Why msn so slanted liberally???? they are not reporting facts
Executive summary
MS NOW (formerly MSNBC) is widely perceived as left‑leaning by multiple media‑bias trackers and watchdogs, which attribute that perception to editorial choices, guest lineups and host viewpoints rather than a universal record of factual inaccuracy [1] [2] [3]. Critics point to repeated controversies and failed fact checks in opinion programs, while defenders note that bias varies by program and that some straight reporting meets journalistic standards [1] [4] [5].
1. Why viewers call it “slanted” — measurable ratings and audience makeup
Independent rating organizations like Media Bias/Fact Check, Ad Fontes Media and AllSides place MS NOW left of center — MBFC calls it “Left Biased” and rates its factual reporting as mixed [1], Ad Fontes labels the outlet “hyper‑partisan left” with mixed reliability [2], and AllSides assigns a Left rating with medium confidence [3]; those systematic ratings shape public perception that the outlet is slanted. Audience surveys back this up: Pew Research previously found a large share of the channel’s audience identifies as liberal or Democratic, a feedback loop that can encourage story selection aimed at that base [1] [5].
2. Editorial structure: where opinion and news blur
A core structural factor is programming mix: night‑time opinion hosts and pundit panels dominate prime time while daytime and breaking‑news desks produce conventional reporting, so viewers who watch opinion shows experience a different tone than those who consume straight reporting [4] [5]. Critics highlight that hosts with declared political stances — and notable personalities accused of partisan framing — contribute substantially to perceptions of bias and have been the subject of failed fact checks and controversies [6] [1].
3. Story selection, framing and language — how slant shows up in practice
Analysts note that bias often emerges less from invented facts than from story selection, loaded wording and omission: MBFC specifically cites use of “strong loaded words” and the tendency to omit reporting that might harm liberal causes [1], while other observers point to tone, diction and expediency biases as recurring patterns [5]. Ad Fontes’ methodology, which rates both bias and reliability, finds that some MS NOW pieces lean heavily into interpretation or advocacy rather than straight sourcing [2].
4. Controversies and concrete examples that fuel distrust
High‑profile reporting errors and contested segments have amplified claims that MS NOW sometimes prioritizes narrative over precision; Wikipedia’s summary of criticisms catalogs episodes and accusations spanning perceived anti‑Israel coverage to questionable sourcing on various stories [4]. Conservative institutions such as the White House communications pages have repeatedly cited specific reports as proof of bias and error, reinforcing partisan narratives about the network’s trustworthiness [7].
5. Commercial and political incentives that push toward a partisan voice
Like most cable outlets, MS NOW operates in a competitive ratings market where differentiated identity matters: cultivating a progressive audience can increase viewership and ad revenue, and political actors benefit when a network reliably advocates or highlights certain agendas — incentives that critics argue skew editorial calculus toward sympathetic storylines [1] [3]. That commercial logic does not prove deliberate deception, but it explains why editorial choices often align with one side of the political spectrum.
6. A balanced judgment: not all reporting is “not facts,” but standards vary
Multiple sources rate MS NOW’s factual reporting as mixed rather than wholly false [1] [2], indicating the outlet produces verifiable journalism alongside opinionated content that sometimes fails fact checks [1] [6]. Available reporting documents patterns — audience leanings, editorial choices and notable errors — but does not support the blanket claim that every story is untrue; limitations in the supplied sources prevent a line‑by‑line adjudication of all MS NOW reporting [1] [2].
7. What to watch and how to judge coverage yourself
To evaluate slant accurately, compare breaking‑news segments and full reporting transcripts against primary documents and nonpartisan fact checks, and track how different programs on the same network treat the same topic; third‑party bias ratings (MBFC, Ad Fontes, AllSides) provide consistent, methodical snapshots but vary in emphasis and methodology, so triangulating among them yields a clearer picture [1] [2] [3]. Readers should also account for commercial incentives and the clear distinctions between opinion programming and straight reporting when asserting that the network “is not reporting facts” [1] [5].