Is MSNBC really news?

Ok so

thats some bias…

i can continue but… my guess is people who think like me are far and few between on this forum…

Any chance we could get a synopsis of those videos?

You’re asking a couple of questions here, and I’m not really sure where to begin with them. I don’t think there is any debate that MSNBC leans left editorially. Whether or not this makes them “not news” is a tricky question. My reply would be “Yes, they’re news, and that Maddow bit should be taken into account when you watch their programming and think about how they’re covering a story.” To that end, and I say this as someone who avoids TV news in general, I would not take Glenn Beck’s comments on someone else’s bias at face value.

They lean left in the same manner and magnitude that Fox News leans right. Both stations consistently juxtapose various issues, facts and other pseudo-science to shape the narrative in way that’s most palatable for their core viewers.

So my answer to the OP would be “sort of”.

MSNBC presents commentary, opinion, and editorial content, along with the news.

Fox presents commentary, opinion, and editorial content, along with a pack of lies.

Short answer: Bias can be in the eye of the beholder.

Not so short answer: If a political news story isn’t run, is that bias? Editing for time or bloopers also happens. How they get edited in these cases is a judgment call by an editor. Are those editors subject to their own subconcious leanings? Probably. Hopefully, enough editors try to be objective that interested parties can get “the real truth”.

Editing a video or audio clip to change the meaning of a message is definately a bad type of deliberate bias.

The internet has helped regular folks “fact check” stuff, too, giving them some tools to independently verify stuff reported. It’s imperfect, and sometimes slow, but it’s there. I am hopefull that the internet stays “wild and free”. :slight_smile:

Absurd. I have yet to see MSNBC slip an R next to the name of a Democrat caught with his weenie where it doesn’t belong, but Fox does the converse as a matter of course. FOX was so out there that they couldn’t grok that the Republican dropping out of the race was endorsing the Democrat rather than the tea-tard.

While MSNBC may put a liberal spin on reporting, FOX will just plain make shit up.

I’m not going to watch the video, and the OP needs to flesh out his argument better.

MSNBC has been my default cable news channel for some years, but I have to say that lately I’m getting tired of their patting themselves on the back about how they “lean forward”. I guess that’s their way of saying they are progressive without actually using the word.

I like the morning news shows (6AM on the West Coast), but I can’t watch any of the afternoon commentary. I used to like Hardball, but CM just irritates the shit out of me now. He’s trying to hard, and I can’t tell you how many times he misinterprates what his guests area saying. Maybe he, like so many of those hosts, are too invested in talking to actually listen.

Anyway, I think their news is pretty good, but you have to differentiate between news and commentary for all these cable channels.

I’m not sure what the OP is having trouble understanding? Maddow provides news and commentary. She calls herself a liberal on the air, and doesn’t at all hide what her opinion is about the story. The trouble with Orly, Hannity and Beck is they lie and mislead people.

Maddow actually uses facts. How is that remotely similar to anything FOX does?

Your use of the word tea-tard suggests your opinion might be ever so slightly shaped by your own cognitive dissonance. Regardless, perhaps my claim that each lean in a similar “magnitude” was a poor choice of words given that they each do their leaning in a variety of different ways. I seem to recall when MSNBC was claiming Wisconsin was on track to have a budget surplus, yet not retracting or correcting themselves when this turned out to be false. But that, much like the anecdote you mentioned above (sorry, not familiar with the specific event) is a sample size of 1 and thus isn’t particularly convincing. For what it’s worth, I’m not a fan of either station.

I think there is a striking similarity.

Think about the whole Donald Trump idiocy. Their parent company very likely knows right now, because they signed up his Apprentice nonsense for another year, that he won’t be running. Which means all that coverage of his undeclared candidacy is just manipulation of the news for ratings.

It’s not making something out of whole cloth, like Fox does, but it’s still pretty craven manipulation of supposed ‘news’ for profit. So lack of morality for cash seems to be common for both, in my opinion.

The second video refers to a piece on NBC news, not MSNBC. As far as I know, they have separate editorial staff. I don’t complain about the New York Post when Fox News runs a misleading story. As far as the deceptively edited video, it’s very naughty of them, assuming Beck’s staff didn’t re-edit it themselves.

As for the first video, Rachel Maddow’s show is editorial in nature, just like Glenn Beck’s. Do you think Beck is unbiased?

Ist one was Maddow and another speaker referring to the radio address of Bush urging people to go out and vote. The irony was that the Repubs had spent a lot of effort in voter suppression. It was no big thing and logical from their stance. They did not criticize his speech. Just laughed at the irony.
2nd was a Bush question about negotiating with Iran. The response was sort of about Obama suggesting we should talk to the “enemies”. It was not Iran specific.
The part cut out was a Bush sidetalk about Iran and its threat to Israel. He went on for a while including the Iranian presidents stupid declarations.

I’m sure MSNBC has inaccurately reported the news before, but (1) the report you’re referring to was on Maddow’s show - again, not hard news, (2) was her quoting somebody else, and (3) wasn’t actually inaccurate. See here.

The first clip is from an editorial show and, as we’ve learned from FOX, editorial shows can be as biased as they like.

The second clip is not from MSNBC.

Based on the evidence you’ve presented, I’ve no reason to think that MSNBC is not news.

OK, I watched the RM video. Dude, that was over 2 years ago. Yeah, they were making fun of Bush for no good reason, but if that’s the best you have… that’s not much. And RM’s show isn’t news, it’s commentary. But please, don’t post more videos. If you don’t have transcripts, don’t make us watch videos.

I won’t argue about the magnitude of bias, but I will dispute your claim that the manner is the same. MSNBS does have a bias, but there is a difference between bias and propaganda. Fox News was created to be and operates as the propaganda arm of the GOP. Fox tows the party line in how it spins the news and provides a safe and unchallenging platform for the party’s leaders and candidates. Look no further than its founder and president Roger Ailes.

Any bias at MSNBC simply reflects the (usally progressive) bias of the editors and commentators and isn’t orchestrated by operatives from or within the Democratic establishment.

For what it’s worth the instance I recalled involved Ed Schultz, not Maddow.

Schultz’ show is also not hard news, but for what it’s worth I think he’s fucking annoying.

No, that’s not what they were implying. The message was that everybody should go vote so they don’t end up with another president as terrible as Bush.