Talk:MSNBC: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 14:34, 27 November 2021 editTranskar (talk \| contribs)234 editsNo edit summaryTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit← Previous edit		Revision as of 14:43, 27 November 2021 edit undoTranskar (talk \| contribs)234 edits →Left wing bias keeps getting reverted: new sectionTags: Mobile edit Mobile web editNext edit →
Line 159:		Line 159:

	: MSN scrubbed all reference to this MSNBC scandal even from their outside feeds in less than 24 hours and only NBC is attempting to excuse it away.] (]) 19:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)		: MSN scrubbed all reference to this MSNBC scandal even from their outside feeds in less than 24 hours and only NBC is attempting to excuse it away.] (]) 19:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

			== Left wing bias keeps getting reverted ==

			Numerous individuals have cited sources from various independent media watchers on MSNBC left leaning news. Yet these keep getting reverted while Fox News stays conservative. This nonsense needs to stop because it destroys the integrity of the website. Bans need to start happening on users who are breaking these types of rules.

			They ask for numerous sources of MSNBCs bias, get those sources, and still do not accept them. This is unacceptable and administrators need to do their job. ] (]) 14:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:43, 27 November 2021

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the MSNBC article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 months

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Media Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Media To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite
NPOV : Content (media and publishing)
Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper
Other :
- Answer requests for comments

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Journalism Mid‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Television: Stations Mid‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Misplaced Pages articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Television stations task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States: Television Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Section sizes

Section size for MSNBC (33 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	6,067	6,067
History	51	59,440
Development	1,657	1,657
1996–2007	13,382	13,382
2008–2015	15,171	15,171
2015–2021	15,299	15,299
2021–present	13,880	13,880
Ratings and reception	3,706	5,544
Demographics	1,838	1,838
Carriage issues	2,339	2,339
MSNBC International	3,143	3,143
Online	2,850	4,038
Shift	1,188	1,188
Radio	1,405	1,405
Controversies	49	51,836
Liberal bias	11,698	20,931
Favoritism towards Barack Obama	5,486	5,486
Rise of the New Right documentary	2,406	2,406
Romney coverage during 2012 election	1,341	1,341
Allegations of conservative bias	3,093	3,093
Lack of diversity of views	1,722	1,722
Romney family grandchild	2,149	2,149
Coverage of the 2020 Democratic primary	14,488	14,488
Coverage of Israeli–Palestinian conflict	1,466	1,466
Suspensions of hosts	28	7,938
Michael Savage	715	715
Don Imus	760	760
Keith Olbermann and Joe Scarborough	2,740	2,740
Martin Bashir	3,006	3,006
Alec Baldwin	689	689
References	33	33
Further reading	437	437
External links	1,141	1,141
Total	135,423	135,423

List of notable persons

I have removed this from the article pending discussion as to what it is trying to convey, the criteria for inclusion, and the names on it.

Notable personalities

Liberal bias?

In its most recent "Media Bias Chart," AllSides placed MSNBC comfortably in the liberal category. Why hasn't this header been changed already? Am I missing something fundamental here? TripleBogey21 (talk) 03:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

TripleBogey21 Please see the discussion above as well as prior discussions about this topic. 331dot (talk) 08:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Opinions on allsides.com are crowdsourced, so it is not a reliable source for Misplaced Pages content. Just plain Bill (talk) 12:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course MSNBC is biased. How is this even a question? They are at least as left wing as Fox News is right wing.

An example of a citation to a reliable source:   Green Marble (talk) 12:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Green Marble: Daily Mail is not a reliable source. See WP:DAILYMAIL. --Renat 13:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

References

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9795943/US-media-remains-strangely-silent-Guardians-report-claiming-Putin-plotted-aid-Trump.html

Just admit it! MSNBC is a liberal-biased news outlet, not any less biased to the left as Fox and New York Post are to the right. So why isn't it mentioned in the FIRST paragraph of the article? Source Proof User:FlyDragon792 (talk) 23:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

FlyDragon792 Instead of telling us to "admit it" please participate in the discussion immediately below this section in a collaborative manner. Please explain why any sources you offer should be considered reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 00:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

You aren't being collaborative. You're censoring any mention of it and quite clearly. Admins of the site need to stop this nonsense because it's plaguing this entire site Transkar (talk) 14:26, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

No consistency between the articles of CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC. You're making this site a joke. Numerous users have sited how each news site is bias and yet these articles keep getting reverted and this nonsense allowed to continue where fox is labeled conservative and MSNBC and CNN as not left wing Transkar (talk) 14:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Mention Leftwing and Anti Republican Stance in the lead

Truth Teller1222 (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Truth Teller1222 Please offer independent reliable sources that describe MSNBC in that way. You are free to have that as your personal opinion, but Misplaced Pages summarizes what independent reliable sources state. 331dot (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Here you go 331dot :) https://en.wikipedia.org/MSNBC_controversies#Controversies https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/us/politics/msnbc-as-foxs-liberal-evil-twin.html Truth Teller1222 (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Truth Teller1222 One, you have offered only one source. Misplaced Pages articles cannot be used to source other Misplaced Pages articles. Two, the one source you offer is an opinion piece. Many have tried to do that here. We want independent reliable sources that offer an objective assessment not based in the writer's personal views. The Fox News article has that. Three, you would need to offer several such sources. 331dot (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Truth teller 22, Misplaced Pages is not an approved source, here is the list of what is. Dinosauce2001 (talk) 23:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The fox news article DOES have opinion pieces in it's lead"

No, it has sources as I describe- several. At least some are academic journals. You aren't the first person to try what you are doing. 331dot (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

331dot The New Yorker is not an academic source. They are all opinion pages I went through each of them every single one of them is published in university website by an opinion journalist which should immediately disqualify them from use, that is the truth. Any reasonable reader with a high school education and a knowledge of writing papers would check the sources and know they are not trustworthy. Truth Teller1222 (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

And readers are free to do that, it doesn't mean they can't be included. If you wish to challenge particular sources as untrustworthy enough they should be excluded from Misplaced Pages, the Reliable Sources Noticeboard is available. You still have not offered sufficient sources to label this network as you wish to in order to satisfy your conservative viewpoint. Many have tried and failed and I don't think you are going to be the one that breaks through. 331dot (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@331dot: There is a valid point to be made about the lead needing to comply with WP:LEAD in providing an overview of the article's body. At the moment it doesn't. The lead gives only an overview of the company's history. And yet, the article body includes a whole section about controversies, equivalent in size to the history section, and an overview of that is completely absent from the lead. The lead includes too much detail of half of the article and zero overview of the other half. It's unbalanced, and fails to comply with WP:LEAD. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your assessment. I just see too many conservative/right people come here and want to label this for the sake of labeling it and show zero interest in collaboration. 331dot (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, that problem might be reduced somewhat if the lead appropriately summarized the article. When I get some time I'll make an attempt to rewrite the lead. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

MSNBC is well known to have a liberal bias. How is this even a question? Fox News is, of course, conservative, and the lead of that article discussed this prominently and lengthily. Yet the MSNBC article never mentions the words "liberal" or "left-leaning". Of course it should. Green Marble (talk) 18:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

A few examples of sources that agree MSNBC is liberal:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Green Marble (talk • contribs) 18:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

References

1) OpEd, 2) Unreliable competitor, 3) OpEd, 4) Tabloid. As I said several years ago (this is a perennial topic, brought up by new users who come and go) - This is not an issue of "reflecting sources", it is a rather one of stating (or, that we don't need to state it, in this case) the bleedingly obvious. The lead of Donald Trump does not need to say "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the white 45th and current president of the United States"; we only need to note these sorts of things when something is special or atypical. ValarianB (talk) 18:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The sourcing isn't the issue here. The article already contains sufficient sources in the criticism section. The problem is that the lead section doesn't adequately summarize the body of the article. That's all. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Here is a 2009 article in the New York Times that begins MSNBC will soon add another liberal radio host, the latest in a series of changes intended to position the network as a venue for left-leaning voices in the evening. The headline is MSNBC Expands Its Liberal Lineup. This 2012 article in the NYT says MSNBC has pumped up its ratings by recasting itself as a left-leaning riposte to Fox News, and that’s fine. Fox long ago proved that a lot of viewers like to hear cable anchors echo what they already think; MSNBC is just playing catch-up. The headline is How MSNBC Became Fox’s Liberal Evil Twin. This 2020 NYT article says MSNBC, home of liberal favorites like Rachel Maddow and Nicolle Wallace, had the highest-rated prime-time week in its 24-year history. The headline is The TV Divide: Convention Ratings Surge on MSNBC as Fox News Dips. I think that is pretty clear that the lead should describe MSNBC as "liberal". Cullen Let's discuss it 00:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think anybody would object if the lead would simply provide an actual overview of the entire article (not just the corporate history), and the "liberal" designation would then be present in the lead. I haven't gotten around to trying to clean it up yet. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@331dot: @Cullen328: I have re-worked the lead section of this article, shortening the corporate history a bit by removing unnecessary details, and adding a couple of brief sentences about controversies. The weight of content in the lead still isn't balanced to represent the content of the article, but it's better. And hopefully it will help head off these idiotic drive-by complaints. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Also pinging @Dinosauce2001: to invite to this discussion. See the last few comments above to understand the recent change to the lead section. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@Anachronist: I have reverted your edit because it was in violation of WP:NOR. I do not believe your latest edit includes a "redundant source" (according to the summary) because "bias" is subjective, therefore a reliable source can support your claim. Misplaced Pages editors acknowledge MSNBC does display a left-leaning in their politics, but not to the extent of them establishing intentionally deceptive articles filled with misinformation that Fox News on occassion does. That is according to WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Dinosauce2001 (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@Dinosauce2001: I have made no claims. Every single sentence in the final paragraph of the lead section is a summary of what's already in the article, in accordance with WP:LEAD. As such, WP:NOR isn't applicable. The source I added was "redundant" because it is already in the article for a near-identical sentence. And please be aware that nothing in the lead section actually needs to be sourced if the corresponding body text already has adequate sourcing.

We have a guideline WP:LEAD that we must follow. Including only the company history in the lead section, when fully half of this article is about controversy, not only violates WP:LEAD but also WP:NPOV. If you can come up with a better summary of the controversy half of this article, you are welcome to give it a try, but removing it actually is a violation of Misplaced Pages policies, as discussed above. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph cites "Liberal bias" not in source

While I agree with the statment --and I also believe it to be true-- reading the Pew Research report on the introductory paragraph (ref 6) does not contain any comment justifying the line "MSNBC to be the most opinionated news network, with 85 percent of the content being commentary or opinions." which the reference point is for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.191.13.191 (talk) 03:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Found nothing in cited source to support "most opinionated" so removed that text. Just plain Bill (talk) 15:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

MSNBC banned for jury intimidation -- MSNBC silent; must be fake news.

Yahoo news, among others report that "Judge Bruce Schroeder said that Kenosha police pulled over a person who identified himself as James J. Morrison on Wednesday night after he ran a red light about a block behind the jury bus. Schroeder said that Morrison told police he was a producer with NBC News and MSNBC and had been instructed by his supervisor, Irene Byon, to follow the bus." And: “Police suspect this person was trying to photograph jurors,”

MSNBC.com does not mention Byon, Morrison, or jury intimidation on their website. Byon's Linkedin and Twitter accounts were instantly deleted, so it must be fake news. CNN reports on Morrison's intent, and they must know, right? 174.51.176.129 (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.51.176.129 (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Let's wait to see how this epic scandal unfolds and then we can create a long section to expose it all. soibangla (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

MSN scrubbed all reference to this MSNBC scandal even from their outside feeds in less than 24 hours and only NBC is attempting to excuse it away.174.51.176.129 (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Left wing bias keeps getting reverted

Numerous individuals have cited sources from various independent media watchers on MSNBC left leaning news. Yet these keep getting reverted while Fox News stays conservative. This nonsense needs to stop because it destroys the integrity of the website. Bans need to start happening on users who are breaking these types of rules.

They ask for numerous sources of MSNBCs bias, get those sources, and still do not accept them. This is unacceptable and administrators need to do their job. Transkar (talk) 14:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Categories: