Talk:MSNBC/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Liberal Bias

I agree it is absurd that FOX News's page (as well as CNN's page which took a while to get passed) continues to point out the "bias" of the network, yet a network that is by far the most bias (MSNBC) can go by without anything. Its ridiculous. You would think Wikipedia wouldn't be as effected by political agendas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.126.77.23 (talk) 04:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You do realize there is a rather large and informative section at the end of the article titled 'Allegations of political bias', right? NcSchu_(Talk) 14:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree NcSchu that is great. But the point they are trying to make is that FOX News (and CNN) have a sentence in the OPENING PARAGRAPHS that usually say something like "critics have said x has a y bias, to which x has feverishly denied.". MSNBC faces the same criticisms so why are they without that sentence. If not MSNBC then why for CNN and FOX News? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MASTERuser (talk • contribs) 02:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems here there's criticism on both sides of the political spectrum that result in no actual conclusion of its overwhelming bias. The criticism of Fox News is almost all based on it having a 'conservative bias', therefore it seems appropriate to reach that conclusion in the opening. CNN doesn't have that kind of conclusion in the opening paragraph for what I believe to be the same reason—that the criticism of is split. CNN also seems to have a lot of other allegations of bias that are more than just political affiliation. Each case is independent so I don't think it's right to compare the situations. NcSchu_(Talk) 13:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I added an NPOV statement to lead section, modeled after Fox News article. With bias charges being thrown around from inside MSNBC itself in addition to recent and ongoing analysis by multiple news sources, I believe the article now warrants the statement. --Textmatters (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The point of a lead is to summarize and introduce the article, not to be a news medium. The statement you added in no way was an accurate summary of the criticism section. NcSchu_(Talk) 19:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't really want to put a bee in your bonnet, but you're going to have to address this sooner or later. I read the criticism section and the only assertions of conservative bias are coming from two self-professed liberal/progressive organizations. I think it unseemly that such POV cites can be used to imply an "equality" of bias claims. Consensus in commentary seems to agree. Do with it what you will, but the reason you stated above for why such a statement belongs in the Fox News article is that the perceived bias is "overwhelmingly" conservative. With both the "Liberal Bias" section and the "Obama Bias" section pointing out bias in favor of the more Liberal candidates, and the "Conservative Bias" section citing only Liberal/Progressive sources, I think the argument for inclusion of the NPOV statement has been reinforced rather than refuted. I guess the only question that remains is what is threshold that would create the consensus that MSNBC leans left? Most people seem to be there. --Textmatters (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you happen to see the rest of the talk page that deals with this section!? I think we're trying to address it, so it didn't really help that you ignored current discussions to put this in. We can't just pretend the section doesn't exist; despite their biases they made the criticisms repeatedly and they're recognized as doing so. The Obama section is all in regards to the primary, and it's your opinion whether Obama is more liberal than Clinton. There are plenty of biased people and organizations making the criticisms in each of the sections. If you disagree with the criticisms that specific ones make then too bad. We give all complaints recognition if we include them, and the current consensus is to include them. NcSchu_(Talk) 21:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I did in fact read the entire page. Pull out the references by MMfA, MRC and FAIR. This would seem to match the consensus between you and Squicks (no reason for this article to further the citation of obviously biased sources just because other articles do). It would also accurately reflect the current state of affairs, which has multiple MSM organizations reporting the appearance of conservative bias, with no unbiased sources asserting liberal bias, at least none that have cites. The Obama section is more problematic. Certainly bias has been alleged and reported, although the only cites in the section are from Clinton campaign members or Clinton supporters. (The weasely worded first sentence is currently unsupported, and should be removed). I still believe an NPOV statement in the lead modeled after the one in the Fox News article is warranted, but I will drop that request. I would guess that events will overtake your opinion and mine on that matter. Furthermore, I appreciate the obvious time that you have put into this article amid much contention. Removal of the above mentioned cites will go a long way toward improving the NPOV of the article. --Textmatters (talk) 23:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A quote from the McCain campaign complaining of a liberal bias or the Clinton campaign complaining of an Obama bias is just as irrelevant, IMO, as one from a biased 'progressive' or 'conservative' watchdog group. They both have obvious agendas that focus them looking for biases when there may or may not be one. Either way I think it's wrong to give credence to their paranoia, however since we include them I don't like ignoring their inclusion in the article. I wouldn't call two people a consensus, but yes, we seem to both dislike these organizations. NcSchu_(Talk) 04:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, you don't have to convince me; I'd pull all those references out. What that would leave though is 3 well referenced cites of perceived liberal bias from presumed NPOV sources (NYT, WASH POST and MSNBC itself), no cites of Obama bias and no cites of conservative bias. Not to be pedantic(well, maybe!), but that kinda puts us back to the beginning. Let those who can find NPOV references of conservative and Obama bias find and cite them. Cheers! --Textmatters (talk) 04:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I'd be OK with having that statement in, though perhaps a bit less of a robotic copy of the one on FNC. Perhaps we should wait a few days for other editors to voice their opinion before removing this much text from the sections, however? NcSchu_(Talk) 14:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. I'll leave it for a few days. Do you have a statement you feel apt?--Textmatters (talk) 21:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps something along the lines of, "MSNBC has been criticized of and observed as moving increasingly liberal, especially in its prime time lineup." I know it's not drastically different, but I don't really like the wording of the FNC statement. Since they're obviously independent articles there's no need to keep them at all the same. I think it generally summarizes a bulk, if not all, of the criticisms, as they tend to point to that 5pm-10pm EST lineup as being on the left. NcSchu_(Talk) 00:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

NcShu, I can support that statement just as you have written it.--Textmatters (talk) 23:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

As a veteran of the FNC page, but being really uninvolved with the issue here, is there any way to clean up the "criticized of and observed" language? It does not seem very clear as is. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't really like that phrase either, but it seems to summarize the section. They're either criticisms from certain people or organizations regarding a bias or observations by an organization. NcSchu_(Talk) 19:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

How 'bout "MSNBC has been observed by some and criticized by others for seemingly moving increasingly liberal, especially in its prime time lineup"? Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't like the 'seemingly moving increasingly'—too many -ings. NcSchu_(Talk) 20:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't catch that. It was originally "its apparent advocacy of liberal positions" but I changed it because I wanted to keep more of your language, and apparent can be misunderstood to mean "obvious" when I'm trying to saying seeming. I guess my major problem is with of. It just doesn't seem like the right word, perhaps "for" would be more appropriate. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...it's definitely 'advocate of'. What about: "MSNBC's prime time lineup has been observed as and criticized for increasingly advocating liberal principles."? NcSchu_(Talk) 21:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Bingo! That's it. If no objections, I think that would work. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

MSNBC shows aren't that academic. I could see the magazine The Nation being described as "advocating liberal principles", but MSNBC's prime time lineup just features opinionated commentators who are critical of conservative American politicians. For example, Keith Olbermann is more often highlighting the hypocrisy and buffoonary of Republicans rather than say, skewering Ayn Rand. Switzpaw (talk) 00:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree; I mean, I don't think it's surprising that they inject their own political views...that's the whole point in the shows. But I guess some editors want the fact that MSNBC doesn't seem to be balancing out or trying to balance out the amount of commentators with a conservative bias with those with a liberal bias. It's probably for ratings reasons (their ratings have been skyrocketing since Olbermann and now Maddows have become more pointed), but it's true. It's also probably relevant via the NYT article that describes MSNBC's desire to become the anti-Fox News. NcSchu_(Talk) 01:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm ok with that phrasing. Perhaps someone will be able to improve it, but as stated it conveys both notability and accuracy, and that works for me. --Textmatters (talk) 23:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to piss on the parade here, but I think there's a big distinction between "principles", "policies", and "bias" -- all three seem to have been used interchangeably in this discussion, but each is a distinct concept. What exactly do the sources say with regards to all of this? /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The sources only say 'liberal' because in common U.S. parlance, that is an umbrella term for principles, policies and bias. However in an attempt to not write from an American-centric view I used principles because that would encompass liberal policies, and imply bias. I don't have a problem with just using liberal if that is where consensus goes. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Eh, you take the MRC, MMfA, and FAIR positions and chuck them, as MRC is of course a conservative organization and MMfA and FAIR are of course liberal organizations (so their positions are rather predictable), and you are left with the NYT, Washington Post and NBC News head all asserting, opining, or arguing (take your pick of the word you like best) that MSNBC has become increasingly biased in their treatment of news stories. Add in the notable removal of Olbermann and Matthews from the political anchor desk and the volume of stories in multiple AP and Reuters news service asking the question of whether MSNBC is skewing left and you get a group of editors trying to develop an appropriate statement for the lede section...and any suggestion you have would also be appreciated.--Textmatters (talk) 00:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The Who? What? When? Where? How?'s are important here. There's the perception that the network is biased because Keith Olbermann and now Rachel Maddow have prime time slots. And to another extent, there's the perception that opinion is creeping into what is supposed to be non-biased journalism (the news that isn't part of those programs). In the 9/7/08 NYT article MSNBC Takes Incendiary Hosts From Anchor Seat there's this quote: NBC Universal executives are also known to be concerned about the perception that MSNBC’s partisan tilt in prime time is bleeding into the rest of the programming day. On a recent Friday afternoon, a graphic labeled “Breaking News” asked: “How many houses does Palin add to the Republican ticket?” Mr. Griffin called the graphic “an embarrassment.” To me, it seems like most sources acknowledge that prime-time is 'liberal' and that NBC execs believed that allowing Olbermann and Matthews to anchor the election news coverage brought out some slanted commentary, but it would be unfair to make too many sweeping generalizations on the network as a whole based on that. Unless you're reading something I'm not. Switzpaw (talk) 01:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion for a summarization in the lead, based on the source I just mentioned, would be: "MSNBC has been observed as and criticized for featuring commentary from a liberal point of view during its prime time hours." I think it may also be notable to say something like "During the 2008 election season, fears have mounted among NBC executives that its election news coverage has become too opinionated." but I'm not liking that phrasing exactly. Switzpaw (talk) 02:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we need something a little different from "observed and criticized for featuring...". That is true, but to some extent ALL the cable news channels "feature" commentary from a liberal point of view. Frankly, if we don't think a straight copy of the tone of the Fox News lead is approprpriate, I like NuSchu's original phrasing: "MSNBC has been criticized of and observed as moving increasingly liberal, especially in its prime time lineup." I think that correctly states the perception of observers and the reality of the critic's statements.--Textmatters (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I can respect the original phrasing. It's a bit vague, but it's notable, backed up by sources, and the reader can read the "Accusations of Bias" section for more details. Switzpaw (talk) 21:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

After re-reading I think I should clarify...when I wrote that all news channels "feature" commentary from a liberal point of view I should have said that all news channels also "feature" commentary from a conservative point of view as well. When William Bennett is on an MSNBC panel and is asked a question, he is "featured", and his answer is conservative commentary. When Terry McAuliff is on "Hannity and Colmes" and he speaks, he is providing liberal commentary. The lead needs something less "wishy-washy", and as I said, I would still get on board with NuSchu's original. As a reader, I felt it immediately cut to the heart of the matter.--Textmatters (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Can someone clarify what they mean when they say Nschu's original version. If this is what you are referring to -- MSNBC has been criticized of and observed as moving increasingly liberal, especially in its prime time lineup.-- it should be noted that the bold language does not seem to be proper grammar. I'm assuming it should be ...criticized for and observed... in which case I'd support it as well, with the caveat that the term liberal by itself may be a little too U.S. centric. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I was actually wondering about that...I guess that's why I'm not an English major. NcSchu_(Talk) 22:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"Criticized for, and observed as..." is better. I'm ok with "liberal", but "left" works as a direct substitution both grammatically and descriptively.--Textmatters (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Left is sort of a slang, IMO. Also, can you use colons (:) when replying to people? Thanks. NcSchu_(Talk) 00:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Not a reply to any specific individual :), but are we clean on this yet? Or shall we still let it settle for the weekend? Ramsquire (I guess this is specific), is the use of the word "liberal" a stumbling block? I suggested "left" as a direct substitution, but didn't get any perceptible traction. Do you have a different suggestion in place of "liberal" in the proposed statement?--Textmatters (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

If everyone is cool with "liberal" I won't stop progress. But i think it would be better if we are more precise and less U.S. centric, by describing exactly what we are talking about, e.g. "liberal political positions", "liberal principles", etc. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

'Liberal political positions' is a nice phrase. I like it. NcSchu_(Talk) 19:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thoughts

If we are going to disregard FAIR and Media Matters as sources, doesn't that mean the wholesale deletion of the 'conservative bias' section? As for the 'liberal bias' section, Men's Journal-- which is not an ideological source like FAIR-- reports the Olbermann has said about the network that "I'd like it to be the accurate counterweight to Fox. My attitude is not to counterbalance them because they're conservatives; it's counterbalancing because some of their stuff is outlandishly in violation of every tenet of responsible broadcasting". They've also said that he runs the network. Given that, again- as reported by fair non-ideological sources, Olbermann has been embroiled in controversy after the DNC thing: Isn't this worth keeping? When it comes to the Obama bias section, the comments by a notable Barack Obama supporting magazine seem worth keeping. The fact that Chris Matthews claims MSNBC unofficially supports Barack Obama is also definitely worth keeping.

As for the complaints from the Hillary and McCain campaigns, I'm conflicted. It's at least far more notable than the FAIR, MRC, and MM stuff. I'm inclined to leave it in. The Squicks (talk) 05:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused as how we are allowing the "conservative" bias section to be included into this article. It is my current understanding that we are accepting one-liners from self-professed liberal organizations that don't see MSNBC as being "left-enough" given the content. We have given so much attention to the sources of conflicting sources, I think it's a bit hypocritical to accept these. Now, if there are complaints from the campaigns themselves, I think that is worth noting in an objective manner. Wikiport (talk) 09:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Read the section: yes by removing FAIR, Media Matters, etc. the conservative section would be dead. I don't see the point in having political campaigns quoted as sources; it's pretty obvious that they're going to try to cry 'bias' when they don't like the coverage about them, it's also pretty obvious as to which way they'll accuse the network of being biased. No political organization has probably ever accused a network of being biased in favor of them so the comments have to relevance. NcSchu_(Talk) 11:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No article on MSNBC is even close to being complete without a fair discussion of MSNBC's fairly dramatic change from an essentially neutral cable news channel to a clearly Left-tilting channel.

how come the fox news article claims fox has right leaning bias but msnbc does not have left leaning bias ? either this article should say msnbc is left leaning or they should remove the accusation of fox news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.80.96.75 (talk) 03:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the first part of your comment, the discussion is addressed in the Allegations_of_political_bias section of the MSNBC article. Regarding the second part of your comment, there is discussion above that discusses possibly updating the lead with a focus on bias with respect to the channel's prime time lineup, which has garnered media coverage. Whether or not the weight of that bias is on par with Fox News, I'm not sure. I've read (and also personally believed) allegations of Fox News bias for years -- probably since year 2000. MSNBC is a different beast, and we should consider how the sources are alleging bias. Is it the prime time lineup? Is it all of their reporting? Are reporters receiving memos from MSNBC execs telling them to steer their reporting to the left? I think the sources are only alleging the prime time lineup is biased, so the next logical question is: does that warrant a sentence in the lead, and if so, how do we write it? That's what the above discussion is about. Switzpaw (talk) 04:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Where are we at with this wording? MSNBC has been criticized for and observed as moving increasingly liberal, especially in its prime time lineup. was the last one I see being discussed, and then there was some talk of somehow substituting the phrase "liberal positions" in place of "liberal". Switzpaw (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I was going to ask the same question. I believe that most people just wanted liberal in there. I don't know why it hasn't been added. But the language in your post has my support. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

"Moving...liberal" would be ungrammatical. "Becoming increasingly liberal" or "moving in a liberal direction" would be OK. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

BIAS -

I've tried to eliminate more some of the bias in this article. Someone from Fox news has too much time on their hands... I've changed the fact that all the titles are followed by the work 'issues' e.g. 'ratings issues' and 'bias issues' Square126 (talk) 13:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

How can anyone claim there is a "conservative bias" at MSNBC. Whoever thinks that needs a head examination. They are witout equal when it come to liberal bias. And they cite two titans of objectivity in furthering this accusation: FAIR and Media Matters. Pathetic. This section should be removed, imo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.59.122 (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That is a bad assumption to make. Furthermore, some of your edits do not seem logical. KO is not a conservative. JS did not post a YouTube Video, his show was YouTubed. Discuss your concerns and we can fix them. Arzel (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Whatever they are smoking I want some because saying MSNBC is conservative is crazy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedarpointohio2 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Bloomberg crawl

"MSNBC is the only news network to keep the "crawl" on the bottom on the screen during commercial breaks. CNBC keeps their crawl, but they are considered a business network."

Bloomberg has the video box in a frame with three crawls and three data boxes. If you mention CNBC, you should mention Bloomberg TV. Also, both CNBC and Bloomberg are 'news networks' or 'business news networks' not 'business networks'. 202.82.171.186 02:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Logo

Please stop reverting the logo guys lets keep the new one and hopefully someone will SVG it. However until then keep the new one as it is used on air more now, and only one person keeps reverting it and is approaching the 3RR. - Mike Beckham 00:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Same logo

Can someone please explain the difference to me between the so-called 'April 2007-November 2007' online logo and the 'November 2007-Present' online logo? They look identical except for the background, which is by no means part of the actual logo. The images, on the other hand, are both copyright violations since whoever put them there obviously just ripped them off the website. I was going to replace both sections with one section and replace the logo with the SVG logo I created, however I'd probably be reverted again...thoughts? NcSchu_(Talk) 02:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree, apparently the only difference in the two is the background. I'd stick with the first one (blue background) and not even mention the "renovation" of msnbc.com. I would, however, keep it distinct, as the web logo is in a different font as the network logo. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Headline text

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events Current events not 24hr news?

MSNBC stops broadcasting news by 10pm and movies to stock documentaries from their vast archives, as well 2hours of repeat runs of Tucker Carlson and hardball till six. so how are they a 24hr news channel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.133.248 (talk • contribs)

FOX News Channel goes to tape at 11 until 6 as well. It's still news 24/7, no dramas etc... - Mike Beckham 05:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

As there are only 3 U.S cable new networks, can we change third to last? Giza D 19:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Uhhhhh, No, there is MSNBC, CNBC, Headlines News, CNN, Fox News Channel, BBC World News, etc et al.

BBC World News is not a "U.S. Cable News Network." CNBC is primarily financial news, which is not the focus of any other on the list. Headline News is a division of CNN from what I understand, since the actual name is "CNN Headline News." That leaves only three that can be considered "U.S. Cable News Networks."Advocate7x70 (talk) 05:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Supreme left-wing bias

This article does not do much to express the true nature of the true nature of the extreme liberal bias on this network. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ohshorse (talk • contribs) 14:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

To put it in better words, this article was extremely biased in its prevelence of promoting Media Matters. MMFA and MRC should be equally mentioned in terms of criticism, and this was not the case - it was almost as if MMFA members deliberately came onto WP to distort articles regularly. Yes, this is the case - and yes, we should look out for it. Let's remind those users with bad faith of policy and be vigilant. Take no bias, report facts - assert nothing. --75.21.179.121 22:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, to say that MSNBC has a true network of reporters is incorrect. Second of all, to think that these media companies are working for the left or right wing politics is to truly misunderstand the state of our media and country.Slipgrid 19:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Slipgrid. I have watched all the major networks for quite a long time now and the only "bias" that seems to be evident is the bias toward sensationalism and possibly FoxNews' bias toward conservatism that stems from their special focus on addressing this make-believe bias. Wait for any major news event and flip back and forth between MSNBC, CNN, and FoxNews and the headlines will all be sensationalist and the news reports will all be sensationalist. They care more about hype than which side of this make-believe aisle they land on. JHMM13 15:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Please remember to keep opinions to yourself abide by WP:NPOV. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views, this talk page is to talk about the article and not the content of MSNBC and your views of it WP:TPG. - Mike Beckham 00:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

What is implied by the word "supreme" in this subsection? Would another word be better?

Scheduling and WP:NOT

In editing the Fox News Channel article in October 2006, a discussion started on determining whether a schedule should be placed on a television channel's page due to guidelines set by WP:NOT. The discussion ended with the editing of the removal of the times/schedule of the network on the network's page, leaving a list of programming without any mention of a schedule. I will concede, the discussion was between a smaller group of Wikipedians, but does anyone agree with this determination or should the schedule be left on a network page? Chris (Talk) (Contribs) 23:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant

"MSNBC has received criticism for its programming and journalistic ethics. Media Matters for America, a liberal group, has stated that MSNBC carries a conservative bias, meanwhile a conservative media watchdog group, Media Research Center, has argued that MSNBC has a liberal slant. Media Matters claims that shows such as Tucker, Scarborough Country, and Hardball show a conservative bias."

The world we live in, ladies in gentlemen. You cannot please everyone. 70.121.163.99 18:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I just want to put this out there, and I know I'm not the only person to think/say this, but I feel that the article, in its tone and its content, is far from neutral. allegations of liberal/conservative bias aside, it opens with comments on how bad the ratings are. Maybe it could be flagged? 71.232.226.76 (talk) 06:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Uhmmmmm... Bias Anyone?

Isn't this just a little bit biased?

"The network has the lowest ratings of the three major U.S. news channels."

Sounds like someone at Fox was here editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.67.30 (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Really look at the facts because they really do have some of the worst ratings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedarpointohio2 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Bias Removed regarding ratings...

There was no source for the accusations and therefore I removed it. I think FOX News Employees should refrain from editing here.

Nice try though.

-Chuck —Preceding unsigned comment added by K8cpa (talk • contribs) 18:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The network is third in ratings. http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/06/20/cable-news-ratings-for-thursday-june-19/4191 —Preceding unsigned comment added by MASTERuser (talk • contribs) 01:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of Bias: Department of Justice story

I've removed the following paragraph from the article: "Adding fuel to the fire of perceptions of a liberal political bias, in December 2007, the network ran a series titled Bush League Justice with the explicit purpose of attacking the U.S. Justice Department under the presidency of George W. Bush."

Not only is the tone inappropriately hyperbolic and POV, but its completely irrelevant. Similar criticism of the Department of Justice is widespread and hardly "proof" of the network's alleged liberal bias.

In addition to the above noted removal, I've also toned down some other outrageous POV problems the section had.-Hal Raglan (talk) 14:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've once again removed the paragraph from the article. In addition to the reason cited above, even if the material was relevant, there are major sourcing problems. Nothing in the provided source indicates that MSNBC ran the series "with the explicit purpose" of "attacking" Bush's DOJ. Unless there is a citation to internal network memos, or an interview with an MSNBC insider, acknowledging that the series was created solely to attack the DOJ and, by extension, President Bush, this material doesn't belong in a section devoted to alleged "liberal bias".-Hal Raglan (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed

Availability In the United Kingdom

Recently a Test Card (Colored Bars) has appeared on Eurobird 1 at 11307Ghz Vertical 27500 2/3. This is not the full channel, but instead a test channel for the new BET UK. But the audiofeed of MSNBC US can be heard on the feed. The channel can be accessed via Sky using the other channels feature, where its channel ID is 53370

This sounds like, "Hey, I was fiddling with my television the other day, and guess what I found?" It's clearly just someone's personal discovery, and therefore not verifiable from published sources, which should be a requirement for any addition to a Wikipedia article. -- Oliver P. (talk) 00:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

There are 16 pictures in this article, many of which are non-descript and don't flow with the section, I suggest than most of them be removed. Arzel (talk) 03:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that too. ---Ransom (--208.25.0.2 (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC))

Virginia Tech

I've removed, for now, the following completely unsourced paragraph:

In April 2007, NBC News and MSNBC received heavy criticism for airing pictures and videos sent to them by Cho Seung-Hui, the man who killed 32 people at Virginia Tech. By the next day, NBC news decided against airing the video and pictures sent by Seung-Hui.

--Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is this continually deleted?

It has been referenced time and time again that MSNBC has been poor in the ratings when compared with CNN and especially FNC head-to-head, and even its own article explains how its ratings have been terrible. With that said, why are we not allowed to mention them as the third rated network (which they are, and I can reference that) and FNC and CNN have their ratings (1st and 2nd respectively in overall viewers) in the opening paragraphs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MASTERuser (talk • contribs) 02:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Because it's unreferenced and unsourced. Thanks. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 14:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

NYT says that MSNBC leans one way -- Why must this article be whitewashed?

If NYT is not saying that MSNBC leans one way, than what on earth could they possibly be saying? Even Keith Olbermann admits as such according the article: "“If you go into a burger place, and you go in there for the fish, you might want the fish occasionally but it’s probably a mistake,” he said. “Could you be utterly different politically and succeed in this format? You’d basically be throwing your audience away.”" The Squicks (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

We can't take statements out of context and present them as factual conclusions. One of the statements I removed in the article was about a proposed show that never aired, the other was about a denial from MSNBC executives. Using the article as a source is fine, cherry picking quotes and presenting them to push a particular argument is not. Gamaliel (talk) 23:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You can label me a troll and accuse me of whatever you want. I honestly don't care.

I just want to see something from that article quoted in this Wikipedia page. The general point of the article, the context of it, is that MSNBC is slanted. Any quote from the article except for the company's President's denial would follow this context. If you think that the quote Having a prime-time lineup that tilts ever more demonstrably to the left could be risky for General Electric, MSNBC’s parent company, which is subject to legislation and regulation far afield of the cable landscape. Officials at MSNBC emphasize that they never set out to create a liberal version of Fox News is inappropriate, than maybe the article can mention Olbermann's fish quote or anything else from the article. The Squicks (talk) 03:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Your suggested quote is original research. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not following you. OR is, by definition, putting my own personal ideas into the article. And I am obviously not doing that. I'm neutrally citing what a reliable news organization has said.

If you are accusing NYT of lying or of something else, than I respect your opinion. But my and your's opinion of the NYT as a paper is irrelevant.

If you're referring to WP:SYN, than I do see your point. You're worried that taking several quotes and mashing them together presents a problem. But the thing is: All we have from the article is MSNBC's response, which is ludicrous to put in the article just on its own without referring at all to the questions that they were asked! It's like listening to just one side of a telephone call. So, again, I'm asking you: Which quotes from the NYT article can I cite in this article? The Squicks (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

None -- as Gamaliel pointed out, you can't cherry pick quotes to spin an issue. One, it's an editorial opinion, not a news fact. Two, you've recognized the violation of WP:SYN, which is itself a subset of WP:OR. Three, the editorial opinion of one writer does not rise to due weight. Please check out Fox News Channel for an example of reliable academic sources that are acceptable within this topic. Thanks. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Please actually read the sources cited in this article before commenting on the talk page.

This is not an opinion article. It is a news article by a staff reporter.

If you believe that The New York Times is not a reliable source, than you have a right to your opinion. I respect that. But take it up at other Wikipedia pages and not here. The Squicks (talk) 19:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, this article as it stands now is--- by definition--- cherry picking. It includes the MSNBC head's response to several questions, questions that this article does not even bother to describe. This is, at the very least, unhelpful to the readers. The Squicks (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the objections to the material. You are ripping these quotes free of their context. The first troublesome one is in relation to a show featuring Rosie O'Donnell which never aired, the second is a clear denial from MSNBC execs. You are presenting them as if they had no context and are blanket statements about the channel itself. If you want to put in a hundred quotes from people calling this channel liberal, I don't care, but you can't do it like this and have the quotes saying things they were never intended to say. Gamaliel (talk) 13:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to me to be saying something along the lines of "The article said that MSNBC would be biased if and only if they adopted Rosie's show. Since they didn't, this article can't be quoted from." Please re-read the article. This is not a biblical script or something that there can be dozens of equally likely interpretations of. The context of it is clearly that MSNBC is biased and that getting a Rosie-based show would make it more biased.

The article says: The one early-evening program on MSNBC that is often most sympathetic to the administration, “Tucker” with Tucker Carlson at 6 p.m., is in real danger of being canceled, said one NBC executive, who, like those who spoke of Ms. O’Donnell, would do so only on condition of anonymity. Having a prime-time lineup that tilts ever more demonstrably to the left could be risky for General Electric, MSNBC’s parent company, which is subject to legislation and regulation far afield of the cable landscape. Officials at MSNBC emphasize that they never set out to create a liberal version of Fox News.

It also says: Mr. Olbermann acknowledged that for MSNBC’s nighttime lineup to ultimately work, viewers needed to be able to follow at least some common themes from one show to another. He likened himself and his fellow hosts, collectively, to the menu of a hamburger restaurant with several variations of the same dish. “If you go into a burger place, and you go in there for the fish, you might want the fish occasionally but it’s probably a mistake,” he said. “Could you be utterly different politically and succeed in this format? You’d basically be throwing your audience away.”

Suppose Chris Wallace over at Fox News had been quoted as saying that having different programming on the network would "politically... basically be throwing your audience away”-- what do you think the editors over there would do? Take a guess :-) The Squicks (talk) 19:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. It's my understanding that posting two paragraphs or less from an article is not a copyright violation. I'm sorry if I misinterpreted that. The Squicks (talk) 19:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)