Talk:MSNBC

List of notable persons

I have removed this from the article pending discussion as to what it is trying to convey, the criteria for inclusion, and the names on it.

Notable personalities

• Peter Alexander
• Mariana Atencio
• Yamiche Alcindor
• Mika Brzezinski
• Josh Barro
• Jeremy Bash
• Mike Barnicle
• John O. Brennan
• Jonathan Capehart
• Robert Costa
• Donny Deutsch
• Richard Engel
• Kendis Gibson
• Chris Hayes
• John Heilemann
• Hugh Hewitt
• Kasie Hunt
• Hallie Jackson
• Jack H. Jacobs
• Chris Jansing
• Steve Kornacki
• Trymaine Lee
• Richard Lui
• Rachel Maddow
• Chris Matthews
• Mark McKinnon
• Ari Melber
• Craig Melvin
• Andrea Mitchell
• Ayman Mohyeldin
• Malcolm Nance
• Bill Neely
• Kelly O'Donnell
• Lawrence O'Donnell
• Cal Perry
• Karine Jean-Pierre
• John Podhoretz
• Morgan Radford
• JJ Ramberg
• Ron Reagan
• Joy Reid
• Eugene Robinson
• Stephanie Ruhle
• Joe Scarborough
• Steve Schmidt
• Al Sharpton
• Keir Simmons
• Jacob Soboroff
• Bret Stephens
• Jonathan Swan
• Kara Swisher
• Chuck Todd
• Katy Tur
• Jim VandeHei
• Ali Velshi
• Nicolle Wallace
• Kristen Welker
• Brian Williams
• Pete Williams
• Alex Witt

Seems incomplete without notables such as Tucker Carlson, Michael Savage, Greta Van Susteren and others. SPECIFICO talk 14:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Liberal bias?

In its most recent "Media Bias Chart," AllSides placed MSNBC comfortably in the liberal category. Why hasn't this header been changed already? Am I missing something fundamental here? TripleBogey21 (talk) 03:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

TripleBogey21 Please see the discussion above as well as prior discussions about this topic. 331dot (talk) 08:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Opinions on allsides.com are crowdsourced, so it is not a reliable source for Wikipedia content. Just plain Bill (talk) 12:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course MSNBC is biased. How is this even a question? They are at least as left wing as Fox News is right wing.

An example of a citation to a reliable source:   Green Marble (talk) 12:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Green Marble: Daily Mail is not a reliable source. See WP:DAILYMAIL. --Renat 13:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Just admit it: MSNBC is a liberal-biased news outlet, not any less biased to the left as Fox and New York Post are to the right. So why isn't it mentioned in the FIRST paragraph of the article? Source Proof FlyDragon792 (talk) 23:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

FlyDragon792 Instead of telling us to "admit it" please participate in the discussion immediately below this section in a collaborative manner. Please explain why any sources you offer should be considered reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 00:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

You aren't being collaborative. You're censoring any mention of it and quite clearly. Admins of the site need to stop this nonsense because it's plaguing this entire site Transkar (talk) 14:26, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

No consistency between the articles of CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC. You're making this site a joke. Numerous users have sited how each news site is bias and yet these articles keep getting reverted and this nonsense allowed to continue where fox is labeled conservative and MSNBC and CNN as not left wing Transkar (talk) 14:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Msnbc.news Vs MSNBC.com

Suggest that the MSNBC.news web site is mentioned in the article.

It has been set up to host articles, many of questionable reliability, criticizing MSNBC, CNN and other respected news sites.

It's domain name, MSNBC.news, has been chosen to facilitate and promote confusion with MSNBC (domain name manbc.com). 86.137.135.44 (talk) 06:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Unless a reliable source covers it, it isn't suitable for inclusion in the Wikipedia. I'm sure it is only a matter of time before NBC Universal sues to seize the name though, so it won't be around for long. ValarianB (talk) 12:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Britannica

@ValarianB: Are you seriously suggesting that Britannica is an unreliable source for the claim of liberal bias? If Britannica, which is more professional than Wikipedia, considers this bias a notable enough aspect to feature in the first paragraph of their article, then why should we not do the same here? Considering allegations of liberal bias make up a huge chunk of the article, it makes sense to note the allegations in the lede. But I wouldn't mind also saying in the lede for balance that others in the past have claimed a conservative bias instead. X-Editor (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

It will not be appearing in the lede, this is a perennial, SPA-fueled agenda item. If you really want to add it further down in that section, that probably won't bean issue, though IMO it is a little redundant. ValarianB (talk) 21:06, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@ValarianB: Just because it has been discussed and rejected in the past doesn't mean that it should continue to be rejected if new reliable sources come to light. The perennial proposals page itself says "Consensus can change". Saying that the only accounts trying to add this content are single purpose is also extremely bad faith. You have also failed to rebut my argument regarding Britannica. X-Editor (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Bias can only be defined in relation to a standard. The standard for WP content NPOV is clear and it is foundational. It's the world that's biased, not Wikipedia. Chew on that for a minute? SPECIFICO talk 21:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: You failed to rebut or respond to most of my arguments and I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say. X-Editor (talk) 21:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. Maybe review some of the past discussions of this and think it over and we can resume in a day or two. SPECIFICO talk 21:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Sorry, but the burden of proof is on you to explain why my arguments are wrong, not me. Even the perennial discussions article says "Consensus can change". X-Editor (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually no. Please read WP:BURDEN if you believe you have verification for the liberal bias bit. I have rarely edited this article, so I'm afraid I can't be of much further help to you here. SPECIFICO talk 21:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: The Britannica article I'm referring to says "MSNBC is generally considered to be liberal or left-leaning.". Sorry for not linking it. X-Editor (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

The perennial proposals page itself says "Consensus can change". Well, feel free to make your case and try, my friend, but you don't get to just add it unilaterally and then sputter with indignation when reverted. As I've stated before, the reason why it does not need to be stated in the lede is that being "liberal" or left-wing" in America is the mainstream PoV. Stating "MSNBC is liberal" is about as useful as saying

"Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is a white American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president...

to Donald Trump. This will never be a question that hinges on sourcing, but rather relevance and purpose. ValarianB (talk) 12:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@ValarianB: Comparing white skin colour and political bias sounds like a false equivalence. There is already precedent for adding political bias in article ledes like Fox News and Salon.com. There is no precedent for pointing out white skin colour. While it is true that liberal and left-leaning are mainstream positions in the United States, the same can be said for conservatism (There are tens of millions of conservatives in the United States), yet conservative bias is still pointed out in Fox News' lede and Salon's lede. It's also important to point out that not everyone is familiar with US politics and since WP is global and not American, we should explain political bias to those who are unfamiliar. The edits I made to the article also didn't add the liberal description upfront, it was added a few sentences later in the first paragraph. X-Editor (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Maybe that's cuz FoxNews has the word News in its brand but it broadcasts conspiracy theories, whackadoodle retired petty government factotums masquerading as expert commentators, and false information fed directly to it by various politicians? That could be part of the difference. SPECIFICO talk 22:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: You're engaging in whataboutism. This isn't about Fox, this is about MSNBC. You've done nothing but completely ignore and dismiss my arguments backed up by an RS that you've also ignored. I'd rather end this discussion here than continue. X-Editor (talk) 01:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

You yourself and nobody else introduced Fox News into this thread. If you continue to make personal remarks and misrepresentations, you're unlikely to change the clear lack of consensus for your views. SPECIFICO talk 01:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Since this is clearly going nowhere, can we both agree to end this discussion? X-Editor (talk) 01:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Please review WP:CONSENSUS. You started the discussion. You found nobody agreeing with you. The discussion continued only to give you a chance to make your case. SPECIFICO talk 02:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

"You found nobody agreeing with you" That's why I'm ending this discussion. X-Editor (talk) 02:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposed edit to lead paragraph concerning acronym

No, this is not about partisanship or bias. I was just interested in what the MS stood for in the name. I found that it was covered in the lead paragraph but only after I knew to look for Microsoft. I didn't read very closely but I'd hoped to make the information a little easier to spot and to formally spell out the acronym as it was used initially. I was thinking it could look something like this

MSNBC and its website were founded in 1996 under a partnership between Microsoft and General Electric's NBC unit. Its name, MSNBC, was an acronym of Microsoft National Broadcasting Corporation. Microsoft divested itself of its stakes in the MSNBC channel in 2005 and its stakes in msnbc.com in July 2012. The general news site was rebranded as NBCNews.com, and a new msnbc.com was created as the online home of the cable channel. In the late summer of 2015, MSNBC revamped its programming by entering into a dual editorial relationship with its organizational parent NBC News. MSNBC Live, the network's flagship daytime news platform, was expanded to cover over eight hours of the day.

Is this alright? Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 17:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC) Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 17:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The article already states MSNBC and its website were founded in 1996 under a partnership between Microsoft and General Electric's NBC unit, hence the network's naming.. Seems clear enough. ValarianB (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@ValarianB That's kinda what I mean though. Saying "hence the network's naming" is a backhanded way of stating it and not a phrasing that someone would usually think to search for. If someone was looking for that info and didn't know if it was in the article, what might they search for in the page? "Acronym", "stands for", "name", "stood for", "originally" (like, what was the company originally called), "called", "means", maybe even "MS " if they're hoping that someone parses out the MS part of the acronym and explains that. None of those get hits within the article though.

The other bit is that not many places actually expand the acronym and state it as such. Having it expanded as Microsoft National Broadcasting Corporation in italics and next to the word acronym would make it more probable that it would be highlighted by google searches asking this kinda question.

I think it's a generally harmless change and it is adding some new info (ie. the expanded form) that isn't mentioned in many other places. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 01:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@ValarianB You said in the revert that it's bleedingly obvious but is it? Even knowing that it was formed from Microsoft and NBC, it wouldn't be surprising if someone guessed that MSNBC might stand for Microsoft Syndicated National Broadcasting Corporation or Microsoft Satellite National Broadcasting Corporation (like C-SPAN's is), but it doesn't. If the argument is that the meaning of the original acronym doesn't matter since nobody refers to them by that name anymore, then we can always delete all references to HBO standing for Home Box Office or 3M standing for Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company or bury the meaning of the acronym somewhere in the body of the article while we're at it, right? Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 21:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

MSNBC - Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding Just wanted to get some other opinions on this and have some discussion. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "MSNBC".The discussion is about the topic MSNBC. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

== Oligarchy and MSNBC ==

MSNBC is a mouthpiece of the United States Government, just as CNN, Fox News, New York Times, Washington Post, etc. MSNBC is just worse at it then the other two. The link between private and public institutions is used as plausible deniability. Scientifically, the United States of America is an oligarchy, according to Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B "The preferences of rich people had a much bigger impact on subsequent policy decisions than the views of middle-income and poor Americans. Indeed, the opinions of lower-income groups, and the interest groups that represent them, appear to have little or no independent impact on policy." https://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/is-america-an-oligarchy When the average member of the collective west thinks "oligarchy" they think "Russia", which, scientifically is true because the United States created Russia in the 1991 using Disaster Capitalism first brandished on the first September 11, 1973, with the 1973 Chilean coup d'état.

May1787 (talk) 06:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)