The New York Times has a news piece today (11/6/12) reporting that MSNBC is just like Fox News, and isn’t that awful.
Now, MSNBC, for all its flaws, is not really anything like Fox News. And most of Times reporter Jeremy Peters‘ evidence for their similarity comes from a Pew study of “positive” and “negative” news coverage—the kind of study that will only be meaningful after someone comes up with an objective scale for measuring how positive or negative reality is.
MSNBC‘s Rachel Maddow (JD Lasica)
But I was struck by this anecdotal example of the Fox-like “partisan bitterness” supposedly on display on MSNBC:
In her ad, Rachel Maddow breathlessly decodes the logic behind the push to overhaul state voting laws. “The idea is to shrink the electorate,” she says, “so a smaller number of people get to decide what happens to all of us.”
Such stridency has put NBC News journalists who cover Republicans in awkward and compromised positions, several people who work for the network said.
Now, if you’ve been following the voter ID story at all closely, you know there’s no evidence of any organized voter impersonation on any kind of scale at all—that these laws will make it harder for millions of people to vote in an ostensible effort to stop a handful of people from cheating. So the obvious conclusion is—that the idea is to shrink the electorate. (This intention can also be seen, by the way, in the coordinated GOP efforts to curtail early voting.)
You can see how it might make it awkward for reporters if their pundit colleagues are analyzing reality too accurately. It’s obviously much easier for journalists covering Republicans if everyone at their network pretends the party is telling the truth about its concerns about voter fraud.
You know who else would have made it awkward for NBC to cover Republicans if he had worked as a pundit for MSNBC? Conservative movement pioneer Paul Weyrich:
I don’t want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of the people. They never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.
Yeah, MSNBC is absolutely objective and factual.
Now, MSNBC, for all its flaws, is not really anything like Fox News. –
Yeah, MSNBC is absolutely objective and factual.
Ya it so Cause the Article doesn’t even mention that part, it only says “FOR ALL IT’S FLAWS” which I must assume is “code: for it is totally perfect and infallible. Talk about Black/White.
Did either one of you read the the article?
Reality has a liberal bias.
I so respect MSNBC and Rachel Maddow, along with most of their reports!
MSNBC rhetoric is based on fact,FOX is based in lies,how can you compare them as equals ?
Fox and MSNBC are both supposed to be a combination of news and opinion.At least that’s the way I take them.The difference in my humble opinion is that Fox doesn’t base it’s opinions on fact,but on it’s partisan political aims.MSNBC does base it’s opinions on facts that can be easily checked and confirmedThe difference is crystal clear with some simple fact checking.
If you really want to eat up the crap that jerks like Hannity feed out everyday, along with O’Reilly, well, all I can say is it’s a shame you never got educated – at all. Rachel is THE BEST, and Lawrence O’Donnell is right up there with her. Rachel will take a jab at ANYONE who lies. Period. And now tonight I learn that the idiots who don’t believe in science at all, are back on the “science” committee. OMG. Do something people. Do something. This spreading of ignorance has GOT TO STOP.
It’s sad there isn’t room in the comments for criticism of MSNBC from the left.
On election night, Fox News called Ohio for Obama, but then the Republican leader on the show tried to prevent that Fox News from doing so and for a time was successful in censoring and shutting up their own news report. Rove had the power to do this, and that Fox was not a genuine, honest news organization at all, because no reputable news organization would allow such a thing. If MSNBC called North Carolina for Romney, but Ed Shulz or Geoge Axelrod told them that was premature and ordered them not to report the news, MSNBC would obviously have laughed in their faces. This incident of Rove having the power to reverse the presentation of the news proves 1) the Fox New is not a news organization, but a propaganda outlet and 2) that anyone who equates MSNBC and Fox as news institutions is ignorant of reality or just lying. Anyone who eqr tries to balance these news outlets is purposely out to deceive because we all saw the Republican hierarchy order Fox not to report the news. That was a very big and public thing. It destroyed the idea that Fox has any semblance of honesty, objectivity or professionalism in the news business, because it takes its orders, as we all saw, from right-wing ideologues trying to prevent people from getting the news they don’t want. You or may may not like the great Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, but you could never imagine her, for instance, ordering reporters not to tell people, when they determined it as fact, that Texas had voted for Romney. But that is exactly what Fox let Rove do with regard to Ohio. Everyone saw that Fox is the Goebbels network.
Fox News is an arm of the Republican Party run by a former Republican National Committee chairman. Gee, never would have guessed that, LOL They are considered “Fair and Balanced”, if you’re a Republican. MSNBC and Current TV are the only channels for real political news.
Fair and Balanced is simply a brand name. I like Jon Stewarts name for them–BS Mountain. That our so-called liberal, media always likes to compare MSNBC to FOX is a running joke that gets just a little bit old. MSNBC, certainly does tilt left the PM (thank-heavens), but how about “Morning Joe”–2 or 3 hours of right of center political reporting; then we have Andrea Mitchell, how many people know she is Mrs. Alan Greenspan. I defy anyone to match that kind of reporting on FOX. MSNBC has a bad habit of using fact, not making it up as they go along. Also haven’t seen or heard of them having meetings requiring them to use certain talking points put out by higher management. As far as I know, FOX is the only network that went to court, claiming they had the right to lie–it was not about a direct political story, but it was a story that could be documented where they had, as is common for them, covered it by twisting the facts to give a report that was completely opposite from the truth–to top it off–they won the case. The court basically said,” FOX can report lies”. I think they have taken that decision to the maximum. I can see where NBC would have problems, with their coverage vs MSNBC. I watched the majority of the election results on MSNBC; however, my wife was shifting channels on her TV, so I caught a bit of NBC, ABC, and CNN. It was almost like watching a different show if you followed the pundit comments. Between old Tom Brokaw and Williams, it was pretty boring. Here in the Los Angeles area, some of us remember Tom Brokaw–back when there was an excellent reporter on the same network named Tom Snyder. Brokaw was generally considered a want to be–however, he was always a “Good Company Boy”–not necessarly what one would look for in a real reporter, but career wise it has been good for him–if not the viewer. Whenever, I see David Gregory, I can’t help but picture he and Karl Rove and their dance routine a few years ago–maybe unfair, but that little performance with a guy who was behind most of the shady dealings related to the Bush administration, lost any respect I might have had for him as a reporter.
The false Fox/MSNBC dichotomy (remember what MSNBC did to war opponent Phil Donahue?) persists in the media because it is necessary that Fox have a liberal foil for the corporate media to be unbiased and centrist and facts can be checked with equal errors left and right. This media trope is another example of false balance. Does MSNBC feature Dmeocratic cheerleading? Yes. Is it an entire network dedicated to Democratic cheerleading? No.
MSNBC, regardless of what singular individuals it has as employees, is still part of the Corporate Conservative Media. That means that a single liberal voice does not counteract the complete right-wing bias of the entire network. MSNBC already cut its number of liberal voices in half when it fired Keith Olbermann, so despite the Republicans’ fuzzy math, that still ads up to a right-wing biased network.
Saying that Rachael Maddow singlehandedly makes MSNBC left-wing is like saying that one student behaving among a class full of degenerate, irredeemable brats equates with a “well-behaved class”.
Fox calls itself “Fox News,” while MSNBC refers to itself as “The Place for Politics.” MSNBC doesn’t claim to be a news establishment, whereas Fox does, which is a lie. If Fox wants to present a more honest description of itself, it should re-name itself, “Fox Views,” or to be COMPLETELY honest, its name should be “FUX VIEWS.”
Just watched the idiot tea party kremer on c-span. Stammering ,stammereing stammering…..former stewardess and self proclaimed georgia southern belle. Her prejudiced? NO WAY
Rachel devoted lengthy programs on the nation wide effort by the Repubs to curb voter turnout, from gerrymandering, to curbing early voting, to reducing hours for voters, to distributing inaccurate information, to closing voting centers, to robo calls conveying lies regarding what sort of voter identification was needed. Her staff did endless research to point out how voter rights were being threatened by those seeking to reduce turnout. It is a wonder that the outcome of the election was as it was. What other media focused on that threat to our democracy? It is no wonder some seek the UN to oversee our primitive voting practices. “We’ve got to fix that!”.
MSNBC ussed to have Dana Milbank on until he discredited himself too often. Here’s some left-wing criticism of that network though: Rachel Maddow is pedantic and full of herself, and seems to adore military hardware.
You say Rachel is pedantic – possibly because so many people are so ignorant – she feels it necessary to ‘teach.’ I’m so glad we have someone with knowledge and who wants to be sure that what she reports are real facts! As far as adoring military hardware – where did you get that??
I don’t watch MSNBC, but I’d take a “pedantic” Maddow over the lying Fox talking heads any day.
Kate has it, above.
The REASON Rachel MUST get into the weeds is not because she likes to talk, but because she knows how DEEPLY ignorant Americans are, when it comes to the usual sort of political double-talk.
She MUST take half of each commentary just to establish the deep, deep guile and misrepresentation of the “usual suspects,” that is FAUX Noise, and the other culpable Reich Wing commenters.
Reich Wingers themselves would LOVE it, if Rachel stopped doing this, because EVERY TIME she does, they get painted as EXACTLY what they are: liers, manipulators, and “Free” Market Whores.
There is always Democracy Now but it is only on the radio and internet and only on for one hour. MSNBC and Current TV. (For some unknown reason I now don’t have it on my ATT cable set up.) Also seek out Young Turks, Al Jazeera and many others that aren’t controlled by the corporate media. Widen your scope. The problem is most people stay away from news. Of those most only watch local shows. But not the radio where the Reich wing monopolizes is nearly everywhere. I’d put the evening MSNBC line up to anything Fox says. Notice when people like Maddow do hard hitting stories she is attacked but always vaguely. No one can give even one error or lie from her. Not one. All they are shooting is blanks at a live target.
Night gaunt i am a news hound.I listen to the above mentioned even more so that FOX.And I can honestly say that the stations you listed are completely FULL OF SHIT.Hmmm that did not come out as i meant to say it.How about….Those stations have a clear idea of the differential between main stream realities ,that sees the US in a light as a beneficial entity upon the world stage, as opposed to the pestilence that so many others see it as. Better?