MSNBC Almost Entirely Dominated By Opinion: Pew Study

We forget that opinion isn't news!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...news_n_2900160.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

 

I'm not sure what surprising about that. MSNBC has never claimed to be a straight "news" source. Unlike Fox, which claims to be "fair and balanced" and is neither by any stretch of the imagination.

MSNBC reports opinion based on facts, unlike Fox which reports opinions based on lies and made-up innuendo. When someone on MSNBC gets something wrong, they retract it and correct it. Fox goes out of its way to construct lies dressed up as facts (how many times have they been busted using contextually incorrect video?). Fox News actually even went to court to assert its right to lie on the news (and prevailed!).

So...I'm not exactly sure what the point of that story even was.

 

GBBlondie

Is that possible to determine?

Cheaper, more provocative debate or interview segments have largely filled the void. MSNBC, though, stands out from the pack, Pew said

Do you have any e.g's?

Source?

 

If you can point me to some place where someone at MSNBC claims to be a straight news source, I'll retract it. The NBC empire actually has a completely separate news division called...wait for it, NBC News. They focus on straight news, and MSNBC focuses on opinion and analysis. Fox doesn't - they conflate/confuse the two.

Spend an hour watching Rachel Maddow. She has a feature segment in her show called "Department of Corrections," wherein she corrects misstatements she's made, or clarifies statements she's made that have confused people. She thoroughly researches her stories and provides full context examples to support her analysis (whereas Fox loves to take snippets of video and show them out of context to "support" theirs).

Do you just lack to the skill set to use Google, or are you too lazy to do it yourself? It's a pretty old story, really.

 

LOL!

Please.

MSNBC reports "facts," only because those "facts" happen to be in line with what you believe.

The fact is ALL the news networks are corporate-run and corporate-sponsored, and NONE of them provide real news. They certainly don't serve to inform the general public about what's really going on. ALL the alphabet networks provide opinion (propaganda is the more accurate word) masquerading as "news," which is then parroted by people as their own.

MSNBC and CNN are no better than FOX. They are only better than FOX because they play to your own bias.

Someone who watches FOX would likely say the same thing about MSNBC and CNN.

It's all spin and noise. With some networks it's right-wing spin, and with others it's left-wing spin, but once you realize that left vs. right is bullshit which serves only to polarize and divide, you see it's really all the same half-baked shit, but designed to pander to a certain target audience.

 

You don't know the first thing about me, so you're not in a position to opine on what I do or do not believe, or how what MSNBC reports correlates to that.

 

No, I don't know you and never claimed to know you, but it's easy to infer based on what you wrote.

 

When offering an example or making an argument, generally it is up to you to validate that with a source, not the person that you're arguing with.



As for the OP, this isn't really surprising at all. I don't really watch any TV news other than the odd episode of Democracy Now, but it seems that all of the 24 hour 'news' networks don't really produce anything resembling news.

 

I've never found that necessary with something that is so widely known. If I made the assertion that the sun rises in the east, I generally don't cite a specific source to support that assertion, nor do I feel it necessary to cite sources for a claim that the LAPD has a rife history of beating the shit out of African Americans, for example. Both are pretty widely known.

The story about Fox's court case has been very widely discussed for the past 10 years by most people who like to debate the differences between ideological media. So anyone bothering to comment on them in this thread, one would presume, has some semblance of a working knowledge of this history of Fox and their history of fabricating material.

Even given that, if it had been me, I would have at least done a cursory search real quickly to see if there was an validity to it rather than just questioning it out of hand and making myself look like an uninformed ass. But that's just me, I suppose.

 

Journalism is a dying profession. I haven't read or seen any news report on any major network in at least the last ten years that I would call a fair and balanced report,.uncluttered by opinion. America is very close to having a state controlled media. It's a shame because honest , factual journalism is one of the few tools the people can use to make sure government doesn't abuse its powers.

 

I meant: Has It never been. Rather than: Is it now not a...
What the article seems to be saying is MSNBC is a news, information, and political opinion channel - but is drifting further and further away from news, and more and more into opinion: At the other end of that spectrum lies MSNBC, where opinion fills a full 85% of the channel’s airtime.

To be fair, I have seen that show and have seen that segment. It is a good e.g. I'm not saying there isn't e.g's - I'm asking do you have any e.g's.
I think it is safe to say many people do not, and are happy to just spout opinion (mentioning no names *cough*).

I do think Fox news get berated for it's opinions rather than it's facts. Although, most news outlets seem to rely on opinion rather than fact - due to the nature of reporting news. It's difficult to have the facts. We all are fundamentally expressing our opinions - very few times we are asked to provide the facts.
Yes, it is true, in the simplest sense of true, that all news is by definition biased. There can be no truly objective news, because it is presented by humans, who have biases.

I have great skill in using Google. I will admit to being too tired this morning to look into this more directly. Sorry.
The e.g seems to suggest one was a lie and one was the truth. Did the supposed truth turn out to be true, one wonders.

 

Pressed_Rat


Are you suggesting everything you say is 100% factual and can be backed up with verifiable sources, and is no way fundamentally your opinion - so you are better than any alphabet news outlet?

 

Well, at least you're not uninformed

 

LMFAO! Ouch.

 

I think it was a compliment.

 

Maybe so, but it was still embarrassing to have a typo like that. lol

 

Umm... no. Where did I suggest that? My opinion isn't being forced down the throats of millions of people, nor do I receive corporate funding. There's a pretty big difference there.

 

i wonder what a uniformed ass would look like...

 

Is this actually true?

The fact is ALL the news networks are corporate-run and corporate-sponsored, and NONE of them provide real news. They certainly don't serve to inform the general public about what's really going on. ALL the alphabet networks provide opinion (propaganda is the more accurate word) masquerading as "news," which is then parroted by people as their own.

My point was, if you are saying 'the news' 'the media' isn't accurate or truthful you seem to think you are and you are above them. In effect, nothing you say is biased, spin or inaccurate. You seem to be lifting yourself above the average news outlet. How accurate would you say you are? How often do you back what you say up with facts? If you are no better than they are, who are you to condone what they do?

So it's ok for you to be potentially a BS artist?