Talk:MSNBC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the MSNBC article.
Article policies
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
This article is within the scope of Computing WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to computers and computing. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an rating on the importance scale.
Society Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Media, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to media. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

/archive

Contents

[edit] liberal bias

how come the fox news article claims fox has right leaning bias but msnbc does not have left leaning bias ? either this article should say msnbc is left leaning or they should remove the accusation of fox news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.80.96.75 (talk) 03:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] BIAS -

I've tried to eliminate more some of the bias in this article. Someone from Fox news has too much time on their hands... I've changed the fact that all the titles are followed by the work 'issues' e.g. 'ratings issues' and 'bias issues' Square126 (talk) 13:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That is a bad assumption to make. Furthermore, some of your edits do not seem logical. KO is not a conservative. JS did not post a YouTube Video, his show was YouTubed. Discuss your concerns and we can fix them. Arzel (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bloomberg crawl

"MSNBC is the only news network to keep the "crawl" on the bottom on the screen during commercial breaks. CNBC keeps their crawl, but they are considered a business network."

Bloomberg has the video box in a frame with three crawls and three data boxes. If you mention CNBC, you should mention Bloomberg TV. Also, both CNBC and Bloomberg are 'news networks' or 'business news networks' not 'business networks'. 202.82.171.186 02:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Logo

Please stop reverting the logo guys lets keep the new one and hopefully someone will SVG it. However until then keep the new one as it is used on air more now, and only one person keeps reverting it and is approaching the 3RR. - Mike Beckham 00:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Same logo

Can someone please explain the difference to me between the so-called 'April 2007-November 2007' online logo and the 'November 2007-Present' online logo? They look identical except for the background, which is by no means part of the actual logo. The images, on the other hand, are both copyright violations since whoever put them there obviously just ripped them off the website. I was going to replace both sections with one section and replace the logo with the SVG logo I created, however I'd probably be reverted again...thoughts? NcSchu(Talk) 02:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree, apparently the only difference in the two is the background. I'd stick with the first one (blue background) and not even mention the "renovation" of msnbc.com. I would, however, keep it distinct, as the web logo is in a different font as the network logo. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Headline text

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events Current events not 24hr news?

MSNBC stops broadcasting news by 10pm and movies to stock documentaries from their vast archives, as well 2hours of repeat runs of Tucker Carlson and hardball till six. so how are they a 24hr news channel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.133.248 (talk • contribs)

FOX News Channel goes to tape at 11 until 6 as well. It's still news 24/7, no dramas etc... - Mike Beckham 05:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


As there are only 3 U.S cable new networks, can we change third to last? Giza D 19:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


Uhhhhh, No, there is MSNBC, CNBC, Headlines News, CNN, Fox News Channel, BBC World News, etc et al.

[edit] Supreme left-wing bias

This article does not do much to express the true nature of the true nature of the extreme liberal bias on this network. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ohshorse (talk • contribs) 14:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

To put it in better words, this article was extremely biased in its prevelence of promoting Media Matters. MMFA and MRC should be equally mentioned in terms of criticism, and this was not the case - it was almost as if MMFA members deliberately came onto WP to distort articles regularly. Yes, this is the case - and yes, we should look out for it. Let's remind those users with bad faith of policy and be vigilant. Take no bias, report facts - assert nothing. --75.21.179.121 22:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
First of all, to say that MSNBC has a true network of reporters is incorrect. Second of all, to think that these media companies are working for the left or right wing politics is to truly misunderstand the state of our media and country.Slipgrid 19:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Slipgrid. I have watched all the major networks for quite a long time now and the only "bias" that seems to be evident is the bias toward sensationalism and possibly FoxNews' bias toward conservatism that stems from their special focus on addressing this make-believe bias. Wait for any major news event and flip back and forth between MSNBC, CNN, and FoxNews and the headlines will all be sensationalist and the news reports will all be sensationalist. They care more about hype than which side of this make-believe aisle they land on. JHMM13 15:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Please remember to keep opinions to yourself abide by WP:NPOV. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views, this talk page is to talk about the article and not the content of MSNBC and your views of it WP:TPG. - Mike Beckham 00:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

What is implied by the word "supreme" in this subsection? Would another word be better?

[edit] Addressing Controversy on Wikipedia

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

[edit] Scheduling and WP:NOT

In editing the Fox News Channel article in October 2006, a discussion started on determining whether a schedule should be placed on a television channel's page due to guidelines set by WP:NOT. The discussion ended with the editing of the removal of the times/schedule of the network on the network's page, leaving a list of programming without any mention of a schedule. I will concede, the discussion was between a smaller group of Wikipedians, but does anyone agree with this determination or should the schedule be left on a network page? Chris (Talk) (Contribs) 23:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brilliant

"MSNBC has received criticism for its programming and journalistic ethics. Media Matters for America, a liberal group, has stated that MSNBC carries a conservative bias, meanwhile a conservative media watchdog group, Media Research Center, has argued that MSNBC has a liberal slant. Media Matters claims that shows such as Tucker, Scarborough Country, and Hardball show a conservative bias."

The world we live in, ladies in gentlemen. You cannot please everyone. 70.121.163.99 18:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I just want to put this out there, and I know I'm not the only person to think/say this, but I feel that the article, in its tone and its content, is far from neutral. allegations of liberal/conservative bias aside, it opens with comments on how bad the ratings are. Maybe it could be flagged? 71.232.226.76 (talk) 06:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Uhmmmmm... Bias Anyone?

Isn't this just a little bit biased?

"The network has the lowest ratings of the three major U.S. news channels."

Sounds like someone at Fox was here editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.67.30 (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bias Removed regarding ratings...

There was no source for the accusations and therefore I removed it. I think FOX News Employees should refrain from editing here.

Nice try though.

-Chuck —Preceding unsigned comment added by K8cpa (talk • contribs) 18:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of Bias: Department of Justice story

I've removed the following paragraph from the article: "Adding fuel to the fire of perceptions of a liberal political bias, in December 2007, the network ran a series titled Bush League Justice with the explicit purpose of attacking the U.S. Justice Department under the presidency of George W. Bush.[1]"

Not only is the tone inappropriately hyperbolic and POV, but its completely irrelevant. Similar criticism of the Department of Justice is widespread and hardly "proof" of the network's alleged liberal bias.

In addition to the above noted removal, I've also toned down some other outrageous POV problems the section had.-Hal Raglan (talk) 14:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've once again removed the paragraph from the article. In addition to the reason cited above, even if the material was relevant, there are major sourcing problems. Nothing in the provided source indicates that MSNBC ran the series "with the explicit purpose" of "attacking" Bush's DOJ. Unless there is a citation to internal network memos, or an interview with an MSNBC insider, acknowledging that the series was created solely to attack the DOJ and, by extension, President Bush, this material doesn't belong in a section devoted to alleged "liberal bias".-Hal Raglan (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed

[edit] Availability In the United Kingdom

Recently a Test Card (Colored Bars) has appeared on Eurobird 1 at 11307Ghz Vertical 27500 2/3. This is not the full channel, but instead a test channel for the new BET UK. But the audiofeed of MSNBC US can be heard on the feed. The channel can be accessed via Sky using the other channels feature, where its channel ID is 53370 [citation needed]

This sounds like, "Hey, I was fiddling with my television the other day, and guess what I found?" It's clearly just someone's personal discovery, and therefore not verifiable from published sources, which should be a requirement for any addition to a Wikipedia article. -- Oliver P. (talk) 00:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

There are 16 pictures in this article, many of which are non-descript and don't flow with the section, I suggest than most of them be removed. Arzel (talk) 03:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that too. ---Ransom (--208.25.0.2 (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC))