Good ol' MSNBC, or, "As if there was any doubt regarding media bias" v2.0

[neisgator]

Originally Posted by rivergator

No, I don't watch him. Honestly find him fairly unwatchable. But I've read a good bit about what he says. I would think the amount of time he's spent praising Republicans and bashing Democrats would remove him from the 'raging liberal' category. But I could be wrong about categorization.
So I'll ask again, can you point to someone who might be considered a raging conservative who has gushed over Obama the way Matthews did over Bush? Who made it clear that his choice for president was a Democrat?

Wrong again. They guy is left of a raging liberal.

[harwil]

Originally Posted by Row6

Matthews isn't a news anchor, he's an opinion anchor. I like his quirkiness but wouldn't pretend he is anything but liberal.

As to "fair and balanced" (not, by neither is Fox) some republicans, like Steele and McCain's campaign manager are regular commentators.

The only truly balanced shows on MSNBC are Morning Joe and Chuck Todd's Rundown which follows, and which is quite good on inside Washington coverage. The evening lineup is unapologeticaly liberal.

They are sometime commentators, but throw in Halperin, Heilman, Mikka, Harold the guy who ran for senator from Tennessee, San Stein, Howard Dean,Katy Kay, Richard Wolffe,Eugene Robinson, Andrea Mitchell,Chris Matthews,Danny Deutsch ,the seesaw definitely pulls to the left.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by harwil

They are sometime commentators, but throw in Halperin, Heilman, Mikka, Harold the guy who ran for senator from Tennessee, San Stein, Howard Dean,Katy Kay, Richard Wolffe,Eugene Robinson, Andrea Mitchell,Chris Matthews,Danny Deutsch ,the seesaw definitely pulls to the left.

Probably so - I wouldn't argue the point, nor do I care - though the moderator is a conservative republican ex-congressman.

If you haven't watched Rundown and are interested in inside the beltway politics, I'd recommend it. More news than opinion, and for example, Blount (R, Mo) announced his opposition to Hagel on it today.

[fredsanford]

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

Who said they were something other than commentators? In any event, they're not the topic of the post. It's about MSNBC deliberately editing news footage to misleadingly portray Conservative figures or issues in a negative light. Any comment on that, other than predictably claiming that "FOX does it too" but then failing to produce examples comparable to what MSNBC has done?

What in God's name are you talking about? This board has had 1,999,999 threads started here (many by me) about Fox News' propaganda BS against Dems and particularly against Obama. Fox is a 24/7 anti-Dem attack machine. Even their dopey morning show hosts get in on the act.

[dangolegators]

Fox and MSNBC are two sides of the same worthless coin.

[harwil]

Originally Posted by Row6

Probably so - I wouldn't argue the point, nor do I care - though the moderator is a conservative republican ex-congressman.

If you haven't watched Rundown and are interested in inside the beltway politics, I'd recommend it. More news than opinion, and for example, Blount (R, Mo) announced his opposition to Hagel on it today.

I watch Joe from 6:15 to maybe 7 and then go to work. No shot at Chuck Todd. I did watch MSNBC's coverage of 2010 election night and Fox's 2012 election night show.As the dems were being(in Obama's term"shelacked"),Olberman led off he 10 PM segment by pronuncing "It's been a mixed bag for the Republicans tonight..." Classic denial

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by Row6

The only truly balanced shows on MSNBC are Morning Joe and Chuck Todd's Rundown which follows, and which is quite good on inside Washington coverage. The evening lineup is unapologeticaly liberal.

Scarborough is a Conservative who felt rejected by the Conservative establishment. So he let his ego overcome his ideals and in the process of getting even carved out a little niche for himself on MSNBC as the supposed voice of reason on the Right who is willing to be critical of his own. But his criticisms are often pretty transparent.

Just this morning, for example, he giddily celebrated a survey that shows declining trust in FOX News...without mentioning that MSNBC's trustworthiness rating in the same survey is way worse.

"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" Time for Joe Scarborough to brush up on the Sermon on the Mount?

On today's Morning Joe, Scarborough gloated at length over survey results indicating that the public's trust in Fox News has declined and that PBS is the only network that more people trust than distrust. But he conveniently failed to mention that Fox News remains the network that more people trust than any other . . . and that his own MSNBC trails way—way!—behind Fox News in public trust.

Here is the official release from Public Policy Polling, which conducted the survey. In its headline, left-leaning PPP also touts Fox News's decline, but can't get away from the hard facts: at 34%, Fox News remains the network more people trust more than any other. MSNBC comes in at a paltry 8%. And while by a margin of 46-41% more people distrust FNC than trust it, the corresponding numbers for MSNBC are 35-44%. So Scarborough's network trails Fox News by wide margins in trust categories. But Scarborough conveniently lets that slide.

Doesn't this just contribute to our lack of trust in MSNBC, Joe?

Hahaha, love that last line. The irony!

[rivergator]

Fox News remains the network more people trust more than any other. MSNBC comes in at a paltry 8%

I think that speaks pretty clearly to the two audiences. Looking at MSNBC and Fox as two very partisan sides of the coin. One side recognizes MSNBC as such, the other believes Fox over all others.

[vangator1]

The press is known as the "fourth estate" with the implication of independence.

"In old days men had the rack. Now they have the Press. That is an improvement certainly. But still it is very bad, and wrong, and demoralizing. Somebody — was it Burke? — called journalism the fourth estate. That was true at the time no doubt. But at the present moment it is the only estate. It has eaten up the other three. The Lords Temporal say nothing, the Lords Spiritual have nothing to say, and the House of Commons has nothing to say and says it. We are dominated by Journalism." - Oscar Wilde

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by rivergator

I think that speaks pretty clearly to the two audiences. Looking at MSNBC and Fox as two very partisan sides of the coin. One side recognizes MSNBC as such, the other believes Fox over all others.

The difference is, Fox attempts to be balanced and often fails, while MSNBC attempts to be biased and usually (though not always) succeeds.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

The difference is, Fox attempts to be balanced and often fails, while MSNBC attempts to be biased and usually (though not always) succeeds.

yes, that's it.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by rivergator

yes, that's it.

You have to distinguish between misguided incompetence and open cynicism. MSNBC is a much more journalistically skilled news organization than Fox, but it is using those powers malignantly and in a spirit of rancor. I think MSNBC as an institution despises the average American, and the ratings success of Fox is the reason.

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by rivergator

I think that speaks pretty clearly to the two audiences. Looking at MSNBC and Fox as two very partisan sides of the coin. One side recognizes MSNBC as such, the other believes Fox over all others.

LMAO! Good one.

Uhhh...you were being tongue-in-cheek with that comment, right? PLEASE tell us that was a satirical and not a serious post.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

LMAO! Good one.

Uhhh...you were being tongue-in-cheek with that comment, right? PLEASE tell us that was a satirical and not a serious post.

No joke. Liberals apparently recognize MSNBC has a very partisan agenda and cannot be trusted. Conservatives do not recognize that with Fox.

[Minister_of_Information]

Again, there is a textural difference between attempting to be trustworthy and failing and having a deliberate slant. That said, I probably watch as much MSNBC as I do Fox, but neither one can touch CNBC.

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by rivergator

No joke. Liberals apparently recognize MSNBC has a very partisan agenda and cannot be trusted. Conservatives do not recognize that with Fox.

I just...I don't...I can't even...

Oh my goodness.

Really???

[MastaG8r]

Just adding the latest episode to this thread compiling example after example after example of MSNBC airing video clips deliberately edited to create false impressions.

In this one John McCain is talking to a constituent at some sort of town hall forum and they cut down his answer to make it look like he was being overly blunt and insensitive. After showing it Rachel Maddow admitted it was edited in a way that was "not fair" to McCain but didn't apologize and didn't really seem to see anything wrong with it. I'm sure some of our friends on the Left feel the same way.

[dangolegators]

So you're upset that she didn't apologize to McCain because some local TV station might have edited the clip to make McCain look bad?

Does Hannity apologize to liberals when he himself edits video out of context to make them look bad? Does Hannity even admit, as Maddow did, that the video is edited?

[BobK89]

So if Fox does it, it excuses MSNBC? Good to know.

The lack of real journalism in this country is appalling.

Sent from my iPhone using GatorCountry

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by BobK89

So if Fox does it, it excuses MSNBC? Good to know.

No, it absolutely doesn't. But it's also silly to claim that it's limited to Fox.

The lack of real journalism in this country is appalling.

There's some good journalism out there. But I wouldn't look to Fox or MSNBC for it.