This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 12:39, 7 December 2024 (Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:MSNBC/Archive 5, Talk:MSNBC/Archive 4) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 12:39, 7 December 2024 by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) (Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:MSNBC/Archive 5, Talk:MSNBC/Archive 4) (bot)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the MSNBC article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting. |
 | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MSNBC - Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Misplaced Pages: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 topic MSNBC. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Add the word “liberal”
It is not right to have “conservative” in Fox News wiki page but not note MSNBC being very liberal 209.122.198.74 (talk) 22:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- You are not the first person to ask this. Please provide independent reliable sources that describe MSNBC as liberal. Such sources do describe Fox News as conservative. 331dot (talk) 22:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- @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)
- What is described there is only one small aspect of the article- and describes which sources deem MSNBC liberal. To make that claim in Misplaced Pages's voice, it must be shown that the preponderance of reliable sources describe it that way, not a limited few. 331dot (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- @331dot: To be clear, I am concerned mainly about Britannica. I don't know if its claim is reliable or not, but I think the claim is notable, given that it is Britannica. I do not mean that MSNBC should be labeled as liberal in the first sentence, but I think the claim should be mentioned (as a claim) later in the lead. Janhrach (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- I believe adding the word progressive is appropriate. MSNBC is described as more left-wing than the Washington Examiner is, yet the Washington Examiner article still describes WE as conservative. MSNBC is absolutely left-wing, and the word progressive should be added. DocZach (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- 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 13:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- That the edit you want has not been made does not mean that there is a vast left wing conspiracy here(nor am I "left wing"). I have no problem with making that edit if it can be shown that the preponderance of reliabke sources use that term to describe MSNBC. That hasn't been done yet. See the numerous prior discussions on this topic, such as the one at the bottom of this page(currently). As I said there, I have no specific interest in keeping the use of that term out of this article. 331dot (talk) 07:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 331dot, would this source provide any basis for a source regarding MSNBC's leaning? Pardon my ignorance if not, I'm not totally clear on what sources are reliable and which aren't, but I don't know if I would call the desire to include "liberal" on this page is necessarily revenge. I think it's more based on the desire for consistency, since it's widely accepted that MSNBC is on the polar opposite of Fox News in regards to its leaning. Even articles like Joy Reid and Rachel Maddow, the subjects of which have shows on MSNBC, are labeled as "liberal" political commentators. This isn't the place for it, but I'm going to mention anyway, the issue of what the community deems as a "reliable" source. It's not exactly a secret that the admin class and general demographic of editors lie on the left side of the spectrum, so it's understandable that users might be discouraged with trying to involve themselves in a project that dismisses what many see as reliable sources, simply because the community doesn't see it that way. Just my 2 cents whether this is the place for it or not. SPF121188 14:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- Objective3000, that's already mentioned in the article here, in its own subheading. Didn't seem necessary to bring up again. That doesn't really refute anything else I said, just one sentence. SPF121188 15:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- Objective3000, that's already mentioned in the article here, in its own subheading. Didn't seem necessary to bring up again. That doesn't really refute anything else I said, just one sentence. SPF121188 15:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Consistency is only relevant if sources treat MSNBC and Fox the same but Misplaced Pages 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)
- 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)
- 331dot, would this source provide any basis for a source regarding MSNBC's leaning? Pardon my ignorance if not, I'm not totally clear on what sources are reliable and which aren't, but I don't know if I would call the desire to include "liberal" on this page is necessarily revenge. I think it's more based on the desire for consistency, since it's widely accepted that MSNBC is on the polar opposite of Fox News in regards to its leaning. Even articles like Joy Reid and Rachel Maddow, the subjects of which have shows on MSNBC, are labeled as "liberal" political commentators. This isn't the place for it, but I'm going to mention anyway, the issue of what the community deems as a "reliable" source. It's not exactly a secret that the admin class and general demographic of editors lie on the left side of the spectrum, so it's understandable that users might be discouraged with trying to involve themselves in a project that dismisses what many see as reliable sources, simply because the community doesn't see it that way. Just my 2 cents whether this is the place for it or not. SPF121188 14:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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 13:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- I believe adding the word progressive is appropriate. MSNBC is described as more left-wing than the Washington Examiner is, yet the Washington Examiner article still describes WE as conservative. MSNBC is absolutely left-wing, and the word progressive should be added. DocZach (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- @331dot: To be clear, I am concerned mainly about Britannica. I don't know if its claim is reliable or not, but I think the claim is notable, given that it is Britannica. I do not mean that MSNBC should be labeled as liberal in the first sentence, but I think the claim should be mentioned (as a claim) later in the lead. Janhrach (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- What is described there is only one small aspect of the article- and describes which sources deem MSNBC liberal. To make that claim in Misplaced Pages's voice, it must be shown that the preponderance of reliable sources describe it that way, not a limited few. 331dot (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- @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)
331dot, I know. My biggest gripe with WP lies with what the community deems a "reliable source." Coverage on this site is as skewed as many media outlets are, with the exception of widespread, established outlets like NYP, FNC, Washington Examiner, which aren't seen as "reliable" by the WP community, somehow. It's not exactly a state-level secret. I have (what I feel,) legitimate concerns about the long-term health of WP based on that, but I'm only one person, so my opinion and viewpoint doesn't really matter. Just wanted to offer some support for DocZach, because I believe they raise valid points that others have, and have been dismissed. I also understand this is a larger debate among the community, and I can understand some users' frustrations around it. SPF121188 15:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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 16:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Liberal bias
IP user resurrecting a long-dormant topic that went nowhere is not a fruitful use of our time. Zaathras (talk) 22:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
See also: Perception of Liberal Bias confirmed by MSNBC, "Liberal" in the lead?, and Add the word “liberal”
Does anyone actually think MSNBC does not have a liberal bias? Leaving out liberal news organization, is a great example of why wikipedia people think Misplaced Pages is extremely bias. That and the multiple harvard studies also show this.
Do the right thing and add liberal in the intro paragraph. There is no reason not to other than someone having their own political agenda and using wikipedia as a way to promote it. This is really bothersome. Anyone with a political bias should not be editing wiki pages. Even wikipedias guidelines state articles need to come from a neutral stance. Clearly that guideline has been broken here. 98.217.161.235 (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Everyone has a political bias, so not allowing that would leave no one left to edit. Misplaced Pages does not require a "neutral stance", it asks for a neutral point of view.
- Please offer independent reliable sources that describe MSNBC as liberal. You aren't the first to request this and won't be the last, but no one has yet to offer such sources. 331dot (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Sources aren't really the issue. IMO. The majority of legitimate, mainstream American media leans liberal or progressive, so there is no need to note the leanings MSNBC. Fox News is an outlier, hence the "conservative" descriptor. Zaathras (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- There is a need to note the leanings of MSNBC. Misplaced Pages notes Washington Examiner as conservative, when it is only rated center-right according to https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart, when MNSBC is rated completely left.
- See https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart. DocZach (talk) 13:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- That website has been brought up before, but it's only one website and is there any reason to consider it authoritative on this subject matter? 331dot (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- To call it "liberal" or "left" in Misplaced Pages's voice, the preponderance of reliable sources would need to describe it that way. Otherwise we could certainly note in the article text something like this website's opinion, if there's some reason to consider it authoritative or otherwise call it out in particular. 331dot (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- THE PREPONDERANCE of reliable sources describe MSNBC as left-leaning, liberal, and/or progressive:
- https://www.allsides.com/blind-survey/rating-bias-cnn-fox-news-msnbc-newsnation-nov-2023
- https://news.berkeley.edu/2023/04/21/love-fox-msnbc-you-may-be-locked-in-a-partisan-echo-chamber-study-finds
- https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2014/10/21/section-1-media-sources-distinct-favorites-emerge-on-the-left-and-right/
- https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/?p=570604
- https://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/12/is-msnbc-worse-than-fox-news-179175
- https://www.biasly.com/blog/how-biased-is-msnbc-if-at-all/
- https://adfontesmedia.com/msnbc-bias-and-reliability/
- https://www.asc.upenn.edu/news-events/news/cable-news-networks-have-grown-more-polarized-study-finds
- https://digitalcommons.memphis.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1304&context=etd
- https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/us/politics/msnbc-as-foxs-liberal-evil-twin.html
- It would be a blatant violation of NPOV to not label it as such, but to label less-biased organizations such as Washington Examiner as conservative. DocZach (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- I haven't examined all of these yet, but blogs rarely are considered reliable sources. In my experience with this article most people trying to describe MSNBC as liberal or left wing in Misplaced Pages's voice offer opinion pieces, not journalism or something scholarly/academic, as evidence. I do note that the allsides mentioned above is a good start, and their views could possibly be included as their views, if they are recognized as authoritative on this topic.
- We go where appropriate sources go; Fox and the WE are described as conservative because sources do so. It misunderstands NPOV to say "X should be done to Y because it's done on Z too". 331dot (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- The description of Fox and WE as conservative are almost always described in opinion pieces as well. The best way to find out the political bias of a news source is usually AllSides, or some form of independent review site. DocZach (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- Not gonna happen. Zaathras (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- You're going to need to explain more than just saying "not gonna happen." DocZach (talk) 00:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, no. This is a perennially-pursued topic, mostly by IP editors, one-offs, and single-purpose accounts, and it has been solidly rejected by actual editors who have participated in discussions. The onus is on you to gain consensus for a change here. Zaathras (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- I am not a "one-off" writer. I have been contributing to numerous articles of a vast variety of topics. DocZach (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Didn't say you were. I characterized past "users" whom you currently happen to be echoing. Zaathras (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- I am not a "one-off" writer. I have been contributing to numerous articles of a vast variety of topics. DocZach (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, no. This is a perennially-pursued topic, mostly by IP editors, one-offs, and single-purpose accounts, and it has been solidly rejected by actual editors who have participated in discussions. The onus is on you to gain consensus for a change here. Zaathras (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- You're going to need to explain more than just saying "not gonna happen." DocZach (talk) 00:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Not gonna happen. Zaathras (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- The description of Fox and WE as conservative are almost always described in opinion pieces as well. The best way to find out the political bias of a news source is usually AllSides, or some form of independent review site. DocZach (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- Sources aren't really the issue. IMO. The majority of legitimate, mainstream American media leans liberal or progressive, so there is no need to note the leanings MSNBC. Fox News is an outlier, hence the "conservative" descriptor. Zaathras (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Zaathras Looking at the edit history of this article, you seem to have been restricting and reverting the liberal/progressive descriptor over and over again, and then calling it a "consensus." Precisely what consensus? Clearly, there is no proper consensus. The vast majority of independent reliable sources state that MSNBC is a liberal and progressive news site. DocZach (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- I and many others, yes. This is what most editors have decided upon. Zaathras (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- A consensus isn't simply a majority of editors. And, if disputes have been happening for such a long time, then clearly there is an issue with the article. I recommend you read https://larrysanger.org/2021/06/wikipedia-is-more-one-sided-than-ever/, the essay written by the co-founder of Misplaced Pages, which describes this. DocZach (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- As stated already, the "disputes" are mostly by non-actual editors. Just passers-by. As for Larry Sanger, he is a MAGA-adjacent talking head personality who overstated his "co-founder" claim, and tried but failed to field his own Misplaced Pages competitor project, leading to ensuing bitterness. His opinion carries zero weight here. Less-than-zero, honestly, as citing him hinders your argument, not advances. Zaathras (talk) 01:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- I wasn't asking you to respect or agree with Larry Sanger, I was asking you to read his essay if you hadn't already. Nevertheless, I assume you already have, so I am going to proceed.
- The preponderance of reliable sources state that MSNBC is a liberal news organization. I already have provided many of them above. DocZach (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Blogs don't count, two of your sources are blogs. The others are mostly opinion pieces that reflect the views of the writer(usually conservative writers), not a neutral judgement based on evidence. That's not the case with outlets like the Washington Examiner(under "history" and "content and editoral stance") and Fox News(under "political alignment"). 331dot (talk) 09:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- I know I'm not going to win here because there's so many people persistent on keeping a liberal/progressive descriptor out of the article, so I don't really have much else to say other than the fact that I strongly disagree.
- I think it reflects poorly on Misplaced Pages to have "conservative" classifications on sources that are barely recognized as right-leaning, but when it comes to MSNBC; which is widely recognized as the most left-wing mainstream news program per Pew Research, AllSides, and a plethora of other sources; all of a sudden we aren't adding the liberal/progressive classification in the lead at all. And, just to note, the sources describing Washington Examiner as "conservative" are also either blogs, opinion articles, or written by journalists and authors who are well-known for their left-leaning stances.
- I think the bias on many of these Misplaced Pages articles for news programs speaks for itself. It's unfortunate, but I can't really do anything because it seems that there is generally a tendency for the majority of editors on Misplaced Pages to lean progressive on many contentious issues, which reflects in the writing style of many articles as well. DocZach (talk) 09:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not specifically interested in keeping such a descriptor out, I'm interested in such a thing being properly sourced. Most of the people who want to do this seem interested in doing so based on revenge for conservative news outlets being identified that way, not based on proper sources. 331dot (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Please take up issues with conservative news outlets on those respective article talk pages, though you aren't the first and won't be the last, so I suggest you examine the archives of those talk pages. 331dot (talk) 12:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Nevertheless, I assume you already have, so I am going to proceed.
Well, you know what they say about assuming things. No, I did not and have not read the opinion of a far-right provocateur, any more than I would listen to a Steve Bannon podcast. There's really nothing else to discuss here, as you're taking the same, tired route of others, particularly with the misunderstanding of how reliable sources are determined (hint, it isn't by ideology). Zaathras (talk) 14:11, 10 February 2024 (UTC)- I already said that I don't have much else to say. You can keep the article how you want it, I just disagree. I know however much I try to explain, it'll still not be implemented. DocZach (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- If anything, I'll probably propose it again in the talk page down the line, when I analyze more reliable sources. DocZach (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- When you do, please WP:AGF. Attacking the motivations/biases of other editors will not convince. Is Rachel Maddow liberal? Of course and we say so. But it's difficult to label an entire network as liberal when it starts each day with four hours of Joe Scarborough, a lifelong Conservative who during his congressional career, received a 95 percent lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union, He has been an MSNBC host for 16 years. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- mediate states MSNBC is a political commercial for Joe Biden. https://www.mediaite.com/opinion/morning-joe-opens-with-15-minute-host-led-campaign-commercial-defending-joe-biden/ 2603:8080:3EF0:9790:F634:C5F6:B3A5:22FB (talk) 10:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Opinion pieces are not relevant. Zaathras (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- mediate states MSNBC is a political commercial for Joe Biden. https://www.mediaite.com/opinion/morning-joe-opens-with-15-minute-host-led-campaign-commercial-defending-joe-biden/ 2603:8080:3EF0:9790:F634:C5F6:B3A5:22FB (talk) 10:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- When you do, please WP:AGF. Attacking the motivations/biases of other editors will not convince. Is Rachel Maddow liberal? Of course and we say so. But it's difficult to label an entire network as liberal when it starts each day with four hours of Joe Scarborough, a lifelong Conservative who during his congressional career, received a 95 percent lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union, He has been an MSNBC host for 16 years. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- If anything, I'll probably propose it again in the talk page down the line, when I analyze more reliable sources. DocZach (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- I already said that I don't have much else to say. You can keep the article how you want it, I just disagree. I know however much I try to explain, it'll still not be implemented. DocZach (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Blogs don't count, two of your sources are blogs. The others are mostly opinion pieces that reflect the views of the writer(usually conservative writers), not a neutral judgement based on evidence. That's not the case with outlets like the Washington Examiner(under "history" and "content and editoral stance") and Fox News(under "political alignment"). 331dot (talk) 09:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- As stated already, the "disputes" are mostly by non-actual editors. Just passers-by. As for Larry Sanger, he is a MAGA-adjacent talking head personality who overstated his "co-founder" claim, and tried but failed to field his own Misplaced Pages competitor project, leading to ensuing bitterness. His opinion carries zero weight here. Less-than-zero, honestly, as citing him hinders your argument, not advances. Zaathras (talk) 01:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- A consensus isn't simply a majority of editors. And, if disputes have been happening for such a long time, then clearly there is an issue with the article. I recommend you read https://larrysanger.org/2021/06/wikipedia-is-more-one-sided-than-ever/, the essay written by the co-founder of Misplaced Pages, which describes this. DocZach (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- I and many others, yes. This is what most editors have decided upon. Zaathras (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Zaathras Looking at the edit history of this article, you seem to have been restricting and reverting the liberal/progressive descriptor over and over again, and then calling it a "consensus." Precisely what consensus? Clearly, there is no proper consensus. The vast majority of independent reliable sources state that MSNBC is a liberal and progressive news site. DocZach (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- The New York Times referred to MSNBC as “liberal.” https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/13/business/media/msnbc-fox-news-ratings-election.html 108.29.110.53 (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- I can't examine it due to a wall, but taking your word, that's one, the preponderance of sources need to describe MSNBC that way. I get that conservatives see "liberal" as a four letter word and want to slap it on this article, but it needs sources. 331dot (talk) 21:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Notifying about SpinCo
 | There is a discussion at Talk:NBCUniversal that people here might be interested in; it pertains to the spinoff of cable channels owned by Comcast and its subsidiary NBCUniversal into a new company tentatively named SpinCo. |
2601AC47 (talk|contribs) Isn't a IP anon 13:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Update the ratings, and significant loss of viewership since 2024 election
- MSNBC network's primetime lineup has lost 53% in total viewers, averaging at 621,000, and 61% of viewers in the key demo, averaging 57,000
- The ReidOut" has shed 47% of its total audience
- Rachel Maddows a 43% drop
- "All In" host Chris Hayes also lost 56% of his key demo viewers
- "Inside" host Jen Paski shed 53% of her audience
- Alex Wagner lost more than half of her total viewers
23.25.8.1 (talk) 04:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- https://www.foxnews.com/media/msnbcs-joy-reid-loses-roughly-half-her-viewers-since-election-primetime-hosts-also-struggle
- https://nypost.com/2024/11/27/media/msnbc-sees-total-audience-nearly-halved-post-election-day-report/
- https://www.outkick.com/analysis/msnbc-cnn-setting-20-30-year-ratings-lows
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
- B-Class Media articles
- Mid-importance Media articles
- WikiProject Media articles
- B-Class New York City articles
- Low-importance New York City articles
- WikiProject New York City articles
- B-Class Journalism articles
- Mid-importance Journalism articles
- WikiProject Journalism articles
- B-Class television articles
- Mid-importance television articles
- B-Class Television stations articles
- Mid-importance Television stations articles
- Television stations task force articles
- WikiProject Television articles
- B-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- B-Class American television articles
- Mid-importance American television articles
- American television task force articles
- WikiProject United States articles