MSNBC going even too far for my tastes

[Ogre Mage]

Pew Research Center's Project for Excellency in Journalism:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/08/pew-fox-news-msnbc-mirror-images-132932.html

The article you quoted is deeply flawed.  It doesn't make a distinction between the opinion programing and the news.  As was previously stated Lawrence O'donnell came straight out and said that he is a European style socialist and that he actively promotes those values.  The thing is he is not pretending to be a straight news man and MSNBC pretty much keeps him confined to one clearly marked hour four nights a week.  Over at Fox the partisan stuff pervades even their "straight" news broadcasts.  That's the type of insidious thing that is a problem.

Just because two things are bad doesn't mean they are equal.  I mean does Fox have a former Democratic Congressman on for HOURS every day of the week in a critical time slot with his own show?  If not how are these channels "mirror images?"

Pew's, assessment, not mine.  However, Pew did not say the two channels were "mirror images."  They were specifically comparing the slant of the coverage of Romney vs. Obama.

[Lief 🗽]

The thing is that MSNBC basically admits that it's a progressive/Democrat-leaning channel. They're very proud of that fact and they market themselves as such. Fox on the other hand, despite being a mouthpiece of the Republican party, pretends that it's "fair and balanced" and a legitimate news agency. The discussion on MSNBC is also a lot more grounded in facts and reality and policy nuance (especially with people like Chris Hayes, Rachel Maddow and Ezra Klein when he guest hosts).

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I love Rachel Maddow, and frequently watch her. Ed Schultz is as bad as Hannity.

[Link]

Pew Research Center's Project for Excellency in Journalism:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/08/pew-fox-news-msnbc-mirror-images-132932.html

The article you quoted is deeply flawed.  It doesn't make a distinction between the opinion programing and the news.  As was previously stated Lawrence O'donnell came straight out and said that he is a European style socialist and that he actively promotes those values.  The thing is he is not pretending to be a straight news man and MSNBC pretty much keeps him confined to one clearly marked hour four nights a week.  Over at Fox the partisan stuff pervades even their "straight" news broadcasts.  That's the type of insidious thing that is a problem.

Just because two things are bad doesn't mean they are equal.  I mean does Fox have a former Democratic Congressman on for HOURS every day of the week in a critical time slot with his own show?  If not how are these channels "mirror images?"

Pew's, assessment, not mine.  However, Pew did not say the two channels were "mirror images."  They were specifically comparing the slant of the coverage of Romney vs. Obama.

Yes but as I said they did not make a distinction between the straight news hours which are very watchable on MSNBC and the opinion shows.  There is absolutely no way that MSNBC's straight news hours are run in any way like Fox's.

[Ogre Mage]

In a sense, it is positive that MSNBC was able to look at the ratings success of FOX News, recognize that a vacuum existed on the left and has successfully filled that niche.  It shows that there is a mass audience for liberal media and if the Right has its own cable news network, why shouldn't we?  But some of MSNBC's programming has to be taken with a grain of salt.

[Link]

Yes but like I said the straight news hours are pretty much straight news and cannot be compared to what is going on on Fox 24/7.  And I wouldn't say that the majority of the opinion shows "should be taken with a grain of salt."  They should be ignored entirely... except for entertainment.

[AmericanNation]

In a sense, it is positive that MSNBC was able to look at the ratings success of FOX News, recognize that a vacuum existed on the left and has successfully filled that niche.  It shows that there is a mass audience for liberal media and if the Right has its own cable news network, why shouldn't we?  But some of MSNBC's programming has to be taken with a grain of salt.

It isn't really a "vacuum" or it is a microscopic one compared to the one FNC is filling.  The ratings back that up.  The main difference between MSNBC and every other 'news' outlet in the country (except FNC) is they have basically dropped the "objectivity" pretense that everyone else pretends to have.  The sad thing is that their crap is bleeding over to NBC news which used to be the best of the three networks, now probably the worst in a death race to the bottom.       

[Link]

In a sense, it is positive that MSNBC was able to look at the ratings success of FOX News, recognize that a vacuum existed on the left and has successfully filled that niche.  It shows that there is a mass audience for liberal media and if the Right has its own cable news network, why shouldn't we?  But some of MSNBC's programming has to be taken with a grain of salt.

It isn't really a "vacuum" or it is a microscopic one compared to the one FNC is filling.  The ratings back that up.  The main difference between MSNBC and every other 'news' outlet in the country (except FNC) is they have basically dropped the "objectivity" pretense that everyone else pretends to have.  The sad thing is that their crap is bleeding over to NBC news which used to be the best of the three networks, now probably the worst in a death race to the bottom.        

Actually I haven't seen any unusual levels of bias in MSNBC's straight news programs.  What kind of bias is there?  Each weekday we get three hours of a former Republican Congressman and the afternoon is kicked off by the former Republican Fed Chairman's wife.  What exactly is this line up "biased" towards?

[Sasquatch]

Say what you want about MSNBC and Fox News, but they are more entertaining than anything CNN can offer up. CNN is a network that needs to be taken out back and put out of its misery.

[Ogre Mage]

Say what you want about MSNBC and Fox News, but they are more entertaining than anything CNN can offer up. CNN is a network that needs to be taken out back and put out of its misery.

I thought the misreporting about the Supreme Court's health care decision was more damaging to CNN than FOX, as CNN has cultivated a reputation for mainstream, corporate professionalism and not playing fast and loose with the facts.  Accuracy (rather than ideology) was supposed to be a hallmark of their coverage.

The LA Times had an interesting article about CNN's ratings woes:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/showtracker/la-et-st-cnn-conventions-20120826,0,3943690.story

Personally, I prefer PBS's Newshour over CNN for thoughtful news coverage.

[Marokai Backbeat]

The thing is that MSNBC basically admits that it's a progressive/Democrat-leaning channel. They're very proud of that fact and they market themselves as such. Fox on the other hand, despite being a mouthpiece of the Republican party, pretends that it's "fair and balanced" and a legitimate news agency. The discussion on MSNBC is also a lot more grounded in facts and reality and policy nuance (especially with people like Chris Hayes, Rachel Maddow and Ezra Klein when he guest hosts).

A further difference is that, while Fox is aggressively Republican, MSNBC is more of a liberal channel. There's a big difference in that. While Fox is partisan, MSNBC is ideological, which is a great deal more honest and consistent.

What's better about a lot of MSNBC opinion hosts and panelists (Maddow, Hayes, Harris-Perry, Kornacki, Klein, etc) is that they tend to be more like essayists in their approach to discussion on the news as opposed to the Fox News televangelist style and approach. In the latter they're putting on a show (Glenn Beck is a good example of the "putting on a show" style) or you're getting talked down to, while the former is a more engaging approach that requires you to listen and think.

With the possible exception of Ed Schultz (who I loathe and don't understand why they keep him on the payroll) there's no equivalence on a show vs. show basis between the two channels. Morning Joe, for instance, is a frank and free-flowing discussion between guests who pop in and out of the table. Fox & Friends is a disingenuous play put on by three people who pretend to be just simple folk to draw in the type of idiots who want "family friendly programming" in their news. You could roll on down the programming line with those comparisons.

I tend to just think we've gotten used to Fox News' tone at this point and overlook how really in-your-face-awful they are. MSNBC is a lot brighter, snarkier rather than angry, policy oriented rather than partisan oriented, and doesn't have a lot of the hallmarks of conservative media, such as the sort of "Never listen to anyone else, they're all out to get you, only listen to me, I have the truth, I'll keep you safe, I am the light and the way" approach that right-wing radio is tinged with. People who compare the two channels haven't really watched Fox News in awhile.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

MSNBC is a parody channel. No, for real, it is. Their promos are policy soundbites, for Christ's sake. There is no way that they view themselves as journalists.

I get it; they were trying to counter FOX. Ok. Except when they went way beyond that. I'm still no FOX News fan but they certainly aren't worse than MSNBC.

Phil, there is obviously a difference between being a progressive hack and Fox News.  One is pushing an agenda that might lead to healthcare and greater welfare benefits.  The other is purposely propagating ignorance and throws three undeniable fascists on screen for its morning show. 

I'm sorry.  I've made my complaints against MSNBC clear, I understand the lack of objectivity, but it's one thing to push an agenda in obviously opinionated shows.  It's another to use programming to instill falsehoods and ignorance in your audience.  Fox rolls out bullsh**t that is blatantly false and portrays it as fact.  MSNBC clearly states their POV.  These are not two equal things. 

No.. Fox is much worse.  MSNBC is bothersome to the objective.  FOX is plainly evil. 

[AmericanNation]

The thing is that MSNBC basically admits that it's a progressive/Democrat-leaning channel. They're very proud of that fact and they market themselves as such. Fox on the other hand, despite being a mouthpiece of the Republican party, pretends that it's "fair and balanced" and a legitimate news agency. The discussion on MSNBC is also a lot more grounded in facts and reality and policy nuance (especially with people like Chris Hayes, Rachel Maddow and Ezra Klein when he guest hosts).

A further difference is that, while Fox is aggressively Republican, MSNBC is more of a liberal channel. There's a big difference in that. While Fox is partisan, MSNBC is ideological, which is a great deal more honest and consistent.

What's better about a lot of MSNBC opinion hosts and panelists (Maddow, Hayes, Harris-Perry, Kornacki, Klein, etc) is that they tend to be more like essayists in their approach to discussion on the news as opposed to the Fox News televangelist style and approach. In the latter they're putting on a show (Glenn Beck is a good example of the "putting on a show" style) or you're getting talked down to, while the former is a more engaging approach that requires you to listen and think.

With the possible exception of Ed Schultz (who I loathe and don't understand why they keep him on the payroll) there's no equivalence on a show vs. show basis between the two channels. Morning Joe, for instance, is a frank and free-flowing discussion between guests who pop in and out of the table. Fox & Friends is a disingenuous play put on by three people who pretend to be just simple folk to draw in the type of idiots who want "family friendly programming" in their news. You could roll on down the programming line with those comparisons.

I tend to just think we've gotten used to Fox News' tone at this point and overlook how really in-your-face-awful they are. MSNBC is a lot brighter, snarkier rather than angry, policy oriented rather than partisan oriented, and doesn't have a lot of the hallmarks of conservative media, such as the sort of "Never listen to anyone else, they're all out to get you, only listen to me, I have the truth, I'll keep you safe, I am the light and the way" approach that right-wing radio is tinged with. People who compare the two channels haven't really watched Fox News in awhile.

The thing is that MSNBC basically admits that it's a progressive/Democrat-leaning channel. They're very proud of that fact and they market themselves as such. Fox on the other hand, despite being a mouthpiece of the Republican party, pretends that it's "fair and balanced" and a legitimate news agency. The discussion on MSNBC is also a lot more grounded in facts and reality and policy nuance (especially with people like Chris Hayes, Rachel Maddow and Ezra Klein when he guest hosts).

A further difference is that, while Fox is aggressively Republican, MSNBC is more of a liberal channel. There's a big difference in that. While Fox is partisan, MSNBC is ideological, which is a great deal more honest and consistent.

What's better about a lot of MSNBC opinion hosts and panelists (Maddow, Hayes, Harris-Perry, Kornacki, Klein, etc) is that they tend to be more like essayists in their approach to discussion on the news as opposed to the Fox News televangelist style and approach. In the latter they're putting on a show (Glenn Beck is a good example of the "putting on a show" style) or you're getting talked down to, while the former is a more engaging approach that requires you to listen and think.

With the possible exception of Ed Schultz (who I loathe and don't understand why they keep him on the payroll) there's no equivalence on a show vs. show basis between the two channels. Morning Joe, for instance, is a frank and free-flowing discussion between guests who pop in and out of the table. Fox & Friends is a disingenuous play put on by three people who pretend to be just simple folk to draw in the type of idiots who want "family friendly programming" in their news. You could roll on down the programming line with those comparisons.

I tend to just think we've gotten used to Fox News' tone at this point and overlook how really in-your-face-awful they are. MSNBC is a lot brighter, snarkier rather than angry, policy oriented rather than partisan oriented, and doesn't have a lot of the hallmarks of conservative media, such as the sort of "Never listen to anyone else, they're all out to get you, only listen to me, I have the truth, I'll keep you safe, I am the light and the way" approach that right-wing radio is tinged with. People who compare the two channels haven't really watched Fox News in awhile.

I watch morning joe, as it's the only thing I can stand to watch on a regular basis on the channel.  The guest list is tipped to the left and Scarborough decides to be a liberal half the time which would be fine, but that (or him just being a nice kiss a$$) allows the often leftie guests to spout crap without being challenged much of the time.     


I liked Rachel Maddow when she would do a segment on Olberman for a few minutes, but she really can't stay coherent much longer than that.

I agree that Schultz is a waste of space.

Chuck Todd is biased, but at least he's somewhat competent. 

I don't like fox and friends much.  I don't like Hannity's personal style.  Gretta is a weird slightly left of center person that has a right wing show in order to get ratings because no other media is right of center so you get this monopoly on a majority of the country.  BillO is probably the best news man in the biz, even if you don't like him that's hard to deny.     

As for straight news it isn't even close.  Fox has Megan Kelly and Brett Baier do a lot of stuff and they are extremely professional.  MSNBC on the other hand, often appears to be some sort of mental ward full of cult members experiencing some sort of hive mind emotional breakdown.     
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pchwcD4IPzs
several stages of denial and grief on display

add in Chris Matthew's accelerating incidences of conspiratorial quackery...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sH0_8FnKfQ8

PS Glen Beck hasn't been on FNC for years now. 

[Spanish Moss]

This left/right media dichotomy is, I believe, based on an illusion.  It's less left/right and more sensationalist.  You're far more likely to hear irrelevant celebrity news than, for example, the truth of what's going on in Gaza and Israel's war crimes there.  Real news is largely overlooked.  Being giant for-profit corporations, they're just selling whatever makes money.  And truth isn't it.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

In Summer of 2011, MSNBC's coverage of the Debt Cieling Debacle is what got me into politics. But recently, starting with the Wisconsin Recall, my faith in a lot of their anchors has been shaken.
Ed Schultz, who I used to love, is very unfair in his coverage of the GOP. Sure a lot of it is warranted, but he takes it a bit too far. He only ever has liberals who agree with everything he says on the show. Lawrence is pretty good sometimes and reminds me of Keith, but other times his show is just......bleh.
Rachel Maddow is hilarious and I love her take on the news. Could anyone imagine Jon Stewart and Rachel Maddow doing a show together? Comedic gold.
Al Sarpton started off promising, but now he's just a mouthpiece for the Obama campaign and his constant yelling gets kinda annoying.
Martin Bashear is only tolerable because of his beautiful accent.
Melissa Harris Perry isn't bad but she focuses a lot on women's issues, so I've never really gotten in to her show.
And Chris Hayes focuses on a lot of things that the MSM ignores, like education and poverty. He's got the makings of a very successful show.
The best shows on the network are Morning Joe (Scarbrough 2016), Daily Rundown with Chuck Todd (he's fair and has tinges of Russert), Hardball With Chris Matthews (he usually has guests from both sides, but doesn't take GOP BS), and the Rachel Maddow Show. Dylan Ratigan had a great show, sad he left.

[Spanish Moss]

Al Sarpton started off promising, but now he's just a mouthpiece for the Obama campaign and his constant yelling gets kinda annoying.

I haven't seen him much (no cable), but when I have he can be amusing at times... kind of a character.  But I agree he's a mouthpiece for the Obama campaign.

[Silent Hunter]

Al Sarpton started off promising, but now he's just a mouthpiece for the Obama campaign and his constant yelling gets kinda annoying.

I haven't seen him much (no cable), but when I have he can be amusing at times... kind of a character.  But I agree he's a mouthpiece for the Obama campaign.

Do you mean Al Sharpton? Well of course he would be - he ran for the Dem nomination in 2004.

[Spanish Moss]

Al Sarpton started off promising, but now he's just a mouthpiece for the Obama campaign and his constant yelling gets kinda annoying.

I haven't seen him much (no cable), but when I have he can be amusing at times... kind of a character.  But I agree he's a mouthpiece for the Obama campaign.

Do you mean Al Sharpton? Well of course he would be - he ran for the Dem nomination in 2004.

To me, he really doesn't seem qualified to be an anchor/pundit, much less President.