PJ_Soul said:

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:

MSNBC is definitely not as bad as fox, but they’ve sure shown their stance. They’ve fucked up a handful of times with fake news and photoshopped bullshit.  There’s a whole Wikipedia page on it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC_controversies

Just a note: there was one photoshopped photo of Palin that they didn't know was photoshopped at the time, and they apologized, and there was never any intentional fake news (fyi, reporting something wrong due to misinformation is NOT fake news).

This is the quickest way to turn a pleasant dinner party into a shouting match: Posit that MSNBC is not as bad as Fox News, but rather worse than Fox News.

"How can you say that!? Fox News is practically an arm of the Republican party! Biased as MSNBC may be, it doesn't try to take an active role in presidential elections! It doesn't live in a choose-your-own-reality cocoon where the facts don't matter!"

The effort to defend MSNBC against comparisons to Fox News is always telling, because there was a time before MSNBC when liberals recoiled at the notion of agenda-driven programming in general. The acceptance of MSNBC was, like the acceptance of Super PACs, an acknowledgement that the rules on the ground had changed.

"I know it's biased, but how else to combat the misinformation on Fox!"... which is funny, because that's how Fox News started, as a counterbalance against perceived liberal biases in the mainstream media.

But here's the thing, and I hope it doesn't ruin your dinner: MSNBC is certainly as bad as Fox News, in terms of presenting ideologically biased information and demonizing the opposition. If you want to console yourself with the fact that Phil Griffin never tried to get someone to run for president, fine, you can have it.

In March, a Pew Research Center study -- yes, Pew -- found that 85 percent of MSNBC's programming is dedicated to "opinion," versus 15 percent that is dedicated to "news." Fox News dedicated just 55 percent of its programming to "opinion" and 45 percent to "news." (CNN dedicates 46 percent to "opinion" and 54 percent to "news.") During the 2012 election, the ratio of unfavorable to favorable treatment in stories on Barack Obama and Mitt Romney on MSNBC “was roughly 23-to-1; the negative-to-positive ratio on Fox News was 8-to-1.”

Ok, fine. But MSNBC's opinions are rooted in fact, whereas the Bill O'Reillys and Sean Hannitys willingly peddle misinformation!

But see, that's the thing. Many of MSNBC's opinions aren't rooted in fact. Many of them are rooted in unfounded speculation. Melissa Harris-Perry's recent claimthat Obamacare is a racially loaded term conceived of "by a group of wealthy white men who needed a way to put themselves above and apart from a black man" is based on... what? The fact that the term was first used by a woman? The fact that, from Reaganomics to Hillarycare, we've always ascribed names to signature policies and legislation?

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. In a new essay for The National Review, Charles C. W. Cooke explains how MSNBC routinely demonizes the opposition to the point of absurdity:

For a display in extreme verbal calisthenics, ask an MSNBC type to defend these remarks. What you will witness is a slow crumbling of intellectual integrity, a defense that would never be offered on behalf of someone from the other side who practiced a similar flawed logic.

(WATCH - On Media: MSNBC leans backwards)

And that's the other thing: By now, an MSNBC defender reading this piece surely assumes I'm a pro-Fox News conservative. Because if you actually see America as America I and America II -- if you actually believe that every action taken against Obama's policies is inherently racist -- then you probably believe that I'm part of America II. Because, despite what Obama said in Boston in 2004, there are only two Americas: there's us and there's them, which leaves little room for independents.

One of the great media stories of the 21st century is the rise of MSNBC as a counterbalance to Fox News and a powerful platform for the progressive agenda -- an evolution that has done many great things for the Democratic party. The lesser told story is how the network, in a bid for ratings, repeatedly tempts its base away from the thing they had always prided themselves on when looking across the chasm at the conservative echo-chamber: facts.

mcgruff10 said:

msnbc vs fox:
https://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/12/is-msnbc-worse-than-fox-news-179175

Is MSNBC worse than Fox News?

By DYLAN BYERS

 12/09/2013 12:34 PM EST

This is the quickest way to turn a pleasant dinner party into a shouting match: Posit that MSNBC is not as bad as Fox News, but rather worse than Fox News.

"How can you say that!? Fox News is practically an arm of the Republican party! Biased as MSNBC may be, it doesn't try to take an active role in presidential elections! It doesn't live in a choose-your-own-reality cocoon where the facts don't matter!"

The effort to defend MSNBC against comparisons to Fox News is always telling, because there was a time before MSNBC when liberals recoiled at the notion of agenda-driven programming in general. The acceptance of MSNBC was, like the acceptance of Super PACs, an acknowledgement that the rules on the ground had changed.

"I know it's biased, but how else to combat the misinformation on Fox!"... which is funny, because that's how Fox News started, as a counterbalance against perceived liberal biases in the mainstream media.

But here's the thing, and I hope it doesn't ruin your dinner: MSNBC is certainly as bad as Fox News, in terms of presenting ideologically biased information and demonizing the opposition. If you want to console yourself with the fact that Phil Griffin never tried to get someone to run for president, fine, you can have it.

In March, a Pew Research Center study -- yes, Pew -- found that 85 percent of MSNBC's programming is dedicated to "opinion," versus 15 percent that is dedicated to "news." Fox News dedicated just 55 percent of its programming to "opinion" and 45 percent to "news." (CNN dedicates 46 percent to "opinion" and 54 percent to "news.") During the 2012 election, the ratio of unfavorable to favorable treatment in stories on Barack Obama and Mitt Romney on MSNBC “was roughly 23-to-1; the negative-to-positive ratio on Fox News was 8-to-1.”

Ok, fine. But MSNBC's opinions are rooted in fact, whereas the Bill O'Reillys and Sean Hannitys willingly peddle misinformation!

But see, that's the thing. Many of MSNBC's opinions aren't rooted in fact. Many of them are rooted in unfounded speculation. Melissa Harris-Perry's recent claimthat Obamacare is a racially loaded term conceived of "by a group of wealthy white men who needed a way to put themselves above and apart from a black man" is based on... what? The fact that the term was first used by a woman? The fact that, from Reaganomics to Hillarycare, we've always ascribed names to signature policies and legislation?

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. In a new essay for The National Review, Charles C. W. Cooke explains how MSNBC routinely demonizes the opposition to the point of absurdity:

For a display in extreme verbal calisthenics, ask an MSNBC type to defend these remarks. What you will witness is a slow crumbling of intellectual integrity, a defense that would never be offered on behalf of someone from the other side who practiced a similar flawed logic.

(WATCH - On Media: MSNBC leans backwards)

And that's the other thing: By now, an MSNBC defender reading this piece surely assumes I'm a pro-Fox News conservative. Because if you actually see America as America I and America II -- if you actually believe that every action taken against Obama's policies is inherently racist -- then you probably believe that I'm part of America II. Because, despite what Obama said in Boston in 2004, there are only two Americas: there's us and there's them, which leaves little room for independents.

One of the great media stories of the 21st century is the rise of MSNBC as a counterbalance to Fox News and a powerful platform for the progressive agenda -- an evolution that has done many great things for the Democratic party. The lesser told story is how the network, in a bid for ratings, repeatedly tempts its base away from the thing they had always prided themselves on when looking across the chasm at the conservative echo-chamber: facts.

tempo_n_groove said:

Gtilley8 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

PJ_Soul said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

tempo_n_groove said:

MSNBC, FOX, Breitbart, won't be credited news sources on here.

In what way does MSNBC play fast and loose with facts to the extent to be lumped together with flat out reality-denyers?

I stopped watching MSNBC because it was so far left leaning. They are a partisan news channel, no?

Well, no. That would mean they literally have aligned themselves with a political party, which isn't the case.

Huh?

I don't recall ever hearing them side with a conservative or a conservative view yet.  Maybe I missed the one time that they did agree on one?

One doesn't have to side with a conservative view to be presenting unbiased facts.  I'm interested to know what you consider to be a solid conservative view (ie, major platform talking point), which we could all agree on.  

Immigration reform?

That seems to be one that both sides want but can't seem to agree on.

mcgruff10 said:

msnbc vs fox:
https://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/12/is-msnbc-worse-than-fox-news-179175

Is MSNBC worse than Fox News?

By DYLAN BYERS

 12/09/2013 12:34 PM EST

This is the quickest way to turn a pleasant dinner party into a shouting match: Posit that MSNBC is not as bad as Fox News, but rather worse than Fox News.

"How can you say that!? Fox News is practically an arm of the Republican party! Biased as MSNBC may be, it doesn't try to take an active role in presidential elections! It doesn't live in a choose-your-own-reality cocoon where the facts don't matter!"

The effort to defend MSNBC against comparisons to Fox News is always telling, because there was a time before MSNBC when liberals recoiled at the notion of agenda-driven programming in general. The acceptance of MSNBC was, like the acceptance of Super PACs, an acknowledgement that the rules on the ground had changed.

"I know it's biased, but how else to combat the misinformation on Fox!"... which is funny, because that's how Fox News started, as a counterbalance against perceived liberal biases in the mainstream media.

But here's the thing, and I hope it doesn't ruin your dinner: MSNBC is certainly as bad as Fox News, in terms of presenting ideologically biased information and demonizing the opposition. If you want to console yourself with the fact that Phil Griffin never tried to get someone to run for president, fine, you can have it.

In March, a Pew Research Center study -- yes, Pew -- found that 85 percent of MSNBC's programming is dedicated to "opinion," versus 15 percent that is dedicated to "news." Fox News dedicated just 55 percent of its programming to "opinion" and 45 percent to "news." (CNN dedicates 46 percent to "opinion" and 54 percent to "news.") During the 2012 election, the ratio of unfavorable to favorable treatment in stories on Barack Obama and Mitt Romney on MSNBC “was roughly 23-to-1; the negative-to-positive ratio on Fox News was 8-to-1.”

Ok, fine. But MSNBC's opinions are rooted in fact, whereas the Bill O'Reillys and Sean Hannitys willingly peddle misinformation!

But see, that's the thing. Many of MSNBC's opinions aren't rooted in fact. Many of them are rooted in unfounded speculation. Melissa Harris-Perry's recent claimthat Obamacare is a racially loaded term conceived of "by a group of wealthy white men who needed a way to put themselves above and apart from a black man" is based on... what? The fact that the term was first used by a woman? The fact that, from Reaganomics to Hillarycare, we've always ascribed names to signature policies and legislation?

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. In a new essay for The National Review, Charles C. W. Cooke explains how MSNBC routinely demonizes the opposition to the point of absurdity:

For a display in extreme verbal calisthenics, ask an MSNBC type to defend these remarks. What you will witness is a slow crumbling of intellectual integrity, a defense that would never be offered on behalf of someone from the other side who practiced a similar flawed logic.

(WATCH - On Media: MSNBC leans backwards)

And that's the other thing: By now, an MSNBC defender reading this piece surely assumes I'm a pro-Fox News conservative. Because if you actually see America as America I and America II -- if you actually believe that every action taken against Obama's policies is inherently racist -- then you probably believe that I'm part of America II. Because, despite what Obama said in Boston in 2004, there are only two Americas: there's us and there's them, which leaves little room for independents.

One of the great media stories of the 21st century is the rise of MSNBC as a counterbalance to Fox News and a powerful platform for the progressive agenda -- an evolution that has done many great things for the Democratic party. The lesser told story is how the network, in a bid for ratings, repeatedly tempts its base away from the thing they had always prided themselves on when looking across the chasm at the conservative echo-chamber: facts.

In March 2015, Saudi Arabia and eight other Sunni Arab states began their siege of Yemen, already the poorest of the Gulf nations. With logistical and intelligence support from the U.S., the U.K., and France, Saudi-led airstrikes have caused 52,800 injuries and 60 percent of civilian deaths, totaling nearly 10,000 deaths since the advent of the war, the United Nations reports.

What has the “Network of The Resistance” chosen to report on 455 times in the past year, while every ten minutes one child under the age of five dies from starvation?

President Trump’s affair with porn star Stormy Daniels.

The same week that Rachel Maddow was moved to tears on national television while reading an Associated Press report regarding the “tender age” shelters in South Texas, Yemeni civilians in Hodeidah were dodging airstrikes, part of the Saudis’ “Operation Golden Victory,” which claimed 280 lives that week alone.

While MSNBC was focusing on the scandal, their rivals at CNN and Fox News were following the developments in Yemen. On July 26, CNN published a video showing the poverty in the country and a resource-aid drop. On July 29, Fox News published a piece depicting witnesses’ accounts of the heavy fighting that killed dozens near Hodeida.

Joy Reid says there’s a “problem.” It’s more likely that it’s MSNBC’s blind spot to significant issues their viewers would benefit from learning about.

Kat said:

MSNBC has so many Republicans giving their cultish opinions that I almost stopped watching. Then a lot of Republicans started seeing truth and they weren't cultists. There's still a lot of GOP but I see reasonable punditry and discussion. I like that there are a lot of legal people and national security people giving opinions too....and Rachel really educates. imho. 

Halifax2TheMax said:

mcgruff10 said:

I find this very Interesting (I paraphrased some of the article, read the whole article below):
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/msnbc-network-of-resistance-too-busy-to-cover-yemen-crisis/

On July 23, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) issued an “action alert”: July 2nd marked the one-year anniversary since MSNBC had last run a segment mentioning the U.S. participation in the war on Yemen, the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, in which 22 million people — three-quarters of the population — remain in desperate need of food, water, and medical aid.

In March 2015, Saudi Arabia and eight other Sunni Arab states began their siege of Yemen, already the poorest of the Gulf nations. With logistical and intelligence support from the U.S., the U.K., and France, Saudi-led airstrikes have caused 52,800 injuries and 60 percent of civilian deaths, totaling nearly 10,000 deaths since the advent of the war, the United Nations reports.

What has the “Network of The Resistance” chosen to report on 455 times in the past year, while every ten minutes one child under the age of five dies from starvation?

President Trump’s affair with porn star Stormy Daniels.

The same week that Rachel Maddow was moved to tears on national television while reading an Associated Press report regarding the “tender age” shelters in South Texas, Yemeni civilians in Hodeidah were dodging airstrikes, part of the Saudis’ “Operation Golden Victory,” which claimed 280 lives that week alone.

While MSNBC was focusing on the scandal, their rivals at CNN and Fox News were following the developments in Yemen. On July 26, CNN published a video showing the poverty in the country and a resource-aid drop. On July 29, Fox News published a piece depicting witnesses’ accounts of the heavy fighting that killed dozens near Hodeida.

Joy Reid says there’s a “problem.” It’s more likely that it’s MSNBC’s blind spot to significant issues their viewers would benefit from learning about.

And what exactly has Team Trump Treason chosen to do about it? MSNBC isn't news. Its a channel devoted to opinion shows after opinion shows after opinion shows. I've never watched MSNBC for its "news." So, whats the point of pointing this out? Have Faux News viewers demanded the repubes in Congress or their president stop the blood shed? Of course not, because nobody gives a rats ass because 1) there's no oil and 2) Americans aren't dying in large enough numbers. National Review is just attacking "liberal" news media and making Faux's 1 mention into somehow they're so much better. What a hack attack piece of fluff from National Review.

The sex with a porn star that we now know was paid off to keep quiet before the election, that had it been known before the election may have resulted in Hillary being elected, yea thats worthy of 455 times of being reported on. Whats next? No mention by MSNBC of MS13 in El Salvador and how that biases them against Team Trump Treason and the major threat confronting the US?