Jump to content

Talk:MSNBC: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 25: Line 25:


yes, that is a good point. they came out with that report asap. as i said in the post below, the tea bagger statements should be included, as well as janine garafollow's comments should too. i wont hold my breath however, wiki seems very hesitant to ackowledge any kind of popular resistence to obama and the "democrats". [[Special:Contributions/136.160.191.18|136.160.191.18]] ([[User talk:136.160.191.18|talk]]) 16:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
yes, that is a good point. they came out with that report asap. as i said in the post below, the tea bagger statements should be included, as well as janine garafollow's comments should too. i wont hold my breath however, wiki seems very hesitant to ackowledge any kind of popular resistence to obama and the "democrats". [[Special:Contributions/136.160.191.18|136.160.191.18]] ([[User talk:136.160.191.18|talk]]) 16:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
:"popular resistance" seems a little dramatic... - [[Special:Contributions/63.239.65.10|63.239.65.10]] ([[User talk:63.239.65.10|talk]]) 15:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


== tea baggers? ==
== tea baggers? ==

Revision as of 15:16, 18 January 2010

Rush Limbaugh

Something could stand to be added about MSNBC's false reporting on supposedly racist statements that Rush Limbaugh turned out to later have not said at all. Jtrainor (talk) 00:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


yes, that is a good point. they came out with that report asap. as i said in the post below, the tea bagger statements should be included, as well as janine garafollow's comments should too. i wont hold my breath however, wiki seems very hesitant to ackowledge any kind of popular resistence to obama and the "democrats". 136.160.191.18 (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"popular resistance" seems a little dramatic... - 63.239.65.10 (talk) 15:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

tea baggers?

yea, just pointing out that msnbc came under scrutiny when they called protesters "tea baggers". i personally havent heard the phrase since highschool, so it sort of calls into scrutiny the credibility of journalists who not only bash protesters of obama, but to use an obscene phrase in doing so. also, janine garaffolow appeared on air calling anyone against the president a racist. i know wiki has a strict policy of trying to supress any anti obama sentiment, but to be somewhat credible i would include it. 136.160.191.18 (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wiki's in general supress dissent, or just wikipedia? - 63.239.65.9 (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated "liberal bias" comments

Why is it neccesary to repeat this through out the article? Seems it's covered in the "Criticism and controversy" section. - 63.239.65.9 (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]