What major corrections or retractions has MSNBC issued in the past decade?
Executive summary
MSNBC (now rebranded as MS NOW) has a documented history of on-air errors and subsequent corrections over the past decade, including high‑profile incidents during the 2015 Gaza coverage and multiple on‑air correction episodes through 2024–2025 [1] [2]. Outside observers and media watchdogs (notably CAMERA) have logged and prompted specific corrections by the network, particularly related to Israel/Palestine reporting [3].
1. Notable, well‑documented correction episodes: Gaza/2015 and later on‑air fixes
The most frequently cited episode in the record involved Ayman Mohyeldin’s live Gaza reporting in October 2015: Mohyeldin reported seeing an unarmed Palestinian shot at Damascus Gate, but studio anchors and later visual evidence showed the man was armed and had been warned by police — an on‑air dispute that became part of wider criticism of MSNBC’s Israel‑coverage errors [1]. That incident surfaced repeatedly in summaries of the network’s controversies and remains a common example cited when critics call out MSNBC for factual mistakes [1].
2. Corrections prompted by outside watchdogs: CAMERA’s catalogue
CAMERA, a pro‑Israel media watchdog, maintains a running list of corrections it has prompted at MSNBC, citing instances such as an erroneous claim about the number of Jewish settlers and the use of hoax maps; CAMERA says MSNBC corrected those errors on air [3]. These entries show an organized effort by external groups to hold the network to account and highlight specific corrections beyond episodic on‑air apologies [3].
3. Examples of recent on‑air corrections reported in the press and blogs
Reporting and commentary in 2025 recorded additional instances where MSNBC issued on‑air corrections after running inaccurate assertions — for example, a March 2025 episode in which anchors corrected claims about statements by Tulsi Gabbard, an event picked up by conservative outlets criticizing the timeliness and prominence of the correction [2]. That coverage illustrates that corrections sometimes arrive late in the broadcast and become fodder for both critics and supporters to argue about newsroom standards [2].
4. How critics and supporters interpret these corrections
Critics present corrections as evidence of ideological slant or carelessness; Fox‑aligned commentary and partisan sites have used MSNBC’s on‑air mistakes to argue broader editorial bias or decline [4] [2]. Supporters point to public corrections and internal standards as proof that the network acknowledges and fixes errors; MSNBC leadership has emphasized editorial principles and accuracy in later organizational messaging tied to the network’s repositioning (p1_s5 — note: full code referenced in Poynter piece is dated Oct. 2025 and appears in the docket of materials about the network’s standards).
5. Limits of the publicly available record in these sources
Available sources provided here document multiple high‑profile corrections and third‑party lists of prompted corrections, but they do not present a single, comprehensive public list of “major retractions/corrections” issued by MSNBC across the entire last decade; a consolidated MSNBC corrections archive is not cited in these materials (available sources do not mention a comprehensive archive). Wikipedia and press summaries compile episodes but treat them as part of broader controversy entries rather than as an official MSNBC corrections log [1] [5].
6. Context: corporate changes, rebrand and the incentives for stricter standards
Recent corporate shifts — including the channel’s rebranding to MS NOW as it separated from NBC — and statements by network leadership about editorial direction suggest the organization has incentives to stress accuracy and promote corrections publicly as part of rebuilding trust [5] [6]. Those moves increase both scrutiny and the reputational cost of mistakes, which likely shapes how and when corrections are issued going forward [6].
7. What a rigorous accounting would require
A thorough, defensible list of “major” corrections or retractions would need: (a) a working definition of “major” (on‑air vs. online, headline claims vs. small factual errors); (b) access to MSNBC/MS NOW’s correction notices and archives; and (c) independent tracking by media‑watch groups and press accounts. Current reporting in these sources provides specific high‑profile examples but not that complete methodological accounting (available sources do not mention a systematic methodology for ranking MSNBC corrections).
Sources cited in this piece include the Wikipedia controversy summary and related reporting documenting the 2015 Gaza episode and other errors [1], CAMERA’s catalog of corrections it prompted at MSNBC [3], recent commentary about on‑air corrections in 2025 [2], and coverage of the network’s organizational changes and rebrand that frame incentives for corrections [5] [6].