Is MS NOW credible?
Executive summary
MS NOW is the rebranded successor to MSNBC after Comcast spun off cable assets into a new company, Versant, and the channel adopted the MS NOW name in November 2025 [1]. Assessments of its credibility are mixed: the network has invested in independent news-gathering and hired veteran reporters, but independent media‑bias and reliability audits label it left-leaning with mixed reliability, and critics point to branding missteps and falling ratings that undercut trust [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. Background: how MS NOW emerged and what it claims
MS NOW emerged from the corporate decision to separate MSNBC from NBCUniversal and relaunch as an independent cable news network under the Versant umbrella, adopting the backronym “My Source for News, Opinion, and the World” and officially changing its name in November 2025 [1] [2]. Network leadership has publicly framed the rebrand as an opportunity to build an autonomous newsroom, staff a Washington bureau, and strike new content partnerships [3] [6].
2. What independent ratings and watchdogs find about bias and reliability
Independent evaluators classify MS NOW as politically left-leaning and assign it mixed reliability: Ad Fontes Media rates the outlet as “hyper‑partisan left” in bias and “mixed” in reliability, and Media Bias/Fact Check similarly notes a leftward editorial slant and frequent use of emotionally loaded headlines in coverage [4] [7]. Those assessments do not assert wholesale falsehoods but flag consistent selection and framing patterns that align with progressive perspectives [7] [4].
3. Credibility bolstered by new reporting resources and staff hires
Reporting in The Guardian, Los Angeles Times and The Independent documents MS NOW’s rapid build-out of a standalone news‑gathering operation, including a Washington bureau and hires from legacy news organizations, plus partnerships with Sky News and AccuWeather—moves the network portrays as strengthening original reporting capabilities [2] [3] [6]. The network’s own executives and staff memos emphasize a continued commitment to “breaking news and best‑in‑class opinion journalism,” suggesting institutional investment in journalistic capacity [8] [9].
4. Credibility undermined by branding choices, platform inconsistencies, and critique
Critics argue the rebrand itself introduced problems: inconsistent social handles and domain choices, a name that explicitly includes “Opinion,” and public commentary that the change was rushed have all been cited as factors that erode perceived professionalism and trust [10] [5] [9]. Media commentators and some academics contend that folding “Opinion” into branding signals an embrace of commentary over dispassionate reporting, which can reduce perceived objectivity even if reporting teams are expanded [5] [9].
5. Audience behavior and ratings: a reality test for credibility
Ratings provide a mixed reality check: MS NOW remained a top‑tier cable channel in late 2025 in overall viewers yet lagged Fox News and sometimes surpassed CNN, while key advertiser demographics showed weaker performance—Nielsen and other outlets reported lower numbers in the 25–54 demo and declines that critics tie to brand confusion or programming shifts [1] [5] [11]. Lower ratings do not prove poor accuracy, but they do matter for reach, advertiser confidence, and the practical authority a network wields [11] [5].
6. Conclusion: is MS NOW credible?
MS NOW is credible in the sense that it operates as a professional news organization with substantial investment in reporting staff and bureaus and maintains capacity for original journalism [2] [3] [6]. However, its credibility is qualified: independent evaluators and media critics consistently identify a pronounced left‑of‑center editorial stance and mixed reliability on factual verification, and branding and operational missteps have damaged perceptions of impartiality and clarity [4] [7] [10] [5]. For audiences seeking straight news, MS NOW can be a useful source of reporting, but it should be consumed alongside diverse outlets and subject to the same source‑checking scrutiny applied to opinion‑driven cable news [4] [7].