Talk:MSNBC/Archive 4

Launch date
If MSNBC began in 1996 as this article states, how does MSNBC's website have a video that appears to be from their TV channel, but in 1980? https://www.msnbc.com/documentaries/watch/today-show-1980-with-donald-trump-589527619719 – numbermaniac  08:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

That was from the Today Show in 1980 sonthing it states that right on the video — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewgu111 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Then why does it have what appears to be an old MSNBC logo at the bottom right? The quality of the logo looks like it matches the quality of the transmission at the time. – numbermaniac  23:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2018 : add youtube channel

 * http://on.msnbc.com/SubscribeTomsnbc
 * redirects to:
 * https://www.youtube.com/user/msnbcleanforward?sub_confirmation=1
 * thus: ADD:
 * * The official MSNBC YouTube Channel

69.181.23.220 (talk) 01:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

What Does MSNBC Stand For?
Shouldn't that be in the opening paragraph or at least somewhere in the introduction? I can't find it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.0.167.167 (talk) 03:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The first body paragraph, Development, says that MSNBC was established as a partnership between NBC and Microsoft. Abbreviate Microsoft to MS, and that's where the name comes from - MS + NBC = MSNBC. – numbermaniac  04:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

it stands for
Microsoft NBC

NBC stands for National BroadCasting - meaning federally funded (so is/was abc another others formed around the same time). WWI, Hollywood was considered a wartime investment (tE<>W railroads were also federal, many radio stations such as wtop were born from wartime funding, media certainly wasn't the only thing funded). The funding didn't stop there it was considered "arts" too and there the issue of "freedom of press" came about when the feds threatened to stop federal grant funding based on content. Direct political funding had not been allowed (but it now is, in spades, has revolving doors with irs - though grant money is still today in the picture somewhere).

Other than failing to give the full title on the business license, the wiki article also doesn't give the address of the company's lawyer: such is life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:143:400:547B:F8A9:7E3F:B49:96D7 (talk) 22:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

William Arkin critique
I think something should be said about the high-profile criticism coming from former contributor, William Arkin in his resignation letter. It offers a new critique and perspective not covered yet in this article that apparently seems to be becoming more noticeable and reported on even before this latest criticism, particularly regarding the networks supposed liberal hawk tendencies and increased associations with neoconservative commentators and analysts drawn heavily from ex-intelligence personnel allegedly beholden to the US military industrial complex that once employed them and are often still connected to. Just thought it was worth a mention for the sake of breadth and balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:4FD4:C078:208F:64F1:AAA5:CBCB (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

The neo-conservative commentators are all #NeverTrumpers whose sole on-air function is to bash President Trump from an allegedly conservative viewpoint. The former national security personnel serve virtually the same function. The article should not leave the impression that MSNBC is an impartial journalistic enterprise. WBcoleman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The term "#NeverTrumpers" basically means anybody who would have been considered sane and relevant in the Reagan-era GOP, though, which is pretty much the point. There was a sea change with the Koch-funded Tea Party movement, from a GOP that wanted to minimise the Federal government to a wholesale takeover by people who want to burn it to the ground. Guy (help!) 16:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2019
Section: Lack of racial and gender identity diversity On May 20, 2019, Ann Coulter criticized the lack transgender hosts on MSNBC, along with putting African American hosts on "low-rated weekend ghetto"?[117]

^^ This is not a legitimate criticism of MSNBC's "Lack of racial and gender identity diversity". Arguments made by Ann Coulter were in bad faith and sarcasm. This section should be removed. 2601:42:3:2C80:F111:B0F:E67F:DB6F (talk) 23:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


 * ✅ –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 23:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2019
Request: Change terrestrial channel 50.4 from the infobox to channel 20.4.

Reason: As a result of the 2018 spectrum auction, this channel was relocated.

Sources: Selective TV announcement of upcoming changes, Wikipedia's Selective TV page reflecting these changes.

Thanks. --Heath 184.170.76.255 (talk) 23:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done: please see Special:Diff/927537537. Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 02:57, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

"Suspensions of hosts"
What's the point of this section?  SPECIFICO talk 16:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * High-profile anchors, commentators, hosts, etc...being suspended seems like a newsworthy event, no? Olbermann's in particular was pretty high-flying at the time. ValarianB (talk) 16:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The sourcing is kind of spotty, several not significant. It looks like a list compiled by WP editors rather than a list RS have deemed noteworthy. I think the Oblermann/Scarborough political contributions suspensions is valid content. The rest, hosts failed and fired, seems like dust to me.  SPECIFICO talk 18:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Bias statement in opening section
I notice that the opening paragraph on the Fox News article has a statement about alleged bias, followed by a rebuttal. However, this article on what is essentially the liberal equivalent of Fox News (MSNBC) makes no such reference to allegations of bias made against it. Examples of sources evidencing such claims are; http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/12/is-msnbc-worse-than-fox-news-179175 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2013/03/18/pew-study-finds-msnbc-the-most-opinionated-cable-news-channel-by-far/#5a82ab405f8c

Can this please be amended?

Many thanks

Bob-sta (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Add it. Marquis de Faux (talk) 22:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, there are many allegations from American progressives/true leftists that MSNBC is biased to the elite and to the Democratic Party Establishment. They often cite the numerous cases of biased coverage against Democratic Socialist/Vermont Senator/Democratic Presidential Primary Candidate Bernie Sanders, in addition to ignoring Democratic Presidential Primary Candidate Tulsi Gabbard. MSNBC seems to favor the more liberal elite-ist political figures like Kamala Harris, Joe Biden, Barrack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi among others. This is all in addition to them being biased against right-wing and far-right American political figures.

Thanks so much

Trdimeg (talk • contribs) 02:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * While this is true, we cannot attempt to document every allegation. Also, Wikipedia isn't equipped to decide who is a true leftist and who isn't. We need reliable sources to explain this issue, and we then use those sources to evaluate due weight. If you know of such sources, please propose them for discussion. Since your comment is a response to a comment from 2017, I would suggest starting a new section at the bottom of the page. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 03:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I have been told that we can't edit this article to refer to MSNBC as left-wing. We also cannot edit the One America News article to remove the statement that it is right-wing. Am I the only one that finds this double standard problematic?GlassBones (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

How would you propose to change it? --rogerd (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I read your comment and I thought, "this is a problem". Then I went to the article, and the last paragraph of the lead section pretty much says it is left wing:  "Commentators have described MSNBC as having a bias towards left-leaning politics and the Democratic Party. In November 2007, a New York Times article stated that MSNBC's prime time lineup is tilting more to the left. Fox News media analyst Howard Kurtz, while previously in the same role at The Washington Post, stated that the channel's evening lineup "has clearly gravitated to the left in recent years and often seems to regard itself as the antithesis of Fox News"."


 * I was just thinking that, in the first sentence (similar to the OANN and Fox News articles) it should state "left wing". But this isn't a hill I want to die on. GlassBones (talk) 22:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, you have a point there. I would tend to agree with you.  It sounds like there would be some resistance to this, sometimes logic just isn't enough.  --rogerd (talk) 23:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * rogerd - We can all agree Fox News is right wing; is there really anyone out there who doesn't similarly agree MSNBC is left wing? GlassBones (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

It is not what you believe, but what you can substantiate with reliable sources. Then you may find that some contrarians have sources that state the opposite viewpoint, as hard as it is to fathom. If you do the wrong thing you will be accused of being biased, despite the fact many with a leftist bias don't get called out here. --rogerd (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I used a cite to Washington Post - certainly a reliable source. GlassBones (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * From your source: MSNBC, despite its reputation as the most liberal cable news network, has a more moderate audience than BuzzFeed, Politico, The Washington Post and The New York Times. soibangla (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * But that doesn't refute the fact that it is a left wing channel. --rogerd (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think the source supports the edit by GlassBones soibangla (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course it does. The article points out that there are other, even more liberal news sources, but it definitely, correctly, describes MSNBC as liberal.  It is also worth pointing out that the Wikipedia articles for both Fox News and OANN include the phrase "right wing" in the lede of each article, and any attempts to change that are swiftly undone.  If these two media outlets can be (correctly) identified as right-wing, why can't MSNBC be correctly described as left wing?  Further, just because one source is further from the middle than another does not mean other sources cannot be similarly described.  Fox News is consistently described by news sources as more conservative than OANN, yet Wikipedia articles for both use the phrase "right wing". Similarly, just because there are other, even more liberally biased news sources than MSNBC does not mean that MSNBC is not left wing. The phrase "left wing" is appropriate in the lede of the MSNBC Wikipedia article.  GlassBones (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Most of the media is sane, i.e. liberal, progressive-leaning. It is not a noteworthy thing to note "so-and-so is a left-wing media outlet" as that is pretty much the norm. The Foxs', the Hannitys, stick out as outliers, that is why their leaning is mentioned in the lead. ValarianB (talk) 15:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree most of the media is liberal. And the fact that MSNBC is a liberal news source should be included, rather than excluded, from this article.GlassBones (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You have made this point, several times, but as of yet it does not appear to have gained consensus. ValarianB (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The article must reflect what reliable sources say about the article's subject, not the opinions of certain editors. Newimpartial (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The analysis cited in the WaPo story finds the WSJ to be left of center. Should we call WSJ "left-wing," too? I think not. soibangla (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Why not? If the shoe fits …  But this discussion is about MSNBC, not the Wall Street Journal, and MSNBC is left wing.  Is anyone really arguing otherwise? GlassBones (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I am arguing otherwise, until I see at least one RS stating that it is. Newimpartial (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

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) 20:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, here are more sources for you.     I just googled "MSNBC liberal", but I suppose you won't think any of them are "reliable" enough? --rogerd (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * - You would think it would also be "bleedingly obvious" that Fox News is conservatively biased / right wing. Yet, right there in the lede of the Fox News Wikipedia article is the phrase "right wing". What is wrong with similarly describing MSNBC as left wing, using the reliable sources listed by Rogerd as well as the Washington Post article I cited earlier? GlassBones (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Why is there such a double standard for articles about liberal entities vs. conservative? You can edit to say virtually anything inflammatory or offensive about a conservative politician, with pretty much any cite including opinion pieces, and it is accepted immediately and basically cannot be undone. But to put anything the least bit controversial into an article about a liberal politician requires multiple irrefutable citations to approved sources and the consensus of overwhelmingly liberal Wikipedia editors.  The same apparently holds true for trying to describe a left-leaning news source. This is getting ridiculous. And  - you really should consider changing your User Name to something more accurate. GlassBones (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Since there are clearly enough cites to reliable sources that describe MSNBC as left wing, I have made the edit. This edit is consistent with edits of other Wikipedia news source articles such as Fox News and One America News Network, which are described as right wing. GlassBones (talk) 13:41, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * And you have been reverted, and will continue to be until you can establish consensus for this change. ValarianB (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * - What do you mean by "consensus"? There is no way every editor here is going to agree with this edit.  Clearly, you are opposed.  But the statement is accurate and properly cited, with four reliable sources found by me and .  I understand that you don't like the edit, but since it is accurate and properly cited it should remain.  Please undo your reversion.  GlassBones (talk) 14:41, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Never mind - I just undid your reversion of my accurate, properly cited edit.GlassBones (talk) 14:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That you think your edit is "accurate, properly cited" does not mean you have consensus for that edit. It would appear that you do not.  I take no position on the merits of this dispute, but you need to stop edit warring and get consensus or engage in dispute resolution before making it again. 331dot (talk) 14:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * OK - but what exactly is meant by "consensus"? This should not be a matter of voting for or against an edit based on a person's point of view or personal bias.  It should be a matter of whether or not an edit is accurate and properly cited.  Otherwise, a group of editors could get together and keep out anything no matter how well cited, simply because they don't want the information to be included. GlassBones (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:CONSENSUS. Consensus is not a simple vote, but a general assessment of the feelings of the community, preferably based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as to what the article should say. If the situation is unable to be resolved, then it should move to dispute resolution. In this case- and I again state that I take no position on the merits of the dispute- if you want to put that MSNBC is a left wing outlet, you should gather as many independent reliable sources that support that as you can find and present at least some of them here with an argument based in Wikipedia policy as to why the article should say that. 331dot (talk) 15:12, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ( with 331dot) GlassBones, "consensus" on Wikipedia does not mean everybody agrees to something (as it often does in non-Wikipedia contexts) — if it did, we would always be in permanent deadlock. Please see WP:CONSENSUS. Bishonen &#124; talk 15:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC).
 * - I am done with this, and done trying to bring a modicum of balance to Wikipedia. Congratulations to  and others like   - you have succeeded in driving another non-liberal editor away from Wikipedia articles about politicians and news sources.  This is simply not worth the aggravation. GlassBones (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I would challenge you to find a single article that is labeled "left-wing" as you're trying to do here. Mother Jones doesn't get this treatment, nor does MoveOn. Even CounterPunch just gets a "It has been described as left-wing" in its second sentence. ValarianB (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * - Thank you for making my point for me. Even the most blatantly left-wing organizations cannot be described on Wikipedia as left wing.  But OANN and other conservative organizations can be described as right-wing.  As for politicians, the bias is even more remarkable.  Conservative politicians are routinely described using inflammatory language such as "liar" and "racist", but liberal politicians can only be described in glowing terms that make the Wikipedia articles read like campaign brochures. In any event, you and others like you have succeeded.  I am done. GlassBones (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Done? I see you weren't done for very long (56 minutes), GlassBones. Please either be done, or give some slight evidence for your accusations. If conservative politicians are routinely described as "liar" and "racist" on Wikipedia, and liberal politicians in "glowing terms", it should be easy for you to adduce a few examples. I'd particularly like to see a few of the "routine" descriptions as "liar". Evidence-free bludgeoning isn't welcome on talkpages. Bishonen &#124; talk 17:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC).
 * I can hardly be described as "making your point", as I already made it to you in a response yesterday. This isn't a debate on whether or not MSNBC leans left; it does. It is about the utility or usefulness of bothering to label it in the literal 1st sentence. You do realize that in the last paragraph of the lead, it states "Commentators have described MSNBC as having a bias towards left-leaning politics and the Democratic Party.", right? You did read that far? The reader is already presented with the news of MSNBC's political leanings. And fyi, I have disabled pings, so, you can save yourself a few typed characters if you like. ValarianB (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

As far as the merits of GlassBones's edit is concerned, none of the four sources cited describes MSNBC as "left-wing" in their own editorial voice, which makes the term completely inappropriate in Wikivoice. Also, the sources put MSNBC as generally to the right of CNN, and the Washington Post piece puts it significantly to the right of the Washington Post itself. Neither CNN nor WaPo is described as "left wing" in their WP articles ... just to list a few relevant considerations. Newimpartial (talk) 17:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * A far more accurate chart is lated here: Media Bias Chart from Ad Fontes Media. They have a trained team which constantly monitors and analyzes sources. At the bottom of the chart are lots of sources with small letters. Click on them and see what happens. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

no word about their left-wing bias?
Should be part of the introduction in the article.

62.226.80.160 (talk) 07:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Nope. Not a significant part of what Reliable Sources generally say about MSNBC. More specific commentary about its political reporting can be found in the body of the article, but that generalization is essentially unsourced and UNDUE. Newimpartial (talk) 16:00, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Non-issue. See the fourth paragraph of the lead section, starting with "Commentators have described..." Just plain Bill (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Never mind; it's been snipped. Just plain Bill (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Why is it protected to only allow administrator edits?
What is the reason to so strictly protect this article? DemonDays64 (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The stated reason for the protection is edit warring. There has been a recent dispute as to if MSNBC should be identified as 'liberal'. If you have a edit you want to make, and you cannot wait for the protection to expire, please make an edit request here.  You may also go to WP:RFPP and request a reduction in the protection. 331dot (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit request: Restore the lock symbol
It looks like this edit accidentally removed the pp-dispute lock symbol at the top right of the page. Could it be restored? Thank you. – numbermaniac  00:50, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ — xaosflux  Talk 19:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2020
Description of MSNBC should include 'left-wing' and or 'liberal' news opinion news channel as they are the direct competitor of Fox News which is listed as "conservative" in the description. I will contribute to the sight when you are fair to others. 99.153.241.149 (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Not an edit request. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see discussions above about this subject. 331dot (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Is American Economic Review article sufficient to support "liberal" label in lead?
I do not believe that cited AER article, which categorizes MSNBC for the purpose of a broad statistical analysis, is sufficient to support labeling MSNBC "liberal" in the lead. It is in the nature of such studies that categories are applied in a way that's unbiased on average, knowing that for any individual element of the sample, it will deviate from the defined norm. To support "liberal" in the lead, we would need a recent study of the activities of MSNBC and an evaluation of the components and an assignment of any labels to individual aspects or activities of its operations. The current reference appears to be a cherrypicked, UNDUE, mention of the tag "liberal" for our purposes. A more likely source for such a label would be an RS publication concerned specifically with media, journalism, or political affairs. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:41, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe that it is necessary to stay politically neutral when talking about the biases of news media. For the sake of consistency, we should look at both sides (Fox News and MSNBC) and their page's reference(s) to supposed bias. The AER article was published relatively recently in 2017 and found results of bias on both sides, while looking at each company's history, impact, branding, and coverage. The two references supporting Fox News' "conservative" label were articles published in 2007 and 2010, respectively. Keep in mind also that the 2007 article solely focused on Fox News and its impact on voters, so I would also be concerned with it being neither recent nor focused in its research. I fail to see how the AER article was "cherrypicked," considering that its findings were used to argue for Fox News' conservative bias (a legitimate claim, mind you) in Vox, Washington Post, and Bloomberg. AJKUSA (talk) 18:58, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That really does not address the specific concerns I presented in my post above. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:04, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It does. For example, you point out that categories are applied in a way that seems unbiased. On page 12, a continuous graph plots the evident bias of Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC. It doesn't mention absolutes, although the graph clearly shows a similar, but opposite, bias between Fox News and MSNBC (CNN leans left of center). I fail to see how the article isn't focused, either. It mentions a variety of factors, including demographics, voting patterns, branding, and coverage. If the article was cherry-picked, one could assume that there would be a plurality of studies that prove the opposite, while maintaining a level of objectivity when looking at different media sources. AJKUSA (talk) 17:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not use the word "seems". Indeed I tried to make clear that I was using "unbiased" in the technical sense of a statistically unbiased estimate. You again replied in an unresponsive way, and you do not appear to understand the methodology or motivations of studies such as the one presented in the AER article. It's not up to you to order the world to do statistical studies on this or that so that a perfect abundance of sources can be scrutinized by WP editors. In fact it's typical of non-mainstream or fringe views that there are very few sources on any aspect of the subject. That's why it's easy for an editor to cherrypick one to support an off-kilter view. The opposite is the case: If MSNBC shows "liberal bias" it should be easy for you to find many mainstream RS citations to support such text in the article. See whether you can find any and report back. Until then, please drop the stick. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:33, 26 December 2019 (UTC)


 * No, it is quite unnecessary to state this in the lead, as we already covered in the earlier section above with user "Glassbones". This "new" user AJKUSA took all of 12 minutes from account creation to 1st edit, has edited nothing else but this article and talk page, and also has a curious habit of marking his edit-warring edits as "minor", but not his talk page edits, suggestive deliberateness. Let's no indulge a single-purpose account's antics, please. ValarianB (talk) 19:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The only reason I opened this thread is that I will not be the one who repeatedly reverts this UNDUE non-V content. This article is not widely followed. It's got many other problems as well. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I take issue with labeling this network liberal, as there is no universally agreed-on definition of liberalism based on my experience. It may mean one who upholds individual liberty (in the manner of classical liberalism or libertarianism), or as American jargon it may mean one who advocates both social freedom and social welfare or socialism, in which case it should be referred to as progressivism.


 * On the issue of labeling MSNBC as progressive, I will agree that one must find numerous independent high-quality sources, and a significant majority of them must say that it is progressive. Certainly a single source is not enough. At this point, it may be worth noting in the lead that its talk shows normally lean progressive, but if we can find numerous sources of which nearly all describe the news channel as being generally progressive just as there are numerous sources calling Fox News conservative, I see no reason why it should not be in the article's first paragraph.  GaɱingFørFuɲ 3 6 5 02:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Once again, there are attempts to cram "liberal" into the lead, when there is little support from non-single purpose accounts on this page to do so. ValarianB (talk) 12:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * "Liberal" is an outstanding example of loaded language. This article about a TV news network is not the place for mincing fine distinctions between various definitions of liberalism. That it is a snarl word is beyond dispute; its emotional connotations are used to marginalize and disparage people seen as not sufficiently conservative/right-wing/authoritarian, recently plainly shown in Sen. McSally's tone of voice when dismissing a CNN reporter as a "liberal hack."


 * I recognize that this is a Wikipedia article's talk page, not a forum for political discussion. The paragraph above is offered to show that "liberal" has multiple definitions, and is too loaded to fit compactly into the lead section without a lot of clarifying text. Just plain Bill (talk) 14:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

New York Times, The Atlantic, and Politico proposed sources for "liberal"
I don't even think MSNBC itself makes any secret of the fact it is geared towards a liberal audience. Since I have now reliably sourced to multiple sources that wikipedia considers to be highly reputable, there is no reason not to include the fact that MSNBC is liberal. In fact, less well-known sources are used in the Fox News article as references for the conservative label. --Rusf10 (talk) 15:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * New York Times How MSNBC Became Fox’s Liberal Evil Twin
 * The Atlantic What's the Matter With MSNBC?
 * Politico As ratings plunge, MSNBC faces shakeup
 * That is not, and never has been, the point. Mainstream outlets leaning left/liberal/progressive is the normal, default state of the media, there is no cause or reason to state something so blindingly, stupidly obvious in the introduction of this article. It would be about as useful as changing the lead of Donald Trump to "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current white president of the United States". ValarianB (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works. The New York Times puts the word "liberal" in a headline, so if it was so obvious (as you claim) then why would they feel the need to inform their readers? (and why can't we inform our readers as well). I have provided multiple reliable sources that also lean left themselves, but they felt it was necessary to label MSNBC as liberal (which I interpret to mean they view it as more liberal than their own organizations). Also, please do not bring race into this discussion, I find it inappropriate.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that is how it works. Headlines are meant to be sensationalist and eye-grabbing. The Wikipedia sources itself to content, not headlines. But again; not the point here. ValarianB (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not just headlines, The Atlantic calls MSNBC "liberal alternative to CNN" and the "liberal-leaning network". Politico calls MSNBC "liberal answer to Fox News" and "the liberal network."--Rusf10 (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Anyway, in terms of the sources provided, the first two are "analysis" pieces, i.e. op-ed content, and any labels they use would require in-text attribution. The third source is mostly concerned with MSNBC's liberal audience, not its content, and certainly would not by itself justify the label being used in Wikivoice, much less in the lede. And all three sources date from 2012-2015, which would not justify the label being used in the present tense even if they represented a consensus of RS at the time (which they do not).
 * TL; DR - no, these sources do not support the proposed label. Newimpartial (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * [ec] Reaching back five to eight years to find sources for a current claim? OK... Also, the most recent one, that Politico article from 2015, said that the Chris Hayes show would "almost certainly be replaced." The last time I looked, he still has that 8PM slot pretty well sewed up. Stale inaccurate reporting is not a good look here. "Liberal" is still a snarl word used by the right to smear their opposition in January 2020. To be used with a NPOV, it will need to be cast with precision, needing more words than this article has room for. Just plain Bill (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * So the sources are too old??? MSNBC was liberal, but now is not? That's ridiculous. However, I will provide so newer sources anyway:

All of these sources are recent and I intentionally avoided any sources that could possibly be described as conservative. What is clear is that MSNBC is widely recognized as liberal, even among publications that themselves also lean to the left.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * MSNBC's Wild Ride The New Republic- also a left-leaning publication calls it a "liberal network" and "the liberal, Democratic cable channel"
 * Did MSNBC Exclude Bernie Sanders from a Graphic About a Campaign Event? Snopes- "liberal cable news channel MSNBC"
 * Chaos in Yemen: A Conversation With Isa Blumi The Nation "the liberal network MSNBC"
 * How will you bring clarity to which of the various senses of "liberal" apply to MSNBC? How do you propose to defuse its thought-stopping emotional connotations? Just plain Bill (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) Rusf, the first and third of your new sources are Op-eds, again, and the second one is an off-hand mention in Snopes, which is not even addressing the issue of MSNBC's political invitation in the posting. I feel as though I'm watching someone throw spaghetti against the wall; there is nothing near DUE, here.


 * You are aware that the last source you used is using the label liberal derisively, right? It's DISPROVING that they are liberal... and the second last is about how they're attacking a left wing candidate, that's again, disproving that they are left wing... and the first one now that I look at it is not seriously using the liberal lable to describe MSNBC, and continuously implies that it's not in fact liberal...  Are you just lying, or did you have your brain's right lobe removed?  Because you just gave us three cases of how MSNBC is NOT a liberal aparatus.Wigglewortz (talk) 07:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * In any case, per WP:LEDE, we should be discussing these sources in relation to the treatment of MSNBC's politics in the body of the article, first, not as a second front in an edit war over the lede. Newimpartial (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * You (and thus far only you, until the SPA's return) are simply casting a wide net out there and coming back with anyone & every google hit for "MSNBC liberal". There's no dispute that they are, the issue is that it isn't relevant or important enough to state it in the lead. The body of the article covers MSNBC's leanings already, that is sufficient. You act like information is being hidden or censored here, which is patently silly and untrue. ValarianB (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Surely, if Fox News is described as conservative in its lead with weaker sourcing, than it is appropriate to describe MSNBC as liberal. MSNBC's clearly has marketed itself as a liberal network and it should be mentioned in the lead.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You're simply repeating yourself now. The case for Fox News is far stronger, as it is sourced to scholarly sources, so you lose on that attempted point. Fox news is an outlier in media, which is why it is more fitting to describe what they are up-front as it is a far, far more remarked-upon situation. ValarianB (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Now, you're just moving the goal post. First, the complaint was this couldn't be reliably sourced, then it was the sources are too old, and now the sources don't count because they weren't written by scholars? But, there seems to be an unlimited amount of sources available that call MSNBC liberal, so here are some scholarly ones.

If you need more sources, just let me know.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Exposure to Ideological News and Perceived Opinion Climate: Testing the Media Effects Component of Spiral-of-Silence in a Fragmented Media Landscape The International Journal of Press/Politics, 2014, Vol 19(1), written by Yariv Tsfati (PhD, Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania)and Natalie Jomini Stroud (PhD,  Annenberg   School   for   Communication,   University   of   Pennsylvania, 2006)- "Based on previous content analytic research, Fox News was classified as a conservative-leaning outlet and CNN and MSNBC as liberal-leaning outlets"
 * Sarah Sobieraj & Jeffrey M. Berry (Tufts University) (2011) From Incivility to Outrage: Political Discourse in Blogs, Talk Radio, and Cable News, Political Communication, 28:1, 19-41, DOI: 10.1080/10584609.2010.542360- "Since MSNBC shifted to a more distinctly liberal persona in its evening shows, the network's ratings have improved, and it now draws as many or more viewers than its CNN competitors" & "Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, and Keith Olbermann on the liberal MSNBC..."
 * Partisan Enclaves or Shared Media Experiences? A Network Approach to Understanding Citizens’ Political News Environments, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 60(2), 2016, pp. 248–268 by Brian E.  Weeks(Ph.D., Ohio State University), Thomas  B.  Ksiazek(Ph.D., Northwestern University), & R.  Lance  Holbert(Ph.D., University of Wisconsin). "The semi-periphery includes several general interest outlets and the liberal partisan outlet, MSNBC",
 * Of these three scholarly sources, the first two do not clearly identify MSNBC as "liberal" in the authors' editorial voice. For the third source, there is the ambiguity I noted previously between the "liberal partisan" orientation of the network is of its viewers or its producers. So none of these really bear on the proposed change to the lede, and not many are even useful for the body IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 02:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "liberal partisan outlet" clearly refers to the network itself, there's no ambiguity. I've now provided 9 quality sources (and I can provide even more). You just don't want to accept the fact that it is a liberal network. Here's a challenge, find reliable sources that describe MSNBC as "centrist" or "moderate"--Rusf10 (talk) 05:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The term "liberal partisan outlet" is ambiguous-it could he by, for or releasing liberal partisans. And you have produced 9 sources, most of which are are Op-eds by dubious experts, and almost none of which refer to the network unambiguously as "liberal". Why don't you try to add sources to the relevant part of this article rather than engaging in a poorly sourced, one against many capture the flag operation on the lede.
 * The quality of sourcing for "centrist" or "moderate" might be relevant if we used the term to describe MSNBC in the article, in wikivoice. We don't... Newimpartial (talk) 12:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

MSNBC is absolutely not liberal. Chuck Todd is a neoliberal and Chris Matthews is a crazy conservative boomer. Neither of these two would be hosts on prime time MSNBC if it was a "liberal" network. – numbermaniac  01:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * MSNBC Anchor Chuck Todd Quotes Article Comparing Bernie Sanders Supporters to Brownshirts
 * Chris Matthews’ Wild Rant Connects a Bernie Sanders Win With Public Executions in Central Park
 * MSNBC anchors keep comparing Sanders' campaign and its supporters to Nazis, and they're being called to resign

Edit Request: HD Launch Date
The HD launch date is incorrect. Currently, the sentence reads:

On June 29, 2015, MSNBC launched a 1080i high-definition feed.

The date was actually June 29, 2009.

There were also later launch dates on different providers, but all were in 2009.

Bradisbell312 (talk) 02:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Liberal bias should be mentioned and can be sourced
https://web.stanford.edu/~ayurukog/cable_news.pdf

Page 3: A key source of variation in this exercise is MSNBC’s change in business strategy towards offering more liberal content.

Page 6: MSNBC changed its business strategy in the starting around 2006 to provide news with a more liberal slant, as detailed in Sanneh (2013), culminating in adopting the slogan “Lean Forward” in 2010.

Page 11: MSNBC closely tracks CNN initially, and then becomes consistently more liberal - though by much less than the gap between CNN and FNC - in the mid-2000’s.

Page 12: (Graph illustrates MSNBC's current left bias, comparable to that of Fox News' on the right. Fox News' conservative bias is already mentioned in the beginning of its Wikipedia page.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AJKUSA (talk • contribs) 20:40, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Criticism of MSNBC already has its own section. Why does it need to be in the lead?  Why are you citing this academic paper(which seems to be original research)? 331dot (talk) 20:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ideological bias is mentioned in the beginning of Fox News' page. Both are major news media and are opposite in leaning but about equal in bias, as illustrated by the graph. I believe it is important to be neutral in how we allot allegations of bias, especially if both media are widely prevalent sources of information. Can you describe how the source counts as "original research"? It could be that I'm fairly new to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AJKUSA (talk • contribs) 20:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The source you give appears to be an academic paper- meaning it gives the findings of the author based on their own research. Did it appear in a peer-reviewed journal? It would be better if you had a source that analyzed what the paper said and reported on it- a secondary source. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state about article subjects.  There are many independent sources that discuss Fox News' political views. I would note that you aren't the first person to attempt to do this; you may find it helpful to review the talk page archives to see why the article is the way it is.  Not saying what you want won't happen now- just why it hasn't happened until now. 331dot (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


 * It appeared in American Economic Review. It has also been cited by Vox, Washington Post, and Bloomberg, each time to argue for Fox News' bias. The research itself doesn't seem biased, given that it reported on both political viewpoints and their equivalent media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AJKUSA (talk • contribs) 21:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

It’s a one word addition to the lead that is accurate so it should stay Dy3o2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:12, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Protected page request the term 'liberal' is not part of the stable version of the lede nor have any reasonable arguments been put forward why it would be DUE for the lede; I would therefore request that the term be removed pending a conclusion from the discussion here. Newimpartial (talk) 14:35, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌. The page was protected on the version (stable or otherwise) in which I encountered. El_C 14:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Could you revert the page to the version in which the "liberal" description is cited (my most recent revision)? Someone must have removed it before you protected the page. AJKUSA (talk) 14:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. Please sign your comments. El_C 14:49, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for signing, appreciate it. El_C 14:52, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * El_C, your response to the two protected page requests you have received suggests some BIAS, no? Your rationale for retaining "liberal" was that it was part of the version you happened to protect, but then you added the citation that is (a) controversial per Talk and (b) not part of the version you happened to protect (nor the stable version). Inconsistent, at least. Newimpartial (talk) 15:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no bias. As an aside, I have protected CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC for a week, all on the versions in which I encountered. Adding a previous reference to the current version, which seems to have been lost in the edit war, seems sensible enough for me. Please feel free to appeal my decision in any forum you see fit. El_C 15:41, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I know better than to try to appeal a WP:WRONGVERSION issue, but there is obvious FALSEBALANCE involved in protecting those three articles as if they represented similar cases - the RS don't treat them the same at all, as a rule. Newimpartial (talk) 15:49, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The three articles were protected (all on the versions in which I encountered) due to edit warring, which is disruptive to an article's stability. El_C 15:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC)


 * All of this logic is faulty. For pages 3 and 6: 'more' doesn't mean 'is'. A tire is more foodlike than a tire iron, that doesn't make it food.  For page 12 the gap is almost half as broad as the gap between Fox News.  Those aren't comparable, if you want to label MSNBC as 'slightly liberal' then we can talk, but calling it outright liberal is not reasonable. Wigglewortz (talk) 13:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)Mr. Wiggles.

And by "independent sources" you mean equally far left MSM outlets and publications who obviously don't call each other out on their bias, wikipedia is a far left propaganda source it's become a joke, that the alleged bias of Fox is in the lead but that of MSNBC is not is proof positive that wikipedia is not neutral or objective but is now run by left wing ideologues hence the locks on every subject that is even remotely political. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1006:b06a:bbab:0:4e:fc8:3f01 (talk)
 * Wikipedia does not claim to be free of bias. Any bias in independent reliable sources will be reflected in Wikipedia.  This is not a secret. The "locks" on some articles are not to prevent any viewpoint, but to prevent disruption by editors of all types and views.  331dot (talk) 11:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

MSNBC needs to have the same type of final lead as fox. Guitarguy2323 (talk) 23:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Put Progressive in the Lead
MSNBC should have Progressive News Outlet if Fox is Conservative. Its blatantly obvious that they are Progressive and many outlets have described the people there as Progressive as well. Needs to have the same type of final lead as Fox.Guitarguy2323 (talk) 00:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * It's like saying the sky is blue or water is wet. Fox News is the outlier, which is why it is characterized as "conservative" in the opening. ValarianB (talk) 01:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

MSNBC is also the outlier. It basically is the mouthpiece of the DNC at least the other networks try to be unbiased. But Fox and MSNBC are outliers. MSNBC should be classified as "Progressive"Guitarguy2323 (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I think it could be mentioned in the article somewhere if there are enough referenced sources, but I don't agree to define the channel as leftist or progressive, let alone on the first line.Juangatti (talk) 20:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

As someone pointed above main publications, NYT, Atlantic etc have called the Network Liberal or Progressive. Should be open and shut case. So Progressive in the leadGuitarguy2323 (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Have you reviewed the prior discussions on issues similar to your request? 331dot (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes and people don't like to be neutral so....Guitarguy2323 (talk) 02:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Fair & Balanced
If Fox News is described as: "Fox News has been described as practicing biased reporting in favor of the Republican Party, the George W. Bush and Donald Trump administrations, and conservative causes while portraying the Democratic Party in a negative light."

MSDNC should be described in the same way: "MSDNC has been described as practicing biased reporting in favor of the Democratic Party, the Barack Obama and Joe Biden administration, and liberal causes while portraying the Republican Party in a negative light." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.215.190 (talk) 06:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Your use of "MSDNC" suggests to me you aren't attempting to be a neutral party here. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state, so please offer any sources you have that make the claim you do. 331dot (talk) 08:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

+1 for Mentioning Liberal/Left-Wing in lead
It is absolutely ridiculous that Fox News has an entire paragraph of its lead dedicated to describing its conservative slant, meanwhile this article doesn't have a single mention of "liberal" or "left-wing" whatsoever in the lead. It reeks of systemic bias. There are plenty of reliable sources that can be used for this. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 12:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * "Reality has a well-known liberal bias", as they say. Fox News is the exception to the norm, a conservative news source that, at least nominally, does do fact-checking and accuracy. Thus its conservative bent is highlighted, as it is unusual. ValarianB (talk) 12:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The is an overused quote that was for comedic affect by xolbert. Not based in reality whatsoever. It's cliched at this point rather then fact;Guitarguy2323 (talk) 01:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The Colbert quote is a vernacular expression of some entailments of the Overton window. If there are "plenty of reliable sources" in support of this, then they can be brought to this talk page for discussion. Just plain Bill (talk) 01:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

In other words. Comedy not reality.Guitarguy2323 (talk) 02:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It is OK if you don't get the connection. Sources are still the way to resolve this. Just plain Bill (talk) 02:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Mention Leftwing and Anti Republican Stance in the lead
Truth Teller1222 (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Please offer independent reliable sources that describe MSNBC in that way. You are free to have that as your personal opinion, but Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state. 331dot (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Here you go 331dot  :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)
 * One, you have offered only one source. Wikipedia articles cannot be used to source other Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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)
 * 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)


 * 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 The headline is. This 2012 article in the NYT says The headline is. This 2020 NYT article says The headline is. I think that is pretty clear that the lead should describe MSNBC as "liberal". <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  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)

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 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)
 * 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. Wikipedia 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)
 * 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 Wikipedia 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? [This post will be quickly deleted by wikipedia.] 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)
 * Administrator here. I don't have a "job", just some extra buttons. If you review the talk page archive, the sources offered for a claim of "left wing" have been inappropriate, for a variety of reasons, but often due to being simply the viewpoint of the author and not an objective assessment. If you have independent reliable sources that support your claim, please offer them with a collaborative attitude. 331dot (talk) 15:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Msnbc.news Vs MSNBC.com
Suggest that the MSNBC.news web site is mentioned in the article.

It has been set up to host articles, many of questionable reliability, criticizing MSNBC, CNN and other respected news sites.

It's domain name, MSNBC.news, has been chosen to facilitate and promote confusion with MSNBC (domain name manbc.com). 86.137.135.44 (talk) 06:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Unless a reliable source covers it, it isn't suitable for inclusion in the Wikipedia. I'm sure it is only a matter of time before NBC Universal sues to seize the name though, so it won't be around for long. ValarianB (talk) 12:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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 FlyDragon792 (talk) 23:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)

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

 * Peter Alexander
 * Mariana Atencio
 * Yamiche Alcindor
 * Mika Brzezinski
 * Josh Barro
 * Jeremy Bash
 * Mike Barnicle
 * John O. Brennan
 * Jonathan Capehart
 * Robert Costa
 * Donny Deutsch
 * Richard Engel
 * Kendis Gibson
 * Chris Hayes
 * John Heilemann
 * Hugh Hewitt
 * Kasie Hunt
 * Hallie Jackson
 * Jack H. Jacobs
 * Chris Jansing
 * Steve Kornacki
 * Trymaine Lee
 * Richard Lui
 * Rachel Maddow
 * Chris Matthews
 * Mark McKinnon
 * Ari Melber
 * Craig Melvin
 * Andrea Mitchell
 * Ayman Mohyeldin
 * Malcolm Nance
 * Bill Neely
 * Kelly O'Donnell
 * Lawrence O'Donnell
 * Cal Perry
 * Karine Jean-Pierre
 * John Podhoretz
 * Morgan Radford
 * JJ Ramberg
 * Ron Reagan
 * Joy Reid
 * Eugene Robinson
 * Stephanie Ruhle
 * Joe Scarborough
 * Steve Schmidt
 * Al Sharpton
 * Keir Simmons
 * Jacob Soboroff
 * Bret Stephens
 * Jonathan Swan
 * Kara Swisher
 * Chuck Todd
 * Katy Tur
 * Jim VandeHei
 * Ali Velshi
 * Nicolle Wallace
 * Kristen Welker
 * Brian Williams
 * Pete Williams
 * Alex Witt

Seems incomplete without notables such as Tucker Carlson, Michael Savage, Greta Van Susteren and others.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Oligarchy and MSNBC
MSNBC is a mouthpiece of the United States Government, just as CNN, Fox News, New York Times, Washington Post, etc. MSNBC is just worse at it then the other two. The link between private and public institutions is used as plausible deniability. Scientifically, the United States of America is an oligarchy, according to Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B "The preferences of rich people had a much bigger impact on subsequent policy decisions than the views of middle-income and poor Americans. Indeed, the opinions of lower-income groups, and the interest groups that represent them, appear to have little or no independent impact on policy." https://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/is-america-an-oligarchy When the average member of the collective west thinks "oligarchy" they think "Russia", which, scientifically is true because the United States created Russia in the 1991 using Disaster Capitalism first brandished on the first September 11, 1973, with the 1973 Chilean coup d'état.

May1787 (talk) 06:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

The disupte resolution was closed. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1114646507

*shrug* May1787 (talk) 01:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)


 * What is your point here? The United States has been an oligarchy since the 18th century, and a plutocracy since the Gilded Age. How is that relevant to MSNBC? Dimadick (talk) 09:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposed edit to lead paragraph concerning acronym
No, this is not about partisanship or bias. I was just interested in what the MS stood for in the name. I found that it was covered in the lead paragraph but only after I knew to look for Microsoft. I didn't read very closely but I'd hoped to make the information a little easier to spot and to formally spell out the acronym as it was used initially. I was thinking it could look something like this

MSNBC and its website were founded in 1996 under a partnership between Microsoft and General Electric's NBC unit. Its name, MSNBC, was an acronym of Microsoft National Broadcasting Corporation. Microsoft divested itself of its stakes in the MSNBC channel in 2005 and its stakes in msnbc.com in July 2012. The general news site was rebranded as NBCNews.com, and a new msnbc.com was created as the online home of the cable channel. In the late summer of 2015, MSNBC revamped its programming by entering into a dual editorial relationship with its organizational parent NBC News. MSNBC Live, the network's flagship daytime news platform, was expanded to cover over eight hours of the day.

Is this alright? Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 17:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC) Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 17:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The article already states MSNBC and its website were founded in 1996 under a partnership between Microsoft and General Electric's NBC unit, hence the network's naming.. Seems clear enough. ValarianB (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @ValarianB That's kinda what I mean though. Saying "hence the network's naming" is a backhanded way of stating it and not a phrasing that someone would usually think to search for.  If someone was looking for that info and didn't know if it was in the article, what might they search for in the page?  "Acronym", "stands for", "name", "stood for", "originally" (like, what was the company originally called), "called", "means", maybe even "MS " if they're hoping that someone parses out the MS part of the acronym and explains that.  None of those get hits within the article though.
 * The other bit is that not many places actually expand the acronym and state it as such. Having it expanded as Microsoft National Broadcasting Corporation in italics and next to the word acronym would make it more probable that it would be highlighted by google searches asking this kinda question.
 * I think it's a generally harmless change and it is adding some new info (ie. the expanded form) that isn't mentioned in many other places. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 01:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @ValarianB You said in the revert that it's bleedingly obvious but is it? Even knowing that it was formed from Microsoft and NBC, it wouldn't be surprising if someone guessed that MSNBC might stand for Microsoft Syndicated National Broadcasting Corporation or Microsoft Satellite National Broadcasting Corporation (like C-SPAN's is), but it doesn't.  If the argument is that the meaning of the original acronym doesn't matter since nobody refers to them by that name anymore, then we can always delete all references to HBO standing for Home Box Office or 3M standing for Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company or bury the meaning of the acronym somewhere in the body of the article while we're at it, right? Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 21:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:ACRO1STUSE, "when something is most commonly known by its acronym [...], the expansion can come in the parenthetical or be omitted, except in the lead of its own article". Thinker78  (talk) 00:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Thinker78 Oh, thank you! I did not know this existed!  I really should presume MoS has a guideline somewhere until proven otherwise lol.
 * Given recent disagreements, I'd like to keep this open for a further several weeks before making definitive changes. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 17:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2023
Wikipedia has no room for biases that favor any person(s), group(s), organization, and/or ideology or beliefs. Wikipedia has every obligation to remove its left wing biased overtones in its writings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.26.142.155 (talk) 11:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say about a topic. Being biased does not in and of itself preclude the use of a source on Wikipedia, as every source has biases. Sources are presented to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves as to bias and other factors. It is a common misunderstanding that Wikipedia is supposed to be "without bias", which is impossible. Wikipedia tries to have a neutral point of view, which is different. We don't, however, provide a false balance where sources do not.
 * If the sources in this article are not being summarized accurately, please detail the specific errors here. 331dot (talk) 11:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)