Talk:MSNBC

Availability

Has the number been updated since the carriage issues were resolved? Also, I don't see the need for the words "like all of its cable competitors". Their major cable competitors (CNN and Fox News) are available to more households (unless its changed since Feb. 2010.) I believe that whoever added that line was trying to equate an equality, but in reality it isn't (unless changed).--76.235.208.230 (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Assertions of pro-Obama bias

First paragraph in this section. Of the three sources used, not one of those sources claim a pro-Obama bias of MSNBC. There is no assertion in any of these sources. Rather, this material is being quoted and not given the proper context from where the material was quoted. The Media Research Center source is classifying the material as Best Notable Quotables of 2008. How do we go from Best Notable Quotables of 2008 to Assertions of pro-Obama bias? The Huffington Post source didn't make any claims about the material, other than the fact that two anchors talked about a speech. And, the Newsbuster source isn't working right now, but I don't recall any claim of bias when I checked the source yesterday. So, if including this paragraph is not the product of synthesis, a conclusion of bias when the sources do not attribute the material as bias, then what am I missing? Akerans (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You have a point Akerans, though it seems to me the assertion of pro-Obama bias or favoritism in the case of the Huffington Post material is pretty clearly implicit. Why else would the short article mention that Matthews had previously cried over an Obama speech and compared Obama to Jesus? As for the Media Research Center/Newsbusters I would imagine that they made all sorts of overt assertions of an MSNBC pro-Obama bias; if not in the cited articles, then in many others. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is another article where the assertion of pro-Obama bias is clear:

Mr Rendell, who predicted that Mrs Clinton would win Pennsylvania by a margin of between 5 and 9 percentage points, singled out MSNBC, the 24-hour news channel owned by NBC, for particular criticism. He joked that Keith Olbermann, who hosts an unabashedly opinionated evening show, "has to be on the Obama payroll" and that MSNBC was the "Obama campaign's official channel". Drrll (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Badmintonhist, that's the point. The material is implicit, and not explicit. Per no original research, we should not rely on material that is unclear or inconsistent passages, and that is exactly the nature of these three sources. We're using these sources to support a conclusion not explicitly stated in the source material. As such, the first paragraph should be removed. Akerans (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the history, this was originally addressed. The part that drew the conclusion that this episode had been used to show a pro-Obama by conservative pundit Bernie Goldberg in his book "A Slobbering Love Affair" was removed because I didn't have an exact page number. I presume then when that is provided then we can safely restore the entire passage? Rapier (talk) 21:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The original source appeared to be a link about the book, rather than the book itself. If we're using the book itself, then including that information from the book shouldn't be a problem. In other words, if Goldberg used Matthews' speech as an example of pro-Obama bias of MSNBC, then I don't see a problem including the information and attributing to Goldberg. Akerans (talk) 23:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, that was exactly what I was asking. Thank you Rapier (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Current Programming section

Why is this entry listing the current program schedule? Is wikipedia now a TV guide and advertiser for MSNBC? I don't think it is appropriate to turn wikipedia into that function. Kilowattradio (talk) 03:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Treatment of MSNBC's liberalism in the lead

It seems to me that the existing formulation in the lead, to wit, that "many observers say that MSNBC has become politically liberal compared to other networks" has become superannuated. The network, or at least the pundits who work for it, now openly proclaim MSNBC's political liberalism, or progressivism if you prefer, and it would seem to me that our article's lead should reflect the new reality. Incidentally, the network's coverage of the 2010 election was hosted by its cadre of commentators not by "straight" journalists. The fig leaf of professed objectivity has basically been removed. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

There's a difference between acknowledging a political POV, and still maintaining a high journalistic ethic. What you are referring to, I think, is there new slogan and promo "Lean Forward," which simply tries to categorize the network better, and give it a voice, prior to which there really wasn't one. For now, I would keep the heading as it is, just because the network hasn't explicitely stated that they openly embrace liberalism. BalticPat22Patrick (talk) 02:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but it isn't just the slogan. I think it's worth researching whether the network has, at this point, explicitly stated that it is politically liberal/progressive. Keith Olbermann, for example, said as much on his election eve program. One might find similar statements by its other pundits. This isn't the kind of thing that would likely be announced in a press conference or in some official network function. Badmintonhist (talk) 07:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

But some of MSNBC's hosts are recently starting to make statements live on air that explicitly confirm that MSNBC is liberal. Here are two quotes for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.179.72 (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Yup. And there's also this [[1]] coming directly from MSNBC's own advertising and a source we've already used in the article. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that we replace the last sentence in the lead with something like this:

Following several years in which many observers noted a politically leftward shift in the channel's programming, MSNBC publicly acknowledged its political progressivism in October 2010 while launching a marketing campaign with the tagline "Lean Forward." Badmintonhist (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

What about allegations that MSNBC may have a socialist bias? Lawrence O'Donnell, one of MSNBC's hosts, recently admitted live on air that he is a socialist. It's quite something that MSNBC would hire and keep a socialist 1. 71.98.179.72 (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it is, though O'Donnell has appeared on many programs of various networks over the years. However, the lead should briefly summarize general issues that appear in the body of the article not focus on one particular case. Badmintonhist (talk) 14:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

MSNBC meteorologists?

I’m curious. Does MSNBC have any weathermen? I know that NBC News, Fox News, and CNN have meteorologists, but I haven’t seen any in MSNBC for a long time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.179.72 (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Weathermen? I realize that MSNBC has been moving to the left in recent years but I don't think they've gone quite that far. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I want to know if MSNBC has any meteorologists. I've seen them in the past there, but I haven't seen one there in a long time. News organizations usually have weathermen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.179.72 (talk) 20:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Keith

Why is there no mention of the huge backlash they are receiving for the suspension? All of their Facebook posts are filled with nothing but comments about Keith. 75.221.2.144 (talk) 10:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

1. Is it verifiable in reliable sources? "Huge backlash" is a significant claim...
2. Is this more appropriate here, or at Countdown with Keith Olbermann?

//Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

If you're asking if CNN is reporting about a show on MSNBC, then obviously not. 174.58.137.241 (talk) 20:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

MSNBC, a liberal outlet

MSNBC has allowed Cenk Uygur from The Young Turks to fill in at 3 P.M EST until the end of November. The MSNBC liberal shows now doesn't start at 4 P.M. eastern time with Dylan Ratigan, but at 3:00 P.M during MSNBC's news hour times! That means that now, MSNBC has 14 hours (3:00 P.M to 5:00 A.M) of explicitly liberal programs during the weekdays. The other 10 hours is of normal news, but some people claim that even during those 10 hours there is a slant to the left, but implicitly though. As you know, MSNBC has declared publicly, but implicitly, through their "Lean Forward" campaign, that they're a progressive / liberal outlet. So, why can't we say that MSNBC is liberal instead of saying that observers have alleged that MSNBC has a liberal bias? With so many liberal shows, MSNBC nor anyone can't defend the claim that MSNBC is neutral when it is clearly not. The facts are the facts.

Why are you complaining about something that has already been done? Take a look at the last sentence in the lead. Also look at the source for footnotes 15 and 40, and you should see that MSNBC has now explicitly called itself "politically progressive." If you see a coyness about adopting this description for MSNBC elsewhere in the article feel free to change it (with the proper sourcing, of course) rather than complaining. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for letting me know. This is probably not the right place to express this concern I have, but I don't know where else to express it. Jon Stewart kind of touched on this area in his interview with Rachel Maddow. If Fox News is ideologued, but not partisan; but MSNBC is openly partisan, not just ideologued; how can MSNBC defend the idea that they're a news outlet, not a political outlet, as they've accused Fox News of being one? Also, why is NBC allowing all this stuff to happen on MSNBC? Doesn't NBC know that what MSNBC is doing is damaging their reputation and credibility? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.162.132 (talk) 14:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Please limit conversations on this page to improving the article. Thanks. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that it's a good idea for there to be a section about how NBC executives and NBC News employees are reacting to MSNBC's admission of being "politically progressive." I know that there are several sections discussing msnbc.com's reaction to MSNBC's admission. Also, there should be a section discussing how MSNBC has responded to criticisms of its Lean Forward campaign. It'll be of much help to me if someone put these additions I mentioned to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.162.132 (talk) 21:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you please give some demonstration of weight in independent reliable sources? This reeks of recentism, and your initial post ("why can't we just say they're liberal?") seems to assume the conclusion instead of basing content on information published in suitable sources. Thanks. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

NBC / MSNBC questions for future edits here

I was reading the above person's questions about MSNBC, and his questions raised some new questions to, which might possibly help me out in my future edits here, so please help me understand these questions to help me guide me on some of my future edits here. I want to put these possible answers on the article to these following questions, so that the reader can get a picture as to what's going on behind the scenes, and so that the reader who may have similar questions in mind may get some answers. Why does MSNBC have to be more liberal than all the other NBC divisions? Why does it seem that NBC is allowing MSNBC to lean to the left, but not the other NBC outlets? For example: The NBC network correspondents and producers, who attempt to be straightforward reporters, say they are embarrassed to be associated with the liberal cable outlet and fear being “tainted” by association with it Msnbc.com wants to change its name because it. The situation became more apparent when NBC News decided to keep Brian Williams and Tom Brokaw away from MSNBC during the November 2, 2010 midterm election coverage. MSNBC was taken out of NBC News’s portfolio, so in reallity, MSNBC doesn’t follow NBC News’s standards anymore. Now, to msnbc.com…. Msnbc.com is considering changing its name so that it won’t be tainted with the left-leaning television network, MSNBC. CNBC is home of conservatives such as Rick Santelli and Larry Kudlow. In fact, CNBC is sometimes associated with the birth of the Tea Party movement because of Rick Santelli. Then you got generally non-partisan networks such asTelemundo, the Weather Channel, ShopNBC, etc. I'm currently looking for sources that would answer my questions by the way. Willminator (talk) 01:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Picking disparate sources and then explaining what they mean is classic synthesis of thought, and is strictly prohibited and largely indicative of advancing an agenda (also unwelcome). If there are multiple independent reliable sources that posit such conclusions, they may have due weight for inclusion, but as it stands now it's nothing more than original research. Our job here is to compile what is published in reliable sources, not to pontificate or explain what they mean. Additionally, by forming a conclusion and then seeking sources to validate your beliefs is assuming the conclusion and certainly isn't the proper way to write an article. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Please forgive me. I'm a new Wikipedia user. Thanks for letting me know about Wikipedia's policies on sources, but what about the questions? Willminator (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

No apology needed, as Wikipedia has a steep learning curve and we were all new once.  :) I'm not sure what questions you want answered after reading my response. You've already stated your intent is to "so that the reader can get a picture as to what's going on behind the scenes", which I suggest is inappropriate both in purpose (we don't explain things, we just compile what sources publish) and approach (we don't start with a premise and then find sources to support it). If there are (multiple) sources that answer those questions then we should discuss the appropriate weight to give them in the article; however I still get the impression your intent is to advocate a view or lead the reader to conclusions (which are both inappropriate). No offense is intended, so please don't take my response as a bite.  :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your kindness. The question may be a loaded question, but here's the question I want answers to. Why does MSNBC have to be more "progressive" than all the other NBC divisions (NBC cable channel, CNBC, ShopNBC, Telemundo, the Weather Channel, etc.) and why does it seem that NBC Universal is allowing MSNBC to go political, but not the other NBC outlets? That's the question I was talking about. I don't think I made one of my questions above, in the beginning, clear enough, so I editted it. Willminator (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I imagine that this is because MSNBC is a news and opinion outlet, as opposed to straight news. There are also very conservative shows on both MSNBC and CNBC. Also, I don't think there's really any mystery why ShopNBC and the Weather Channel are not political. Gamaliel (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Gamaliel, I disagree with you about MSNBC having conservative opinion shows, but I do agree with you that CNBC does have conservative opinion shows such as the Kudlow report. As many people know; Telemundo, CNBC, msnbc.com, etc. don't have much of a political bias when compared to MSNBC. Is there a known reason why and how NBC seems to have let MSNBC become more political than the rest of the NBC divisions? Some here would not agree with me on this, but I do think that this is a relevant question in discussing how MSNBC has gotten into the apparent progressive place that it is. Forgive me if I mischaracterized it. Willminator (talk) 02:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Why not ask my they let CNBC get so political? I dunno. Ratings and money are the answer to these questions most of the time. Gamaliel (talk) 04:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know man. What do you mean? I've done some reading including the articles I posted above that shows that the relationship between MSNBC and other NBC divisions haven't been as good as flowers a lot of the times. Willminator (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the daily chuckle in reading how Wikipedia is not biased. Compare Fox News with MSNBC stories for "Conservative v. Liberal" word appearances; quite a contrast and again thanks for the chuckle for you folks pretending to take yourselves as fair and balanced.

Mobile site

I'm having trouble finding the URL for the MSNBC mobile site.

I found:

• http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35446917/ns/mobile

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)