Talk:MSNBC

Tucson shootings

The section on the Tucson's shootings is problematic and misleading in a few ways. First, it creates the incorrect impression that MSNBC claimed that statements by Sarah Palin and others lead to the shootings, and that these claims were repudiated. In fact, the predominant claim if any was that their heated political rhetoric was part of a climate of intolerance, and that the shootings arose in the context of that. Interpreting that as a claim of causation, then saying that the claims were unfounded because causation cannot be shown, is a straw man exercise that itself is part of the political dialogue. If we are to cover MSNBC's reaction to the shootings, the main encyclopedic issue is what that reaction was, not any supposed success of conservatives in deflecting that. Covering a conservative's empty threats to file suit is pretty far from the mark. - Wikidemon (talk) 11:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

True and false. For the mentally ill, ONE facet of a "jem" in their mind would complete the whole. Right, left, middle, nth, any you slice it, ANY significant emotionally divisive issue would trigger their misbehavior. SO, shall we continue and set off the REST of the insane that had their rights observed? Shall we institutionalize those whose views are "abnormal" (see the party in minority), shall we let them run free (whoeverinhell THEY are) or shall we engage upon CIVIL discourse and abandon the special interest spurred lunacy? It IS that simple.Wzrd1 (talk) 07:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing concern

The "Hollywood Reporter" article written by Paul Bond does not state his source on the accusations of the killer. It should not be reproduced on this page without it being noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.93.23 (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's the Phil Donahue Controversy section

Yeah so I had a section deleted for not presenting it in the talk page so here it is:

[Donahue presents a] difficult public face for NBC in a time of war...He seems to delight in presenting guests who are anti-war, anti-Bush and skeptical of the administration's motives.

NBC internal study

Phil Donahue's 2002 program Donahue was cancelled for being too critical of the Iraq War. Despite earlier claims of cancellation because of low ratings Donahue's show was the highest rated on MSNBC.

A leaked NBC internal study eventually revealed that the studio was concerned that Donahue would act as "a home for the liberal antiwar agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity."

The liberal watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, considered the cancellation a form censorship.

--CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the basic idea that a internal "study" revealed that at least somebody at MSNBC back in 2003 thought that Donahue's show was problematic for the network should be able to find its way into the article. However, a statement presented as fact in Wikipedia's voice that Donahue's program "was cancelled for being too critical of the Iraq War" is much too great a leap. Also, who cares if FAIR considered this censorship? Now were it the New York Times then you might be talking. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah looking back it did come off a bit strong, I think we should add that it was "said" to be because of X, not fully assert it. Other than that I think the section is well sourced and neutral. --CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, from a historical perspective, SOMEONE at the network, at a senior level, was either concerned about public perception OR someone close to said person of senior perspective objected to Phil. Any way you slice it, he was ousted. Whether it was "right or wrong", it happened. Period. Which is rather typical in today's media.Wzrd1 (talk) 07:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

"Current programming" descriptions

The boxed descriptions of each show found in the Current programming section read like advertisement. If their source is MSNBC itself, then the reader should be told. Otherwise I would suggest a more objective set of descriptions. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

NPOV edits adding "socialist" to "progressive"

An IP has recently added "socialist" to the self-described progressive description of MSNBC (and done the same to a related article as well). On this article they've reverted my change 3 times now. I don't want to be in violation of WP:3RR so I hope someone else will take a look. There's no reliable source (or any source) provided, nor do I think this is an innocuous change. I'm fairly certain that phrase in this context specifically will be seen as pejorative. That makes it have issues with NPOV. Shadowjams (talk) 05:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I have warned him (immediately following your warning) and will block him if he reverts again, regardless of the "24-hour rule". Edit-warring doesn't have a edits-over-time limit, and his formulation is wildly off-mark. As I have only one previous edit on the article (correcting a tense), I clearly fall under the heading of "non-involved admin" and will drop the banhammer if needed. Horologium (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Another retrobate, who INSISTS that "socialists" (which is WHOEVER they choose to decry) are equal to "progressives", yet ANOTHER subjective thing. As an example, I'm regarded as progressive, yet conservative, it depends upon WHERE in the spectrum you view. Overall, I find far MORE support for my views than any side. Indeed, if I were to think of going into such a disgusting field of business as politics, I'd most likely win, even at national levels. But, I won't. I'll keep my friends. The frank truth is, regardless of "side" or party, BOTH are paid for by the same deep pocketed interests. Which is rather well, if sparsely, due to our current, failed laws, documented. In the Nation OF the people, FOR the people and BY the people, we're not people, only the special interests are, today. Lincoln would climb from his grave, if he could, as would all of our founding fathers, to gather cattle prods to enforce LEARNING, then seeking remedial action. BUT, such things are NOT for Wikipedia, so, I'll not continue further. My few words, hopefully defused further lunatic POLARITY. Lest you all further prove the Crown correct and we should REMAIN a colony!Wzrd1 (talk) 07:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Why isnt this locked?

why isnt MSNBC locked, like CNN? Someone could mess something up in here, poeple don't target only the popular articles.140.198.45.63 (talk) 01:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)