Talk:MSNBC/Archive 3

Availability in Europe

I don't think the statement about MSNBC not being broadcast on it's own channel in Europe is correct. At least in Sweden MSNBC is among a selection of about 10 news channels (along with CNN International, BBC World, Al Jazeera, Euronews and Sky News) in the basic subscription to the Digital TV operators Com Hem (one of the largest digital TV providers in Sweden) and a few others. I'd be surprised if that isn't the case in other european oountries as well. 213.89.251.44 (talk) 02:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I regularly travel to Ireland for business, and I see variation depending if I am in the Republic, or up north. Interesting point. Wikiport (talk) 06:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the statement about MSNBC not being broadcast on it's own channel in Europe is correct. Generally, this statement is correct. There are some exceptions in certain European cities (as you would expect), but it's true for the most part. The Squicks (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Outright Bias

Who wrote this article? The CEO of MSNBC? You know it's biased - if you don't think it is, go on google and see for yourself. This article did not pinpoint MSNBC hard enough espacially in instances when the article said "allegations of bias" when it was outright bias. "They report the news?" Ha ha, they don't report the news, they are the news. All I did was try to remove bias and the other left wingers unjustly removed my edits - vividquite —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vividquite (talk • contribs) 19:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC) — Vividquite (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

open, opinionated about Bush, etc.

I have removed the paragraphs stating that MSNBC was open and opinionated in its criticism of GW Bush. The section dealt with nobody but Keith Olbermann, and failed to show that MSNBC either is, or is not, biased against Bush. The info should either be included in Keith Olbermann's page or the section should be rewritten with other examples. If the section is readded with other examples then I'll be fine with it, but dont make it all about Olbermann. Michaelh2001 (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Old Merger proposal

I propose that MSNBC's Third Prime-Time Show Search be merged into this article. A separate article is unnecessary and it would likely get more attention as a subsection of this article. TomCat4680 (talk) 05:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't like the idea. It already is a subsection of MSNBC. but it should be a seperate article too. I would like my article to be not be merged. --Mapple001 (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not your article. (see WP:OWN). Its not even about a show, its just a proposed idea and a subsection is sufficient. If it was about an actual current show it'd be different. TomCat4680 (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Mapple, you've done a good job with starting a decent article. However, I tend to agree with the TomCat -- though there seems to be some diversity of sourcing, I am thus far unconvinced as to why it should exist as a separate artlce -- why do you think it is deserving of its own independent treatment? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Relax it's really not a big deal. Lets see what happens over the next few weeks because MSNBC could make a major announcement. For example, MSNBC could announce that Ed Schultz gets his own show at 7 and the Young Turks at 10, and the other two candidates could be signed to do side work. I don't know. But the decision made over the next few weeks could be major and boost their ratings dramatically. Bottom Line: The fallout of all this could be dramatic enough to keep an independent article on it. If Phil Griffin decides not to fill the 10 PM slot after all than the article may be deleted.--Mapple001 (talk) 22:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Its a good article like Blaxthos said, I just think it belongs as a subsection of this article instead. I did NOT nominate it for deletion, I nominated it for merger. TomCat4680 (talk) 10:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is a deadline to make a decision either way.  ;-) I'm not really convinced that a separate article is warranted in any case -- if there is some dark-horse announcement that dramatically swings ratings or something, it should probably still reside in the main article, but I have no problem waiting to see what happens either. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

MSNBC HD

Why hasn't the public been told anything new about MSNBC HD since October? If anyone here can find more specific information about the launch date and any carriage agreements, please add it. TomCat4680 (talk) 12:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Well they finally announced the launch date. Now how about some carriage deal agreements? TomCat4680 (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Lead

Why has the section pertaining to MSNBC's liberal bias been removed from the lead? I think it is as well sourced as the one in the lead of Fox News. -Zeus-^u|c 14:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I have put an old version back in. Improvements are welcome, but please discuss here if you want to remove it. -Zeus-^u|c 14:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Some would say its is criticism which opens up the article for unsourced, biased opinions (or in Wiki terms weasel words).

If it's sourced AND balanced with the Fox News statement, then I see no big issue. Not sure why it has to be in the lead in either article but c'est la vie. τßōиЄ2001 (ǂ ) 17:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah me neither. There is an MSNBC#Alleged Liberal bias section, it belongs there instead. TomCat4680 (talk) 17:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably because the lead is suppose to summarize the article and also because I know we are not suppose to "compare" articles, but this is probably trying to mirror the FNC lead. I don't know about the rest of you, but in my tv market, these two stations are back to back on the dial :). Anyways, --Tom (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

There was an RFC back some months ago which ended with an agreement to mention the contentions of bias in the lead. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

That's what I thought, I have seen it before. I think this might be some stealth vandalism. -Zeus-^u|c 19:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Badmintonhist, there was only a discussion, not an RFC (misrepresentation). Additionally, it did not agree with any sort of "agreement to mention the contentions of bias in the lead" (wishful thinking?) -- please read the archives before alleging facts that are easily disproved with a little effort.

The main thrust of the assertion (again here) is that "Fox News and MSNBC articles should mirror each other" -- which is completely unsupported by any Wikipedia policy. The actual governing policies:

1. WP:LEAD - the lead is a summary of the article.
2. WP:V - the details of the summary are verifiable in the section of the article that contains that portion of said summary.
3. WP:UNDUE - elevating a few critics in the summary section gives them undue weight.
4. WP:LEADCITE - specifically recognizes exceptions; each situation is different and should be evaluated on a case by case basis.

Additionally, the general consensus has been that allegations of FNC's bias (and the controversy surrounding it) far outweighs that of MSNBC, which is clearly demonstrated by the dozens/hundreds of WP:RS-compliant sources regarding FNC bias, and the relatively few surrounding MSNBC. Hope this helps. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that mirroring is not a valid criterion; however, I think that the lead sentance does meet all that criteria. -Zeus-^u|c 21:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected. There were two long discussions, not formal RFC's, in which there was a a strong consensus that a mention of assertions of bias would be included in the lead. Blaxthos was the principal dissenter, perhaps the only one by the end of each discussion. I believe that Warren had no objection to this mention per se, but believed that the sources of this contention should be specifically named in the lead. By the way, the greater number of reliable sources alleging a bias on the part of Fox is probably largely a product of Fox being in the "bias business" longer than MSNBC. However, MSNBC has certainly been making up for lost ground over the last few years. I see that they have just hired Ed Schultz for their six o'clock slot. Let's see, that's an afternoon to evening package made up of Shuster, Matthews, Schultz, Olbermann, and Maddow. Hard to find any liberal/Democratic bias there. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't see what's wrong with having bias. Isn't the First Amendment still in effect? TomCat4680 (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Neither do I, as long as we're not afraid of mentioning the fact that some "reliable sources" find the network biased near the beginning of the article. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Leave them there. TomCat4680 (talk) 22:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose MSNBC Lineup Changes Since 2008 be merged into this article. Like the last article User:Mapple001 created, its just a content fork. Also most of the info about the third primetime show search, which is now outdated, was simply merged into it. TomCat4680 (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Look, maybe you should change the title of the article to "History of MSNBC: 2008-present." I don't understand what the problem is. If you look at President Obama's article, he has seperate articles for many different things such as his early life, his senatorial career, etc. Everything that has happened to MSNBC in the past year is very prominent. If accuracy is the problem, then go fix it up.--Mapple001 (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well that's different, he's the President of the United States and a single article about him would be the length of a 500 page book. This article is about a TV station that's only 13 years old. I didn't say it wasn't accurate, its just outdated, the "third prime-time show search" has ended with Griffin's announcement of Schultz at 6 PM and the continuation of Olbermann re-runs at 10. After that section would be removed the article would only have 3 accurate, up to date lines, which would be a very short stub article. Therefore the info would be more appropriate as just a section of this article. TomCat4680 (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Good points. Is it possible to rename the article to History of MSNBC: 2008-present? It doesn't have to be simply about the additions of Maddow and Schultz; maybe also adding their new logo: The Network of Change, and mention the feud between Olbermann and Matthews in election...But I think it would be a good idea to make seperate articles on the history of MSNBC because a lot of prominent events have occured not just over the past 2 years, but over its history. And I also was thinking of doing the same with Fox News, because they also changed a lot in the past year (leaning more conservative). --Mapple001 (talk) 22:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

And also make an article on MSNBC's early history, and how they struggled over the years and how far they've come.--Mapple001 (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok well do some research, change the tenses of the current text from present tense to past, add lots of sources, and maybe you'd have enough for a separate article. I still think its not necessary but if you think it so I guess I can't stop you. TomCat4680 (talk) 23:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

A rename is simple. Click "move" on the top of the article. Its next to edit. TomCat4680 (talk) 23:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Help

The "Changes Since 2008" section needs to be cleaned up. Thanks.--Mapple001 (talk) 22:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Going liberal

I've put the term in quotes and attributed it to the AP,[1] so that it now reads: "Phil Griffin, MSNBC chief executive, attributed this to the network's decision to (per the Associated Press) "go liberal" with Olbermann and Maddow along with problems at CNN." My concern / confusion here is that going liberal is an unusual and imprecise colloquialism. Exactly what does it mean to go liberal, and what act having to do with Olbermann and Maddow is liberal? The two most obvious interpretations are either that the network asked both Olberman and Maddow to make their existing shows more liberal - so the network urged them in a liberal direction or that they were liberal to begin with and the network simply decided to hire them or feature them more prominently. The problem is that the text of the AP article does not make clear which of these two it is. It does say that it "took years for Olbermann and O'Reilly to build their audiences", suggesting that the second interpretation is incorrect (if Olberman had years to build his audience, then he was not a new thing).Wikidemon (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Just cut and paste the exact quotes from the original article, no need to paraphrase and interpret his remarks yourself. TomCat4680 (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I did - it was the AP writer's quote, not Griffin. However, I'm wondering if we should just delete it. Even when a person's analysis or opinion is clear there's a weight question of whether or not to include it. Including an ambiguous characterization made by an AP writer of a CEO's opinion seems like a waste of screen space. Wikidemon (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly I meant only include Griffin's exact quotes. The writer's interpretation is unnecessary and most likely biased. TomCat4680 (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

In reference to the short section on "Developments since 2008" only Kurtz assumes a causal relationship between "going liberal" and the increase in ratings, and Kurtz writes columns not news articles. The other sources may suggest a causal relationship but they don't claim it much less prove it. Also, the term "skyrocketed" is imprecise hyperbole that should be avoided in an encyclopedia. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Merging

Well there kind of correlated and the same, unless your only talking numbers which the ratings isn't.--Levineps (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Levineps. I also think we should merge network leadership with the history too.--Mapple001 (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I finished merging the three sections.--Mapple001 (talk) 02:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The "Early History" is too long. We need to cut out stuff. Anyone else agree?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 18:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

MSNBC/NBC News Anchors and Correspondents

How on earth can we be so sure that every person who is on MSNBC deserves their own Wikipedia page? I don't think that alone is enough for notability. The Squicks (talk) 20:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Mideast conflict

It would be interesting if we could gather information on the MSNBC's editorial policies on the Mideast conflict, which is a controversial topic in contemporary journalism. ADM (talk) 09:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you expand on that a little? I can't say I'm kept abreast of issues in contemporary journalism, but if such a controversy exists it is certainly applicable here. Do we have coverage in reliable sources? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Addressing Controversy on Wikipedia

This article does not sufficiently address the controversy surrounding the firing of Don Imus. Among issues that should be addressed: the potential risk to free speech by pressure group tactics, the cynical misuse of an historically effective means for achieving civil rights, the fluid definition of hate speech which makes it difficult to determine the relationship of language to intent... for example is an attempt at caustic humor hate speech when Imus uses it? Is that same content hate speech when a rapper uses it to assert ego? Is the pervasive influence of hiphop culture on speech patterns in this country an issue to be addressed in the controversy? Should, as the above poster suggests, entries only report facts without addressing the nature and context of a controversy? Or should it, rather, present as many sides of an issue as possible so that readers will be able to understand a complex situation. User:Notacomment

One, the subject of Don Imus' firing is appropriate on the Don Imus page, or the page about his radio show. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum to pontificate upon potential free speech issues, the definition of hate speech, or the application of either. All of that runs afoul of the scope of this article (or the others I suggested); Wikipedia only reports what happened; our purpose may not be to debate the issues surrounding it. Addressing those things would amount to synthesis of thought, which is specifically prohibited by our original research policy. You might find a more suitable place for that sort of thing in an article about free speech or hate speech issues, but in any case we may only reference what other reliable sources have said on the subject, not formulate "Wikipedia's" opinion (or debate/inject our own). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Photos

You can't add photos to the very first unit people! Dumaka (talk) 14:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Changes Since 2008 Section

The ratings tidbit beginning with, "In July of 2009..." is far from neutral. It appears to be the work of right wingers pointing out how MSNBC is bad, which is NOT neutral...I call for its deletion Rs09985 (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to change the aformentioned tidbits because it compromises the neutrality of the article.Rs09985 (talk) 05:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Coverage of protests - Zero appropriate sources

Looking at the sources here we have (in order that they are used)

1) a broken Yahoo News link - not WP:V if we can't see it

2) A transcript of an episode of Red Eye, a fox news show. Again, not WP:RS since they present opinions, don't issue retractions for mistakes, and have no editorial review.

3) A link to a video on Breitbart.tv. Political pundits like Andrew Breitbart, Glenn Beck, Keith Olbermann, Ed Schultz are not WP:RS.

4) A video with comment from political commentator Michelle Malkin's "Hot Air" website. Again, commentators are not WP:RS.

5) A blog entry from Newsbusters. Just like its fox-monitoring equivalent, Newshounds, this is not a WP:RS.

6) A yahoo news reprint of a press release from the Second Amendment Foundation. This is a primary source, and is just as inapproprate as a MoveOn press release supporting MSNBC's coverage would be.

I'm going to remove the section until proper sources can be found. — Mike :  tlk  18:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Some critics and observers

I said this in the Talk:Fox News Channel page, that "some critics and observers" looks stupid. Just make it 'Some observers.' We're almost at a consensus at the Talk:FNC page. Tdinatale (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

As MSNBC is far more liberal than Fox is conservative, I'd say many should replace some. Lets uses Brett Bozell as a source.Solarsheen (talk) 23:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ratings

Would someone please add some ratings information? I was interested in their ratings but could not find anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.64.63 (talk) 13:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

Limbaugh makes those statements quite often actually, which would justify any such reporting.

Also, i agree with the person who mentioned repetitive use of the term Liberal Bias throughout the article as inappropriate. That can hardly be thrown down repeatedly as a fact, if they've had so many high profile Conservative commentary slip ups.

I, for one, believe that this article mostly reads as an advertisement written by msnbc (which is likely to have happened) and suggest that one of us DELETE those liberal-bias statements and rewrite it into a third controversy section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.118.66.122 (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2010 (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". 136.160.191.18 (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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)

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

Repeated "liberal bias" comments

The repetitive statements in the liberal bias section should be rationalized. Lots of the language is duplicative. There is an undue emphasis on two or three occurrences over the course of years of operation. The Sarah Palin paragraph, for example. Unless I'm wrong, numerous media outlets published that picture when it first circulated. Avocats (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC). Also the attribution of a ratings surge in 2008 to a particular exec makes no sense; it was the election. Avocats (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

The mention in the article's lead of numerous assertions of a growing leftward orientation in the network's lineup was the consensus result of long and long-standing discussions on this talk page. Check the archives. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

"that's already been covered, read the archives" isn't an ansewer, sorry. It's inconsistent with other articles to have it in the lead. Consider the discussion reopened. - 166.137.137.30 (talk) 12:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It isn't, however, inconsistent with the way assertions of rightward bias are handled in the lead of Wikipedia's article on the Fox News Channel. That goes a long way in explaining why MSNBC's liberalism over the past several years is mentioned in the lead here. If you want a new discussion on the subject, fine. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Why do you continually assert that whatever is done to one article, it must also be done here? It's not intellectually honest to treat two businesses as "equals" or foils just because they're in the same industry. The volume and depth of the criticism of Fox News as rightwardly biased far outweighs leftward criticism of MSNBC; the justification for such treatment here is nothing more than "tit-for-tat". Saying "because they do it to Fox News" isn't a legitimate rationale. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Reread what what I wrote, Blax, and you'll recognize that I didn't say that at all. I made factual statements or, at least, pretty much incontrovertible subjective ones. Analyzing previous discussions, the fact that Fox's alleged conservative bias is mentioned in its lead does go a long way in explaining why the consensus was to mention MSNBC's alleged liberalism in its lead. I didn't say it had to be be this way. In fact, I invited the anonymous editor to reopen the discussion if he cared to. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough -- I misunderstood your statement as advocacy. I agree with your assessment of why historically, I just don't think it's a valid rationale. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

To me it is a given that they have a liberal bias, but they don't represent themselves as being neutral (ie: Fair and Balanced). Fox News tries to pull creditability of being Neutral because they say so, but "to me" it makes them lose creditability because it is apparent that they have a conservative bias. To me, it seems that they think any news other than Fox has a liberal bias, therefore they can have a conservative bias and still be considered in the middle. I would like to have some sort of comment like that on the page, but I know that it would never fly.--76.235.208.230 (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Blax, we've butted heads on this before, but you gotta believe me: MSNBC is more liberal than FNC is right. Just look at the number of commentary shows on FNC from 5 PM to 11 PM as compared to MSNBC. You'll find only three on FNC and at least four on MSNBC. Since I am not familiar with the remainder of the line-up on MSNBC, I can't nail it down here, but MSNBC has more commentary shows already and they are all liberal. All of FNC's commentary shows are in themselves conservative, I'll give you that, but they have less. MSNBC has Morning Joe, who is far from a traditional conservative and far from a far right conservative like crazy Hannity. Greta, FNC's 10 PM show host, is not only a Democrat but a Scientologist. And Shepard Smith has two shows on FNC (Studio B at 3 PM and Fox Report at 7 PM) and is widely known to be a Democrat. The White House correspondent for FNC is Major Garret, who I can't pin down as a Democrat but is definitely not a conservative.

Oh, and Blax, you should know better than anyone that MSNBC's bias is called out several times a day on respected conservative blogs the Internet over. You've been quoted in one of them, NewsBusters, one of my personal favorites actually. The other channels, MSNBC specifically, call out FNC all the time because FNC is beating them all out and they can't stand it. O'Reilly doesn't even mention his competition because he has more self-esteem than to take direct potshots at his competition. Olbermann clearly has no problem doing that. Olbermann, unlike O'Reilly and Beck, still calls himself a journalist when he is a commentator, which both O'Reilly and Beck recognize themselves as. O'Reilly got a degree from the Harvard Journalism School in journalism and he still doesn't call himself a journalist. PokeHomsar (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

O'Reilly consistently brags about ratings, even in the show opposite of the Haiti relief. O'Reilly journalism degree came from Boston University, he got a Master of Public Administration from the Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. The comments regarding the programming are personal opinion. They call out FNC because they are consistently attacking Democrats/Liberals illogically or even fear mongering. --67.36.58.10 (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this really the place to be arguing who's more biased? Still, subjective comparisons of each channel's commentary seems more like WP:OR and POV especially when based upon conservative blogs. PrBeacon (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 [[2]] 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)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.113.201.240 (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

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)

MSNBC's employees' political ideologies

Does MSNBC's "Lean Forward" campaign and slogan and does MSNBC's progressive tilt possibly reflects in any way that Phil Griffin (MSNBC president) and / or most of MSNBC's management and executives are politically progressives as well? Does Phil Griffin and / or the management share their network's ideology? Is that partly what their "Lean Forward" campain, ads, and slogan is trying to tell us? By the way, I already know that Fox News's president Roger Ailes, Rupert Murdoch, and most of the Fox News management and executives are conservatives based on some of their recent and past quotes, backgrounds, and political donatations all that indicate it to be so, so I know that Fox News's conservative slant reflects the ideology of it's president, executives, and management. I'd like to know if that could possibly be the case with those who run and manage MSNBC. Willminator (talk) 15:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing concern

The "Hollywood Reporter" article written by Paul Bond does not state his source on the accusations of the killer. It should not be reproduced on this page without it being noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.93.23 (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

"Current programming" descriptions

The boxed descriptions of each show found in the Current programming section read like advertisement. If their source is MSNBC itself, then the reader should be told. Otherwise I would suggest a more objective set of descriptions. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Tucson shootings

The section on the Tucson's shootings is problematic and misleading in a few ways. First, it creates the incorrect impression that MSNBC claimed that statements by Sarah Palin and others lead to the shootings, and that these claims were repudiated. In fact, the predominant claim if any was that their heated political rhetoric was part of a climate of intolerance, and that the shootings arose in the context of that. Interpreting that as a claim of causation, then saying that the claims were unfounded because causation cannot be shown, is a straw man exercise that itself is part of the political dialogue. If we are to cover MSNBC's reaction to the shootings, the main encyclopedic issue is what that reaction was, not any supposed success of conservatives in deflecting that. Covering a conservative's empty threats to file suit is pretty far from the mark. - Wikidemon (talk) 11:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

True and false. For the mentally ill, ONE facet of a "jem" in their mind would complete the whole. Right, left, middle, nth, any you slice it, ANY significant emotionally divisive issue would trigger their misbehavior. SO, shall we continue and set off the REST of the insane that had their rights observed? Shall we institutionalize those whose views are "abnormal" (see the party in minority), shall we let them run free (whoeverinhell THEY are) or shall we engage upon CIVIL discourse and abandon the special interest spurred lunacy? It IS that simple.Wzrd1 (talk) 07:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's the Phil Donahue Controversy section

Yeah so I had a section deleted for not presenting it in the talk page so here it is:

[Donahue presents a] difficult public face for NBC in a time of war...He seems to delight in presenting guests who are anti-war, anti-Bush and skeptical of the administration's motives.

NBC internal study

Phil Donahue's 2002 program Donahue was cancelled for being too critical of the Iraq War. Despite earlier claims of cancellation because of low ratings Donahue's show was the highest rated on MSNBC.

A leaked NBC internal study eventually revealed that the studio was concerned that Donahue would act as "a home for the liberal antiwar agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity."

The liberal watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, considered the cancellation a form censorship.

--CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the basic idea that a internal "study" revealed that at least somebody at MSNBC back in 2003 thought that Donahue's show was problematic for the network should be able to find its way into the article. However, a statement presented as fact in Wikipedia's voice that Donahue's program "was cancelled for being too critical of the Iraq War" is much too great a leap. Also, who cares if FAIR considered this censorship? Now were it the New York Times then you might be talking. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah looking back it did come off a bit strong, I think we should add that it was "said" to be because of X, not fully assert it. Other than that I think the section is well sourced and neutral. --CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, from a historical perspective, SOMEONE at the network, at a senior level, was either concerned about public perception OR someone close to said person of senior perspective objected to Phil. Any way you slice it, he was ousted. Whether it was "right or wrong", it happened. Period. Which is rather typical in today's media.Wzrd1 (talk) 07:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

NPOV edits adding "socialist" to "progressive"

An IP has recently added "socialist" to the self-described progressive description of MSNBC (and done the same to a related article as well). On this article they've reverted my change 3 times now. I don't want to be in violation of WP:3RR so I hope someone else will take a look. There's no reliable source (or any source) provided, nor do I think this is an innocuous change. I'm fairly certain that phrase in this context specifically will be seen as pejorative. That makes it have issues with NPOV. Shadowjams (talk) 05:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I have warned him (immediately following your warning) and will block him if he reverts again, regardless of the "24-hour rule". Edit-warring doesn't have a edits-over-time limit, and his formulation is wildly off-mark. As I have only one previous edit on the article (correcting a tense), I clearly fall under the heading of "non-involved admin" and will drop the banhammer if needed. Horologium (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Another retrobate, who INSISTS that "socialists" (which is WHOEVER they choose to decry) are equal to "progressives", yet ANOTHER subjective thing. As an example, I'm regarded as progressive, yet conservative, it depends upon WHERE in the spectrum you view. Overall, I find far MORE support for my views than any side. Indeed, if I were to think of going into such a disgusting field of business as politics, I'd most likely win, even at national levels. But, I won't. I'll keep my friends. The frank truth is, regardless of "side" or party, BOTH are paid for by the same deep pocketed interests. Which is rather well, if sparsely, due to our current, failed laws, documented. In the Nation OF the people, FOR the people and BY the people, we're not people, only the special interests are, today. Lincoln would climb from his grave, if he could, as would all of our founding fathers, to gather cattle prods to enforce LEARNING, then seeking remedial action. BUT, such things are NOT for Wikipedia, so, I'll not continue further. My few words, hopefully defused further lunatic POLARITY. Lest you all further prove the Crown correct and we should REMAIN a colony!Wzrd1 (talk) 07:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Why isnt this locked?

why isnt MSNBC locked, like CNN? Someone could mess something up in here, poeple don't target only the popular articles.140.198.45.63 (talk) 01:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Internal investigation of the editing of George Zimmerman's 911 call in Trayvon Martin case

NBC admitted that they aired an edited version of the 911 call, which was heavily criticized on the internet by advocacy groups and FOX news. NBC launched an internal investigation. I think this fact should be noted under controversies in this article, especially given the nationwife interest in the ongoing Trayvon Martin case guest (guest) 12:44, 4 April 2012 (CET) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.7.186.2 (talk)

I agree. I added reference to NBC/MSNBC's editing of the Zimmerman 911 recording in a new "Alleged Misrepresentation of Facts" section along with another example of questionable journalism but another user removed the post. Please see the section "Alleged Misrepresentation of Facts and Assertion of Liberal Bias Sections" below for additional comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewoip (talk • contribs) 01:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

File:MSNBC 2008 logo.svg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:MSNBC 2008 logo.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests May 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:MSNBC 2008 logo.svg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

File:MSNBC logo.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:MSNBC logo.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests May 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:MSNBC logo.png) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Request that this article be locked

This article should be locked like its counterparts CNN and FOX. Considering this is a 'big three' news network in the states it needs to be locked to control vandalism and biased edits. Not to mention some dead links. The one line in paragraph four about Phil Griffin admitting that MSNBC is progressive [17] leads to a dead yahoo link. 70.74.250.32 (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Because some other articles are locked is not an argument for locking this one. Neither are biased edits or dead links. And you can always fix that if it bothers you. I had no problem finding a good link for the Phil Griffin entry. I'd fix it, but I'm on mobile at the moment and it's a pain. - Xcal68 (talk) 09:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Is the website correct?

This article is about the MSNBC cable station. It says that the website for MSNBC is nbcnews.com. I believe that this is incorrect. MSNBC and MSNBC.com were separate companies, and only msnbc.com was bought by Comcast. MSNBC (the cable station) still exists as its own entity.

After the sale, msnbc.com turned into nbcnews.com, but msnbc (the station) will get its own website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.7.224.8 (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Does MSNBC TV need a separate article then? It currently redirects to MSNBC entry. 19:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.148.199.241 (talk) Nevermind, this is the site for MSNBC TV and msnbc.com has a separate page.. I get it now... Sorry. 19:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.148.199.241 (talk)

Alleged Misrepresentation of Facts and Assertion of Liberal Bias Sections

The following was added to the article on August 20, 2012 but was removed by user Wikidemon about 20 minutes later with the stated reason as "rm what looks like a coatrack - no sourcing that there is a single underlying controversy here". The addition to the article was cited with reputable sources and is relevant to the section regarding MSNBC's alleged liberal bias.

Here is the new part of the article that was deleted and I think is relevant and should be restored:

Alleged Misrepresentation of Facts

In March 2012, MSNBC aired an edited 911 recording of George Zimmerman, the man who fatally shot Trayvon Martin. The removal of the 911 dispatcher's question, asking if the Martin was "black, white, or Hispanic" made it appear Zimmerman targeted Martin for racial reasons.[75] Andrea Mitchell, during her Andrea Mitchell Reports program, showed Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney during a stump speech in June 2012. In the speech, Romney described the efficiency of private enterprise with an example from Wawa, a convenience store chain, and opined the need to bring private sector competition to government. MSNBC only aired the Wawa example but not why Romney described Wawa as "amazing".[76] Andrea Mitchell laughed at Romney and said Romney may have had his "supermarket scanner moment", referring to President George H. W. Bush's use of a grocery store price scanner and how it was portrayed Bush was out of touch with the American public. Romney's entire quote was not initially aired. Only after receiving criticism did MSNBC air Romney's comments in context.[76]

The two cited sources for the above are: "NBC Investigating Edited 911 Call From Night Trayvon Martin Died". The Hollywood Reporter. March 31, 2012. Retrieved August 19, 2012. and "Did Mitt Romeny's Wawa remark backfire on MSNBC?". Los Angeles Times. June 20, 2012. Retrieved August 19, 2012. ---

Clearly, there is controversy to any impartial person. The day after, Andrea Mitchell addressed the controversy regarding the Romney edit and NBC investigating the edited 911 call screams controversy. The user also removed a large portion of the “Assertion of Liberal Bias” section with the explanation of "prune section - remove a bunch of stale, irrelevant, or unsourced stuff". The deleted portion was cited with reputable sources such as Pew Research Foundation and Journalism.org and substantiates, or at least, provides examples of why there appears to be a liberal bias at the network. They are relevant.

Contrary to the stated reasons for the August 20, 2012 deletions by Wikidemon, a review of the deleted portions of the article reveals they were cited and appear to be relevant to the section's assertion of MSNBC's bias. I think the edits made by Wikidemon should be reverted. I did not want to start an editing war but I wanted to see if consensus could be achieved before making any change.--Ewoip (talk) 00:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

This needs to be added back in the article. It was a major story and was all over the news. The sources are fine. I will see if I can add it back.--BeckiGreen (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MSNBC&curid=159846&diff=532802181&oldid=532794144 This edit is problematic. What one newsblog discusses as a general issue in the news media with mention of MSNBC is not a significant issue (at this point) in the history of a network.

I have reverted the edit once. The IP who originally added it has restored it without comment. Discuss. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

As there had been no discussion, I have reverted. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Where is the info on their misleading video editing?

There have been multiple incidents with good sources for this to warrant its own section. 198.151.130.66 (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

"Bias against Romney and for Obama week before 2012 presidential election"

This section makes the unfounded assertion that having more positive stories about Obama and more negative stories about Romney was indicative of "bias". If anything, it's just indicative of the fact that Romney was just a worse candidate and ran a worse campaign than Obama. 75.76.213.161 (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Supplying a space with a network?

In the 'Development' section it says 'NBC supplied the space with an 18-month-old America's Talking network.' What does supplying a space with a network mean, please? Genuinely intrigued Brit, 86.4.250.43 (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Lockup and prison programming

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 Research study

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? 75.76.213.161 (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Bias detected

"Beginning in the mid-2000s, MSNBC assumed an increasingly liberal stance in its opinion programming." Oh. 96.31.215.13 (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.

Controversies over individual shows

Regarding this BRD cycle[3] 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)

"Long been accused of left-wing bias"

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-wing biased 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:
  • [4] 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."
  • [5] A Washington Post opinion writer describes how MSNBC's left-wing bias (which is taken as a given) is hurting their ratings.
  • [6] An article describes how "left-leaning" network MSNBC is being scolded by a conservative group.
  • [7] 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)
  • [8] A magazine article describing how MSNBC's left-wing bias has hurt their ratings under a second-term President from the same party.
  • [9] "Shareholders Blast Comcast Execs Over MSNBC Liberal Slant."
  • [10] 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)

Comcast, MSNBC, and the rainbow peacock logo

@Zpb52:, my curiosity was piqued by your recent edits regarding Comcast using the rainbow peacock logo. Can you point to any examples of this? I'd be very interested to see. Thanks! -Starke Hathaway (talk) 20:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Starke Hathaway: Here: https://www.google.com/search?q=comcast+peacock+logo&safe=off&espv=2&biw=1680&bih=925&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAWoVChMIoZ_fjvCPxwIVgpENCh2w6wxM. Zpb52 (talk) 16:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on MSNBC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141011183920/http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110122/ap_on_en_ot/us_tv_olbermann_9 to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110122/ap_on_en_ot/us_tv_olbermann_9
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://thehill.com/in-the-know/clinton-confidant-dismisses-msnbc-as-no-longer-fair-and-balanced-2008-05-05.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140305060228/http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=b48a6936-fb3c-42b0-83c1-f91d1cb3a3dc to http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=b48a6936-fb3c-42b0-83c1-f91d1cb3a3dc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131208085859/http://www.allyourtv.com/0203season/news/02252003donahue.html to http://www.allyourtv.com/0203season/news/02252003donahue.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Ayman Mohyeldin

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. 66.87.114.76 (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)

Outdated

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)

External links modified

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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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/20110316033151/http://www.nbcuniversal.presscentre.com/Content/Detail.aspx?ReleaseID=2458&NewsAreaID=2&ClientID=7 to http://www.nbcuniversal.presscentre.com/Content/Detail.aspx?ReleaseID=2458&NewsAreaID=2&ClientID=7

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2016

Remove MSNBC has closed 66.181.226.167 (talk) 18:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article.
Moreover, strangely enough, it still seems to be working Arjayay (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

What do the letters MSNBC stand for?

I came here to find this out, and expected to find it right at the beginning of the introduction, but someone seems to have forgotten to put it there! Best I can work out from other on-line sources is "Microsoft/National Broadcasting Company". This needs including for people in those parts of the big wide world where this service is not a common place. 81.140.181.108 (talk) 08:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Bill gates?

This brand has obviously to do with MSN, which is owned by Bill Gates, no? Why not a single mention of a bill gates in a article on MSNBC? --KpoT (talk) 01:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2017

This is Lori Stokes, news anchor at WABC TV in New York. I would like the Early History of MSNBC to reflect that after Jodi Applegate welcome everyone on our launch morning show she then toss it to me for the news headlines. I was the first African American to speak on MSNBC. I would appreciate that being edited into the that segment. The reliable source is the tape. Thank you, Lori Stokes Junebrowne (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Junebrowne: Do you have a reliable source other than the tape? Possibly a reliable website that shows you are the first African-American to speak on MSNBC? We need something easily accessible by everyone. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 23:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 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 http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20110122130054/https://groups.google.com/forum/ to https://groups.google.com/forum/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110413233648/http://insidecable.blogsome.com/2007/02/22/cablevision-has-exclusive-fios-deal-with-msnbc-in-nyc/ to http://insidecable.blogsome.com/2007/02/22/cablevision-has-exclusive-fios-deal-with-msnbc-in-nyc//
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080203130441/http://insidecable.blogsome.com/2007/11/17/southern-africa-to-get-msnbc/ to http://insidecable.blogsome.com/2007/11/17/southern-africa-to-get-msnbc/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110203211117/http://www.orbitcast.com/archives/xm-and-msnbc-part-ways.html to http://www.orbitcast.com/archives/xm-and-msnbc-part-ways.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100225074915/http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2009/11/16/msnbc-apologizes-for-showing-fake-palin-photos/?cxntfid=blogs_jay_bookman_blog to http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2009/11/16/msnbc-apologizes-for-showing-fake-palin-photos/?cxntfid=blogs_jay_bookman_blog

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)