Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
All the left crap on MSN....
Executive Summary
The core claim — that “MSN has left bias” — is supported by multiple independent assessments and user complaints, but the evidence shows a modest left-leaning tilt rather than a wholesale partisan agenda, and reliability varies by individual story and aggregated sourcing. Ad Fontes ratings, Media Bias Fact Check analysis, academic work comparing network language, and dated user forum complaints all point to some left-center skew driven by source selection and algorithmic aggregation, not necessarily coordinated editorial partisanship [1] [2] [3] [4]. Recent summaries in the provided material repeatedly flag mixed reliability and algorithmic curation as important drivers, so readers should evaluate specific items on MSN rather than treat the homepage as monolithically partisan [1] [5].
1. Why people say “all the left crap on MSN” — what the data shows
User frustration captured in Microsoft support forums and community posts frames the claim as a lived experience of encountering liberal headlines on MSN, and those anecdotes are reflected in systematic ratings that mark a leftward tilt. The Microsoft community posts from 2017 and 2021 document repeated reader complaints that the MSN aggregator surfaces stories perceived as Democratic-leaning or opinionated, with some users urging the platform to label pieces as opinion or change sourcing [4] [6]. Independent ratings such as Ad Fontes and Media Bias Fact Check quantify that perception: Ad Fontes gives MSN a bias score indicating a slight left-lean (-3.72) while Media Bias Fact Check classifies it as Left-Center primarily because the underlying story pool is dominated by left-center outlets [1] [2]. These measures explain why everyday users encounter content they describe as “left,” even if the tilt is not extreme.
2. How reliable are those assessments — strengths and limits of the evidence
The sources provided converge on a moderate leftward bias but differ on reliability judgments and methodology, producing mixed conclusions about how problematic the bias is. Ad Fontes uses panel-based scoring and found variable reliability across articles, with some items scoring low on factual reliability and others more balanced, producing an overall reliability concern [1]. Media Bias Fact Check rates MSN High for factual reporting while still assigning a Left-Center bias, attributing the tilt largely to the algorithmic composition of sources rather than editorial intent [2]. The academic study comparing Fox and MSNBC demonstrates that linguistic choices and topic emphasis produce measurable differences in coverage even within “hard news,” reinforcing that system-level choices about which stories and phrasing to surface shape perceived bias [3]. Taken together, the evidence is methodologically diverse but consistent: bias exists and reliability varies, and algorithmic curation is a plausible mechanism.
3. What explains the tilt — algorithm, sources, or politics?
The materials repeatedly point to source selection and algorithmic aggregation as primary drivers of MSN’s perceived left-center slant rather than a single partisan newsroom pushing a coordinated agenda. Media Bias Fact Check explicitly notes that the algorithmic makeup of MSN’s story pool leads to a predominance of left-center outlets in the aggregated feed, which produces a systematic tilt without requiring intentional editorial bias [2]. Ad Fontes’ panel approach shows that some individual MSN items can be strongly left or fairly neutral, indicating heterogeneity driven by which partner content is aggregated [1]. User complaints in Microsoft forums implicitly support that view by encouraging users to click through to original sources or change how content is presented, suggesting that perception and presentation matter more than a fixed institutional stance [7].
4. Alternative viewpoints and counter-evidence — is MSN uniformly liberal?
The evidence contradicts the claim that MSN is uniformly or aggressively partisan; instead, the picture is of modest left-center bias with considerable variance across stories. Ad Fontes’ item-level reliability spread and Media Bias Fact Check’s High factual reporting score indicate that many MSN stories are credible even as the aggregate leans left-center [1] [2]. The academic comparison of Fox and MSNBC shows that both networks exhibit biases in different directions and that bias can be subtle—about framing and emphasis rather than fabrication—suggesting the same can be true for an aggregator like MSN [3]. Users and critics who label MSN as strictly “Democratic-Party news” rely on anecdotal sampling and older forum posts; the more systematic analyses included here show a nuanced pattern, not total partisanship [4].
5. Practical takeaway — what readers should do and what remains uncertain
Readers should treat MSN as an algorithmic news aggregator with a measurable left-center tendency and mixed reliability that varies by article, and therefore apply source-checking practices: inspect original outlets, compare coverage across ideologically diverse sources, and watch for opinion labels. The provided analyses identify algorithmic source selection and heterogeneous item reliability as the main unresolved questions, so continued monitoring of MSN’s sourcing mix and transparency about algorithms would clarify whether the tilt is stable or shifting [2] [5]. The evidence here is internally consistent through multiple methods and dates, but limitations include dated user complaints and the absence of direct, up-to-the-minute MSN editorial policy documents in the supplied materials; thus the claim “all the left crap” overstates what the data actually shows.