The subject of this article iscontroversial and content may be indispute. 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 aneutral point of view. Includecitations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Please staycalm andcivil while commenting or presenting evidence, anddo not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached,other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article iswritten inAmerican English, which has its own spelling conventions (color,defense,traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from othervarieties of English. According to therelevant style guide, this should not be changed withoutbroad consensus.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofMedia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofNew York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofjournalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles abouttelevision programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you canjoin the discussion.To improve this article, please refer to thestyle guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to theUnited States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at theWikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding Just wanted to get some other opinions on this and have some discussion. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "MSNBC".The discussion is about the topicMSNBC. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
@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 ofreliable 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 asliberal 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 wordprogressive 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 wordprogressive 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(talkthis 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 ofreliabke 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, wouldthis 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 likeJoy Reid andRachel 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(talkthis 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]
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 checkedWP: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.
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 forDocZach, 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(talkthis 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(talkthis way)(my edits)16:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update the ratings, and significant loss of viewership since 2024 election
The ReidOut is done; Joy Reid was fired from MSNBC when her show plummeted in the ratings. Rachel Maddow is likely not far behind. Overall MSNBC's ratings are in the tank. It seems that a lot of people are tired of MSNBC's blatantly liberal bias, a bias which a number of staunch Wikipedia editors refuse to acknowledge.TopShelf99 (talk)18:14, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TopShelf99 That is grossly incorrect and offensive. It has not been shown that the preponderance of independentreliable sources describe MSNBC as "Liberal" or "left-wing" or whatever badge of shame you want slapped on this article. Yes, conservative talking heads use that terminology, that's not an independent reliable source that can support a claim made in Wikipedia's voice.331dot (talk)18:48, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is my statement about bias incorrect or offensive? And why would anyone consider "liberal" a badge of shame? More importantly - Don't you consider the New York Times, Guardian, and AP News independent and reliable? All three have referred to MSNBC as left-wing and/or liberal.TopShelf99 (talk)19:27, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= or|ans= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
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]
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 companiesComcast andMicrosoft 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]
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 areliable source if appropriate. not sure where this is copied fromCannolis (talk)06:08, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
