olbermann 'runs MSNBC' that we should include other statements from other sources that say his biases are tilted a certain way and ergo so are MSNBC's. The fact is, there's a difference between Rupert Murdoch and Keith Olbermann in their positions, a huge difference. I left in some about Keith Olbermann since he has received a bulk of the criticism and clearly then it would make sense to give weight to that. NcSchu_(Talk) 16:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Perception of Liberal Bias confirmed by MSNBC,

Percieved Liberal Bias confirmed by the network. I suspect some aspect of this will be incorporated, so it is probably best to discuss first. Arzel (talk) 03:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you please, please pay attention to current discussions, namely this one? We have so many current topics on this it's just plain aggravating when another one crops up to dilute the discussion. NcSchu_(Talk) 12:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No, given the new developments regarding this issue and the confirmation of Liberal Bias or at least the perception of Liberal bias where the two main figures of MSNBC have been removed from anchoring the election covereage because of their bias bring forth new discussion that doesn't neccessarily flow well with the old discussions (which I considered adding to). Furthermore, new topics are added to the bottom. Arzel (talk) 13:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Look at the talk page history, please; discussions have been taking place in the aforementioned section as recently as yesterday and they're very relevant to the NYT article. We'll keep this in mind when making the changes. NcSchu_(Talk) 16:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious about the question of addition/deletion of the most current statement on this page. The following statement is currently published on the Fox News Wikipedia entry: "'Critics and some observers of the channel say that Fox News Channel promotes conservative political positions. Fox News Channel and others disagree with allegations of bias in the channel's reporting." This statement is observed by the masses, and met by little opposition, so it is reasonable to say it is true. Now, this is what was removed from MSNBC's Wikipedia entry: "Critics and some observers of the channel say that MSNBC promotes liberal political positions. MSNBC and others disagree with allegations of bias in the channel's reporting." - Both accurate entries, and obviously almost identical. These entries are both written in such a way to show both viewpoints, and objectivity at it's best. It is up to the reader to interpret, nothing is implied. I think we are under some notion that "liberal" is a bad word or something. It is interesting how one page is held to one standard of "notability" while another of equal content, is held to another. In both statements, "liberal" or "Conservative" is not used in such a context that would imply a negative light on either positions. It's pretty simple, I believe. 68.105.106.42 (talk) 04:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiport (talk • contribs)

Sigh...can you look here, please? That's all I'm going to say. NcSchu_(Talk) 11:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Sigh? Quite dramatic, regardless; this is the correct section to discuss topics relating to the article. If it bothers you that conversations may bleed over and run concurrently, I would ask that you refrain from feeling the need to comment. Thanks!Wikiport (talk) 05:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not a case of bleeding over, it's a case of editors ignoring current discussions that have already 'been there and done that'. This isn't moving the situation forwards, it's going backwards. NcSchu_(Talk) 12:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Please revert back to my last comment, thanks again! Wikiport (talk) 05:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm just letting you know that a decision regarding a statement of MSNBC's bias is being decided/has been decided upon in the section you are apparently choosing to ignore. NcSchu_(Talk) 17:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

He or she is not ignoring anything, it's just that the earlier section left some issues unresolved. In any rate, why on earth are we talking here? Let's comment in the earlier section. The Squicks (talk) 05:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the above comment is the most sensible idea. NcSchu, not to be directive here, but please understand "Liberal Bias" is a pretty relative term that may contain a large spectrum of topics. I think it's pretty much a dead issue here as we are discussing it. I agree with "The Squicks" as it should be moved to the earlier section. Thanks NcSchu for your continued "last word" editorial! Wikiport (talk) 08:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That's what I've been saying the whole time...NcSchu_(Talk) 11:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of political bias

I realize this issue may have been discussed in other sections, however it is clear to see that they are quickly becoming a bit disorganized. This section provides no real insight as it cancels each other out without providing any sources. This same statement could be said about any of the other news channels. It is similar to saying, "Some people agree with him, but others don't agree with him.." What's the point of adding this? Wikiport (talk) 09:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I deleted the comments made with ideologically hard-line sources. That means that only the 'Liberal' and 'Obama' sections are left. The 'Liberal' one could use more editing to make the comments about Olbermann more clear. As for the partisan allegations, I'm still inclined to leave that in. But I'd like to hear more opinions on that. The Squicks (talk) 08:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the allegations from the campaigns, I really don't see how they're any more relevant than the ones we've just removed. Political campaign complaints are even more predictable than ones from Media Matters et al. They're going to find any negative coverage about them and scream political bias. I think if we want this section to be an encyclopedic, informative section on the bias of the network then we should only include 'evidence and academic analysis' from organizations that are at least in principle supposed to be neutral (ie. mainstream newspapers and academic analyses—not tabloids; not op/eds; not John Doe from Nowheretown, USA; etc.). NcSchu_(Talk) 15:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Intro

It seems there is some dispute about the intro of this article. A user inserted a statement regarding MSNBC's political bias in the introduction of this article. My guess is that it is ONLY being done to counter the same exact intro from the FOX News page. I know some liberals on here would like to think their beloved MSNBC is not a liberal station, but that simply is not true...it is. Olbermann and Matthews were recently displaced from their jobs for being too liberal. They are constantly thwarting attacks about their one-sided favoritism of Obama. If there is a mention of conservative bias on FOX News's intro, then there should be mention in the intro of MSNBC...MSNBC is to Liberals what FOX News is to Republicans. I also see another comment as to "FOX's bias is more 'severe' than MSNBC's bias" that is just not true. Both stations have taken a lot of heat for their bias, and the statement is just completely subjective and DOES NOT justify why it shouldn't be mentioned in the intro of this article. I will keep re-inserting it...as long as that same statement is in the FOX news intro. Its not fair to hound one station while letting another slide when they are both facing similar criticisms. Ocexpo (talk) 05:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by a comment with respect to Fox's bias being more 'severe' than MSNBC. From what I understand, there is documentation from reliable sources alleging bias in Fox News Channel reporting to the effect where it became a notable controversy that was worth mentioning in that article's lead. In the case of MSNBC, I'm not seeing a wealth of documentation to that effect. It's not fair to Chuck Todd, Norah O'Donnell, Andrea Mitchell, etc., to make a sweeping statement alleging the entire network of bias because Olbermann and Matthews were recently pulled from the anchor desk, or because Olbermann's whiny left-sympathetic commentary dominates the 7 o'clock hour. Switzpaw (talk) 05:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You won't find as much documentation of it because MSNBC is such a small network compared to FOX. MSNBC's competitor is Headline News...that is why the documentation is less apparent. Nevertheless, I can say the same about FOX News....its not fair that Bill Oreilly messes it up for all the other fair and balanced people at FOX, but nonetheless the company has still been accused of bias. MSNBC is very bias...it doesn't take much to see that. The morning McCain announced his VP, the caption at the bottom read "How many houses does Palin bring to the ticket?"...and that was in the morning, not in the evening hours when Matthews and Olbermann spew their leftist garbage. Its all day on that network, whether it be their frequent contributor Jesse Jackson, or the fact that they dont have one show that has a conservative view, but 9 that have a liberal view...I think its fair to conclude that there is a liberal bias. Nonetheless, my objective was to keep this fair and it seems as if the statement about bias has been removed from the FOX news page, so I no longer desire it to be on the MSNBC page. If it shall return to the FOX page after talks, I will push for it on this page as well in the intro. It is not for us to decide whether "FOX is more bias than MSNBC"...but if we report the bias of one station, then it is only fitting that we also report the bias of its competitor regardless. Ocexpo (talk) 09:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I reverted it because there's a current discussion that deals with how to word a statement on this page. Things done on the Fox News Channel article have zero impact on things done here, and I would ask you don't ignore discussions regarding this current issue. NcSchu_(Talk) 13:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Ocexpo, it doesn't matter what you conclude, and the "if it's there it has to be here" logic follows no Wiki policy (and has no validity). Let's stick to published, academic, peer-reviewed studies instead of what you personally believe (see WP:OR and WP:RS). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously the intro of both pages need tailoring. Ocexpo, there are plenty of sources on both side of the argument which I believe validates your claims and motivations for editing. I believe the most productive way to go about it is to organize and come to a consensus regarding the issue. Some "editors" will claim that there are more sources out there that speak to the bias of FNC, which is just a stretch to somehow prove their opinion, and protect the article as it stands. I welcome your contributions. Wikiport (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)