|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the MSNBC article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3|
|Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This is not a forum for general discussion about MSNBC. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about MSNBC at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk.|
|The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.|
|Please be calm and civil when you make comments or when you present evidence, and avoid personal attacks. Please be patient as we work toward resolution of any issues in a peaceful, respectful manner.|
Ayman Mohyeldin may merit a subsection on this page. Repeated vandalism by IP and very occassional editors on his page (and just now on this page) are a surprisingly good index of how controversial he is.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Please stop accusing other editors of vandalism when it is clear you have no idea what is and isn't vandalism. Stop your POV pushing and read WP:BLP. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Question about NPOV
I have a question - and by that I clearly mean "small essay with a question" - as an editor. I apologize if I explained this badly. I kept trying to make it clear and it became a text wall instead. At least this is Wikipedia - home of verbosity. In the article, a paragraph in the section "Liberal bias" says: "In the Pew Research Center's 2013 "State of the News Media" report, MSNBC was found to be the most opinionated news network, with 85% of the content being commentary or opinions, and only 15% of the content being factual reporting."
The claim that MSNBC is the "most opinionated news network" based on the Pew Research Center report is, I believe, bias or original research, or perhaps just a misunderstanding of the report. The report does not mention being opinionated; the stats pertain to the types of content each network produces. The study was limited to the cable big 3, and MSNBC had the least actual news at just 15% and 85% being commentary & opinion pieces, but that's not the same as being "most opinionated" (they probably are but that's not the point). That's a subjective and unclear label [does "most opinionated" mean holds the strongest opinions, has the most opinions, expresses the most opinions, or - what the study is about - has the highest percentage of opinion segments & commentary?] the report doesn't use, and Pew also doesn't use the term "factual reporting", they call it "straight news reporting". However, I don't think this is the fault of a Wikipedia editor - the cite goes to Forbes, who I assume published their own version of "original research", which I guess they consider to be analysis. I can't confirm this as I haven't been able to access that damn site in months - ever since they changed it, the welcome page never ends for me.
I know the preference is to go by reliable secondary sources say about something, but in this case aren't we misrepresenting things by claiming an official study found something it didn't find, even though that came from a RS? Considering the context of everything, is it better to word that sentence as "Forbes reports that MSNBC was found to be the most opinionated news network" or something along those lines, to conform to NPOV and be clear that the idea of MSNBC being "most opinionated" is Forbes' idea, not ours or Pew's? Or is simply providing the ref to the Forbes article adequate, even in this case where we're reporting about someone else reporting about a report about news reporting in the media, in a controversy & bias section about a news network?* (You can see why I thought this was worth asking.) Or should we reword the article based on the report itself and link directly to that, even though that's a primary source (I think)?
*If you need subtitles: we're [Wikipedia] reporting about someone else [Forbes] reporting about a report [Pew "State of The Media"] about news reporting in the media, in a controversy & bias section [Wikipedia article, section "Criticism & controversy", subsection "Liberal Bias"] about a news network [MSNBC].
I realize this is a tiny part of a massive article, and maybe I'm really over-thinking it, but it's a genuine question about best policy as an editor that would apply in similar situations, it's not about this specific subject i.e. MSNBC being
a disgrace to journalism "most opinionated". I've gotten myself rather dizzy at this point and am hoping for some clarity from someone used to the deeper minutiae of following NPOV. LibertyOrDeath (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't like drive by tagging, but there have been a lot of articles over the past few weeks detailing controversies surrounding MSNBC. I don't have time to edit the article with this information. Buffaboy talk 18:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on MSNBC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160212050100/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/30/study-nbc-news-doesnt-fol_n_139162.html to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/30/study-nbc-news-doesnt-fol_n_139162.html
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121114033544/http://home.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-home.exe?A2=ind0404a&L=wnn&T=0&P=1941 to http://home.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-home.exe?A2=ind0404a&L=wnn&T=0&P=1941
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at
Archived sources still need to be checked
Bias statement in lead section
I notice that while the lead section of the article on Fox News Channel states that Fox has been accused of bias and then provides a rebuttal to those accusations, the lead section of the article on MSNBC states MSNBC's bias as a matter of fact. It seems to me that most reasonable people would view the two channels as approximately equivalently biased, and so would expect similar statements about bias in their lead sections. Paiforsyth (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)