Has MSN changed editorial policies after accusations of liberal bias and when?

1. What the accusations look like and who is making them

Accusations of a liberal or center‑left tilt toward MSN come chiefly from media‑bias trackers and conservative commentators who point to source selection and story framing as evidence, with Media Bias/Fact Check categorizing MSN News as strongly left‑center based on an analysis of the sources it republishes ^[1]. Conservative outlets and publisher operators have framed enforcement actions by MSN as anti‑conservative censorship rather than quality control, a narrative amplified when publishers were dropped from the syndication network ^[2].

2. What MSN says it actually does

MSN’s public posture, as reported, is to enforce "core professional publishing standards" for partners and to remove content or publishers that violate those standards, with an MSN spokeswoman quoted saying the platform takes action "when we become aware of instances that violate our policies" ^[2]. That statement signals a policy framework focused on trust and accuracy, but the reporting does not identify a new or revised editorial code released in direct response to bias accusations ^[2].

3. Evidence of a formal policy change — the record is thin

There is no reporting in the provided sources showing MSN issued a reworked editorial policy explicitly in response to allegations of liberal bias; instead the evidence shows targeted enforcement actions (for example, pulling a publishing partner) and third‑party analyses that continue to assess bias based on sourcing and curation practices ^{[2] [1]}. Academic and media analyses cited in public materials emphasize algorithmic curation and source mix as drivers of perceived bias, not a documented change in MSN’s editorial rule book ^{[3] [4]}.

4. How enforcement actions get interpreted as policy shifts

When Microsoft’s MSN removed a publishing network from its syndication roster, the company framed the move as upholding publishing standards, while critics framed the same move as evidence of suppressing conservative voices — a dynamic explicitly documented in reporting about the 2025 takedown and the responses from the publisher and conservative press ^[2]. That divergence — corporate claims of policy enforcement versus critics’ claims of ideological filtering — is central to why some observers say MSN “changed policy” even when the company describes only enforcement of existing standards ^[2].

5. Independent audits and the aggregator problem

Media‑bias assessments that label MSN left‑center note an important caveat: as an aggregator, MSN’s apparent slant often reflects the mix of external outlets it repackages rather than a single in‑house editorial voice, and MBFC’s methodology for MSN relied on analyzing the sources MSN amplifies ^[1]. Other independent analytic efforts also stress algorithmic curation and sourcing choices as drivers of perceived bias, underscoring that changing apparent slant could require altering partner selection or algorithms rather than rewriting an editorial manifesto ^{[3] [4]}.

6. Bottom line and limits of the record

The available reporting shows MSN enforcing publishing standards and removing partners for violations in 2025, a move portrayed both as quality control by MSN and as censorship by critics, but it does not document a formal, public rewriting of MSN’s editorial policy explicitly promulgated in response to accusations of liberal bias ^{[2] [1]}. Reporting gaps remain: the provided sources do not include an internal policy memo or a dated, public editorial code change from MSN that states "we changed policy because of bias accusations," so that specific causal claim cannot be confirmed from the material at hand ^{[2] [1]}.