Let me explain how things work here. Go back and look at posts #408 and #401. You will note that they each describe cases in which fox new was highly misleading to the point of lying. And cite documentation backing up their claims. Other cites throughout this thread do similarly for other lies by Fox. What we are asking you to do is to create a similar post to these documenting a clear case in which MSNBC deliberately lied to its viewers. If such activities are common place on MSNBC you should be able to easily provide them. If not, then it is not unreasonable to assume that these activities are more common on Fox than they are on MSNBC.
MSNBC uses close to 85% of its airtime for commentary & opinion compared to 15% for actual news. Both FOX and CNN are at about 50/50. Who is giving the commentary on MSNBC? Axelrod, Sharpton, that lesbian chick, Chris Matthews. Do you think any of those people have ever voted republican? How much time did MSNBC dedicate to the Christie scandal? I haven’t tuned in for a long time but would not be surprised if they were still hammering him. How much time did they dedicate to any one of Obama’s numerous scandals? Benghazi? The Obamacare lies? Joe Scarborough has openly ripped them for being biased.
Here is a PEW study that found MSNBC to be significantly more biased than FOX.
http://www.journalism.org/2012/11/02/winning-media-campaign-2012/
Here is a former MSNBC producer saying the same thing
I’m baffled that you guys are this adamant about defending MSNBC. I’m not even trying to defend FOX, I’m saying they’re both horribly biased. I’m shocked.
In this thread I have posted two independent studies that show Fox to be less biased than other networks. They are not without their flaws but they are better than the anecdotes and outrage you have brought to the table.
There’s bias, and then there’s outright lies. Has MSNBC ever, even once, done anything like showing a misbehaving Democrat as a Republican, or posting a graph that shows 8.6% as being larger than 8.8%?
Nobody is saying that MSNBC doesn’t have a bias. They’re saying they don’t lie and distort the news to push their agenda like Fox does. Fox News lies to it’s viewers, MSNBC doesn’t.
We’re talking about the lies. Fox News lies a lot (examples in many cites in this thread), MSNBC lies far, far less often.
Ah, I see. Heavily biased but always tells the truth, am I getting this right? Solid oxymoron. Well played gentlemen.
So who are you gonna believe ? His faulty studies, or your lying eyes ?!
Their opinion pieces and interpretations of the facts can be biased without actually ignoring or lying about the facts. Seems pretty obvious to me.
Do you often blindly trust entities whose motivations & biases you are well aware of? You know they are biased, everyone seems to admit that now, yet you give them the benefit of the doubt that all their facts are correct?
If their opinion piece/talking head segments are biased but there’s been shown to be no factual errors in their actual news reporting, I don’t see why I wouldn’t give them the benefit of the doubt over a channel with biased talking heads segments whose news reporting has been shown to contain factual errors, yeah. If there were reputable sources that MSNBC consistently distorted the truth in their reporting, I’d obviously not give them the benefit of the doubt.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbcs-year-of-apologies/
Do you consider this honest reporting?
They make mistakes. They’re human.
Since I don’t watch MSNBC (or Fox), I can’t tell in most cases just from the hosts’ names if those are examples of talking heads stating partisan opinions or actual news reports where they inserted lies. If the latter, sure, I’d consider them a less than trustworthy news source. I don’t really get what the issue is here, other than to distract from an OP specifically about Fox News’s reportorial malfeasance by offering similar examples from the other side of the aisle. If you want to start a thread about MSNBC’s journalistic ethics, I’ll read it. Doesn’t change the fact that Fox News is bad.
My original statement was that FOX is bad just like MSNBC is, then it escalated from there. They’re both biased and full of crap, I defend neither.
One notes that they (per the title of the article) actually corrected their mistakes and apologized for them, on the air and within their segments. As newspapers/sources do when they find out they’ve been unbeknownst to them telling porkies.
Fox ? Doesn’t bother, or in rare and particularly egregious cases moves the apology to an afternoon or mid-morning spot when nobody watches. That’s a notable difference.
But then, like the tabloids Murdoch cut his teeth on they’re also very careful about using and abusing the Cavuto mark to state things without quite stating them, thus negating the need for any retraction when they’re completely full of shit . One step beyond weasel words lies weasel punctuation. A terrorist fist bump ? Hey, they’re Just Asking Questions ! Though of course, they’ve also matured and graduated to outright telling shit but “hey, it’s the opinions segments branded with NEWS logos, it’s not supposed to be factual, everybody knows it’s not factual, come on ! It’s entertainment ! Are you not entertained by the frothing rage ?”
Benghazi isn’t a real scandal. The fact that you bring it up shows you’re mislead by misinformation.
Thank you for that. I had not noticed it before! 
This explains why Fox had to turn off commenting on most of their main news site – it was much too revealing about the true nature of their audience! Those comments are really amazing.
Most of the posts equate any discussion of the Big Bang with satanism, or worse, with climate science, which is directly the work of Beezlebub himself. This is true, but still, they tend to unsatisfying generalities, like the gentleman who said “every year at about this time, there are evil doers that try to make a grand finding. That tries to disprove that our Lord and Savior does not exist.” The gentleman may have inadvertently inserted a double negative, but still, one gets the gist of his meaning. He is correct, of course, since Satan’s control over scientists is well known, but still one feels that more concrete facts are needed. Fortunately I found one authoritative post from a Fox News aficionado that focuses on indisputable facts and has to be taken seriously. It’s this one:
Let us understand that here is a man who has personally experienced a gas explosion, probably in his own house (and I would venture to guess, possibly more than once, and considered himself lucky to escape with his mortal soul), and knows whereof he speaks. It’s hard to dismiss this kind of first-hand knowledge. *Quod erat demonstrandum.
*
So your position is that a site populated by intelligent people who are accustomed to evidence-based analytical thinking tends not to have many threads that reflect your particular point of view. I don’t know what to say. 
The “Fox is faux” meme is so strong on the SDMB that I believed it without question; Dopers are generally reliable about such things. However, I have a friend who watches Fox. A while back he was complaining about the bias of one of the networks and he claimed that Fox was better. I scoffed and said no way. He came back at me with anecdotes and all I had was “Dopers say it is”. Hardly a strong debating point.
So I did a few hours of Googling and the only studies I could find that attempted to compare bias are the ones I’ve linked before and they show Fox to be less biased. No Doper has been able to cite a similar study showing otherwise (GIGO did post a cite showing Fox to be more biased regarding AGW).
So who should I believe? Dopers who are probably experiencing confirmation bias or two independent studies? Given that the SDMB leans heavily left and Fox leans heavily right no person would consider the SDMB an unbiased observer without some outside confirmation.
I am no fan of Fox and I’d welcome a clear independent study that showed Fox to be a bastion of yellow journalism. Until then, aren’t we supposed to be clear-sighted even if we don’t like the results?
Bad methodology.
Finding sites that try to measure “bias” fails on several points:
Supporters of Fox are more likely to care about refuting claims of bias than supporters of other groups, so there will be more studies commissioned to find that they are less biased.
The tests of “bias” are generally worthless. For example, your first link compared the frequency of negative reports and drew the conclusion that that demonstrated bias. It might have simply demonstrated that one side or the other had participated in more negative actions.
A better method to determine bias is to look at actual actions and their results. Fox has been demonstrated to lie on several occasions in this thread. Where are the examples (similar in nature and number) that other networks post lies?
Reporting in a way that leads their audience to believe that Iraq had WMDs, even years after even President Bush admitted that they did not, demonstrates bias.
Changing the reported party affiliation of politicians caught in scandals demonstrates bias.
Reporting as “news” about the imaginary “WTC Mosque” after their own news department had done a story on the project that showed that what they later reported was false demonstrates bias.
Reporting economic trends in ways that reverse their actual direction demonstrates bias.
Find the other networks engaged in the same “errors” with the same frequency and we can consider whether Fox is less biased, but until then, pointing to baseless polls is meaningless.