Jump to content

Talk:MSNBC

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Add the word “liberal”

[edit]

It is not right to have “conservative” in Fox News wiki page but not note MSNBC being very liberal 209.122.198.74 (talk) 22:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are not the first person to ask this. Please provide independent reliable sources that describe MSNBC as liberal. Such sources do describe Fox News as conservative. 331dot (talk) 22:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: The section on controversies is sourced. The lead should summarize the whole article, so the fact that it has been labeled as "liberal" by specific sources should be mentioned in the lead. Janhrach (talk) 19:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is described there is only one small aspect of the article- and describes which sources deem MSNBC liberal. To make that claim in Wikipedia's voice, it must be shown that the preponderance of reliable sources describe it that way, not a limited few. 331dot (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: To be clear, I am concerned mainly about Britannica. I don't know if its claim is reliable or not, but I think the claim is notable, given that it is Britannica. I do not mean that MSNBC should be labeled as liberal in the first sentence, but I think the claim should be mentioned (as a claim) later in the lead. Janhrach (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but the mention of Britannica is just one line and its seems disproportionate to call out one line of the entire article in the lead- leaving aside wondering why Britannica should be specifically called out at all. 331dot (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand now, mentioning Britannica specifically would be undue. If we would want to mention more sources, but all objectively, we would arrive where we are now – to a separate section on bias claims. So I withdraw my suggestion that criticism should be mentioned in the lead. Anyway, thank you for your arguments. Janhrach (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe adding the word progressive is appropriate. MSNBC is described as more left-wing than the Washington Examiner is, yet the Washington Examiner article still describes WE as conservative. MSNBC is absolutely left-wing, and the word progressive should be added. DocZach (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DocZach, I agree whole-heartedly on this. Even the issue of what passes as a reliable source on WP is flawed, and contributes to the imbalance of labels on this site. I personally feel the sources in this article that points toward labeling MSNBC as a liberal-leaning channel is sufficient to add this (much like Fox is labelled "conservative" in the first sentence of that article, but the political leanings of the community in general on WP is such that this won't change. SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 13:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to say this, but it is so clear that in mainstream progressive network articles like MSNBC, there is a group of left-wing editors who will fight to the death to avoid any left-wing verbiage from being added. This bias needs to be investigated. There are countless sources that have already demonstrated the progressive lean of MSNBC, but it stil hasn't been added. 47.230.49.22 (talk) 05:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That the edit you want has not been made does not mean that there is a vast left wing conspiracy here(nor am I "left wing"). I have no problem with making that edit if it can be shown that the preponderance of reliabke sources use that term to describe MSNBC. That hasn't been done yet. See the numerous prior discussions on this topic, such as the one at the bottom of this page(currently). As I said there, I have no specific interest in keeping the use of that term out of this article. 331dot (talk) 07:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said below, most people who want to use liberal on this page seem to want to do so in revenge for conservative outlets being named conservative(where appropriate sources do so). 331dot (talk) 07:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
331dot, would this source provide any basis for a source regarding MSNBC's leaning? Pardon my ignorance if not, I'm not totally clear on what sources are reliable and which aren't, but I don't know if I would call the desire to include "liberal" on this page is necessarily revenge. I think it's more based on the desire for consistency, since it's widely accepted that MSNBC is on the polar opposite of Fox News in regards to its leaning. Even articles like Joy Reid and Rachel Maddow, the subjects of which have shows on MSNBC, are labeled as "liberal" political commentators. This isn't the place for it, but I'm going to mention anyway, the issue of what the community deems as a "reliable" source. It's not exactly a secret that the admin class and general demographic of editors lie on the left side of the spectrum, so it's understandable that users might be discouraged with trying to involve themselves in a project that dismisses what many see as reliable sources, simply because the community doesn't see it that way. Just my 2 cents whether this is the place for it or not. SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 14:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Joy Reid and Rachel Maddow are labeled liberal because they are liberal. Why not mention Joe Scarborough who has been on MSNBC for 16 years, starts each morning with a four hour show, and who during his congressional career received a 95 percent lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Objective3000, that's already mentioned in the article here, in its own subheading. Didn't seem necessary to bring up again. That doesn't really refute anything else I said, just one sentence. SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 15:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to refute the claim to me. And may be part of why reliable sources do not call MSNBC a liberal network when so much time is devoted to conservatives. Whatever the rationale, we follow RS. (BTW, please don't ping me in responses.) O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency is only relevant if sources treat MSNBC and Fox the same but Wikipedia does not. Then yes, we should be consistent. We are not consistent for consistency's sake, but because sources are. 331dot (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some sources that (I hope! I have checked WP:RSP.) are reputable. There are more sources that state as such, but I tried to pick out some of the higher-quality ones. I don't want to overwhelm.
  • Rutenberg, Jim; Grynbaum, Michael M. (May 15, 2024). "How MSNBC's Leftward Tilt Delivers Ratings, and Complications". The New York Times.
  • Lam, Winnie (September 22, 2011). "Breaking News: Fox News and MSNBC in a Divided America". The UC Santa Barbara Undergraduate Journal of History.
  • Vargas, Ramon Antonio (November 18, 2024). "Brzezinski and Scarborough of liberal MSNBC meet Trump for 'new approach'". The Guardian.
  • Reissman, Hailey (August 1, 2022). "Cable News Networks Have Grown More Polarized, Study Finds". Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania.
  • Folkenflik, David (November 23, 2024). "Comcast plans to spin off its cable networks. What's next for MSNBC?". NPR.
  • Bauder, David (November 21, 2024). "What will happen to CNBC and MSNBC when they no longer have a corporate connection to NBC News?". AP News. MSNBC's relationship with NBC News has caused some awkwardness, particularly as the network has become known for its stable of liberal commentators while still attached to a news division that stresses impartiality.
There are more sources in the liberal bias section of the MSNBC criticism article, but I tried to keep the ones above mostly contemporary. EatingCarBatteries (contributions, talk) 07:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To call MSNBC "liberal-leaning" is ridiculous. It's "progressive-leaning", or better yet, just "progressive". 2601:344:4001:B950:484B:5522:8797:9454 (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

331dot, I know. My biggest gripe with WP lies with what the community deems a "reliable source." Coverage on this site is as skewed as many media outlets are, with the exception of widespread, established outlets like NYP, FNC, Washington Examiner, which aren't seen as "reliable" by the WP community, somehow. It's not exactly a state-level secret. I have (what I feel,) legitimate concerns about the long-term health of WP based on that, but I'm only one person, so my opinion and viewpoint doesn't really matter. Just wanted to offer some support for DocZach, because I believe they raise valid points that others have, and have been dismissed. I also understand this is a larger debate among the community, and I can understand some users' frustrations around it. SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 15:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you actually believe NYP is reliable? I see the paper a couple times a week in the grocery line and am aghast at the sick headlines. In any case, this isn't the correct page for this discussion. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Objective3000, probably about as much as any other newspaper with a similar circulation. I don't put stock into their "headlines," nor was I arguing for their specific inclusion. Plenty of publications put out bad headlines. Whether any one person is "aghast" by headlines also doesn't really matter, that's a personal opinion. I'm not trying to be combative, here. And since all I'm getting in response are cherry-picked portions of my statements along with dismissiveness of what I'm trying to say, I'll let it go. SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 16:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2025

[edit]

It has been identified as engaging in biased and false reporting in favor of the Democratic Party, its politicians, and liberal causes,[24][25][26] while portraying the Republican Party in a negative light.[27][28] Researchers have argued that the channel is damaging to the integrity of news overall,[29][30] and acts as an expanded part of the Democratic Party. 162.239.189.128 (talk) 03:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. not sure where this is copied from Cannolis (talk) 06:08, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like they copied it from Fox News and just changed the wording slightly while leaving the reference numbers. --Aquillion (talk) 06:16, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Financial returns for the network

[edit]

The article mentions some of the investments into the network but is oddly silent about the financial returns for the investors for their ownership of the network. For example, Microsoft paid $221 million plus half of $100 million to improve equipment, for a 50% ownership of the MSNBC network. But says nothing about returns on investment, financial performance, what is reported for the public companies Comcast and Microsoft in quarterly/annual returns on their investment. The article would be improved if this could be addressed. N2e (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elise Jordan

[edit]

Can we start a Wikipedia article about Elise Jordan, who will soon co-host a new program on MSNBC called The Weekend: Primetime? 98.123.38.212 (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need anyone's permission to do that; you may create and submit a draft via the article wizard. You will first need to gather independent reliable sources that offer significant coverage of her. 331dot (talk) 07:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2025

[edit]

Please include in the Wiki that this is a far-left radical news network, like you do when discussing other more legit networks. thanks 208.103.126.66 (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Schazjmd (talk) 18:08, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MSNBC&oldid=1294381045"