This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of television on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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 the issues in a peaceful, respectful manner.
Given the cultural notoriety of their prison programming (Lockup (TV series) and other crime-related shows), I'm surprised there isn't a single mention of such programs on the page. Don't have time to edit it in myself, but a thought. czar·· 03:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
agreed, they've also aired other significant documentaries, and reaired lots of the Dateline NBC content, but they've really come a long way with Lockup, and it's an enduring franchise of its own.Boogerpatrol (talk) 23:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Pew's study indicating that MSNBC focuses far more on opinion/commentary than on "hard news" reporting compared to other news channels is mentioned in the "assertions of liberal bias" section...but the Pew study mentions nothing about alleged liberal bias. Isn't that rather misplaced? 18.104.22.168 (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
"Beginning in the mid-2000s, MSNBC assumed an increasingly liberal stance in its opinion programming." Oh. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 04:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
If they embraced their liberal/progressive leanings...
Is there a point to having a criticism section that accuses them of liberal bias? They have embraced it, they acknowledge they have a bias, doesn't make much sense to criticize them for something they embrace and admit to. It's like criticizing www.ironchariots.org for being biased in favor for atheism when the readily admit that they are an atheist website. ScienceApe (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Good point, but a lot of the criticism comes from a period when MSNBC was still basically billing itself as a "straight" news organization. I haven't looked into it lately but I rather suspect they still contend, a la Fox News, that their "straight" news programming is unbiased. Of course, their isn't much in the way of "straight news" presentation on this network anymore. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps, but compared to the other cable news sources FNC generally provides the viewer with a more in depth content and balanced stories.
Regarding this BRD cycle I think both editors are right. It's legitimate encyclopedic information, but on the other hand a long scattershot list of controversies over individual programs is WP:UNDUE and not completely relevant to the network as a whole. Every network has a bunch of controversial stuff, in this case it's controversial in the arena of politics; other networks get embroiled in controversies over their own areas. The fact that the network as a whole generates controversy is relevant. The blow-by-blow of what each network host does to stir things up is not. Under the circumstances, to avoid this becoming a WP:COAT I suggest creating a separate list-style article that gives a sampling (not an attempt to be comprehensive, that would violate WP:NOT and potentially WP:FORK) of some notable controversies, much as is done with Criticism of Facebook or the article about the list of controversies on Craigslist. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
My reasoning for removing some sections and not others is that I left items that I thought affected more than one show or were big enough to affect the network as a whole. The others should be covered on Wikipedia, but on articles for individuals and individual shows, and perhaps on a comprehensive controversies article. Gamaliel (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Ah. So some controversies are more equal than others. Got it. :) -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Only controversies the editors of a liberal article deem worthy are notable, which coincidentally involve conservatives. Micheal Savages weekend show cancellation is notable vs Martin Bashir's liberal weekday show with many times the number of viewers cancellation is to be hidden.Igglybloom (talk) 07:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
A couple editors lately have been attempting to edit into this article a statement in the lede that MSNBC has ""long been accused of left-wingbiased reporting". There is no question that MSNBC has taken a progressive slant overall as compared with other mainstream press outlets, but I have a number of issues with adding this particular statement to the lede.. First, using terms like "accused" and "biased reporting" are inherently WP:POV, regardless of sourcing. See WP:W2W. Note that the statement isn't that MSNBC is a liberal outlet, but that it has been accused of being liberal, as if that were wrongdoing. Leftwing (along with rightwing) are loaded terms in that regard as well. They imply a sort of extremism, and judgment from the political, that is usually shared only by people who are knee deep in politics, as opposed to being neutral factual descriptions. As a mainstream outlet, MNSBC is hardly extremist, it's just more liberal and perhaps so in a partisan way. The sources quoted, meanwhile, are not adequate to make this kind of claim. They are individual opinions, and analysis, that one aspect or another of MSNBC is liberal. They are not accusations, and they do not support that MSNBC has "long been accused". To support that, particularly in the lede, you would have to have multiple sources strong enough to satisfy WP:WEIGHT concerns that long-running accusations of bias are significant to MSNBC's notability. The lede is supposed to be a summary of the article body, so it would have to be developed there first. I see plenty of material in the body that MSNBC is liberal, and some that there is a bias or partisanship. Perhaps the current lede's paragraph that MSNBC has an acknowledged progressivist slant in its opinion programming isn't strong or direct enough to say that it is a liberal-ish news station, but making a broad claim like this goes too far based on the article content. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Ed Schultz, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes, Al Sharpton.....it is pretty well-known. If anything, it is acting as a propaganda arm of the Obama administration. Arzel (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I offered up several sources describing accusations of left-wing bias against MSNBC:
 A professor of communication and media studies is interviewed, and described how MSNBC became a "mirror image of Fox, trying to do for the left what Fox had done on behalf of the right."
 A Washington Post opinion writer describes how MSNBC's left-wing bias (which is taken as a given) is hurting their ratings.
 An article describes how "left-leaning" network MSNBC is being scolded by a conservative group.
 A news piece, describing how Microsoft is withdrawing from their contract with MSNBC because, "Being limited to MSNBC.com content was problematic to us because we couldn't have the multiple news sources and the multiple perspectives that our users were telling us that they wanted." (quote from the general manager of MSN.com)
 A magazine article describing how MSNBC's left-wing bias has hurt their ratings under a second-term President from the same party.
 "Shareholders Blast Comcast Execs Over MSNBC Liberal Slant."
 A biography describing "how MSNBC became the voice of the Left."
As you can see from these sources, the accusations of left-wing bias at MSNBC are widespread, and notable to the point that it has affected the decisions of shareholders and major business partners. This bias is entirely what MSNBC is known for. That is what makes them famous, and so it most certainly should be in the article intro. I mean, if you don't like the word "accusations" because it sounds too negative, I'd be happy to have the article simply state their left-wing bias as a fact, considering how widely-acknowledged it is (and how they've deliberately and openly embraced it). Though, there's another editor who recently added the word "Alleged" in front of the article headers on their left-wing bias. TBSchemer (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
It is fair to say that it has been described (not accused, and not "long" which is WP:OR and commentary) by commentators (to be listed, but widespread is not sourced) of having a liberal (or progressive, or if sourced, pro-Democrat, but not right-wing) approach (or point of view, but not bias, which is something else). The cited material should go in the body and a brief statement like this worked into the paragraph about their slant, along with the statement that they describe themselves as progressive. Nobody denies that they are more liberal than say CNN or the 3 traditional broadcast network sources, and deliberately so, it's just the approach to describing that fact. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)