MSNBC Vs. Fox News: Two Networks, Two Different Realities

New York Times:

It was a lousy day to be Senator John McCain, Keith Olbermann informed his viewers on MSNBC on Thursday.

Senator Barack Obama's surge in the polls was so strong he was competitive in Mr. McCain's home state, Arizona. The everyman hero of Mr. McCain's campaign, "Joe the Plumber," failed to make an expected appearance at a morning rally in Defiance, Ohio, and the senator's efforts to highlight Mr. Obama's association with a professor tied to the P.L.O. were amounting to nothing.

Read the whole story: New York Times

Comments

[SEQUOIABISON]

It is an easy comparison to diagnose, one of the commentators is extremely intelligent and speaks the truth, while the other spews lies to placate his boss Rupert Murdoch.

Obama/Biden

[hellerious]

I won't think anything is funny until and unless Obama wins on Tuesday.
Until then, Keith will still be an eloquent, brilliant and articulate spokesman for the rational and the sane in this country, unafraid to say what he deeply feels.

[fignozzle]

"the burden is a little more on the individual."

[neurologymatters]

The guests on the programs are a reflection of the host. Extermists are not to be tolerated, for either party. Sean Hannity is a pompous individual in My opinion.

[fignozzle]

intolerance is the hallmark of the republican party.

[rw97]

Faux News is Fear and Imbalanced. MSNBC rocks!

[ellwood]

Fox news has been pushing their "fair and balanced" Orwellian nonsense for so long that they've been the prime motivators for the very commentators that are calling them out. Their falsehoods and hypocrisy are so blatant that they are easily mocked, giving lots of material to people like Stewart, Colbert, and Olbermann.

If anything, the "liberal" media goes too far in order to give the other side a fair shake. Buchanan on MSNBC? Kristol at the NYT? Gimme a break.. neither is worth a nanosecond of my time. Although I do find it somewhat amusing to see Maddow use Buchanan as a punching bag.

[RODERICK098]

The problem waith NSBC is that they do not have to be biased and over the top like Fox. Fox and the right wing is hiding their real agenda which is to make the rich richer. Liberals are speaking the truth and there was absoluty no need for NSNbC to us smear tactics like FOX and distort the truth. Their attacks on Hillary Clinton were like show trials in communist countries. Just be truthful NSBC and you would get a wider and happier audience. I cancelled you services cause you are the mirror image of Fox

[harriettubman]

This shows that there are two different Americas, one Republican and one Democrat. It's a shame there can be no common ground. I'm an Independent and I listen to Republicans who don't believe in social programs yet call themselves Evangelical Christians, whatever that means. There will always be poor people so I don't know why they don't believe in social programs. I guess if you've been given something in life and not worked for it, you can't relate to any underdogs.

[mrskorn]

I think that many republicans don't believe our money for charity needs to go through the government. I would rather send it right to the charity and I believe that most religious groups, mine included (no I am not Evangelical Christian), have plenty of 'social programs' that help the less fortunate.

Do you really want government to decide what to do with your money? By the time they pay the administrative fees and what not, less of your money goes to help the less fortunate.

I don't need to be forced to give to charity. I do it (yes, I give 10% of my income) because it is a religious expectation. How much to others here give? Biden gave .05% last year. Big spender.

[tristix]

Religious "expectation" ??? You should give because it helps people not because your afraid to go to hell. Your giving to charity for selfish reasons.

[laire]

mrskon,

do you want everyone to pay for their own roads and police departments and fire departments or what about the schools and court system and the sewage system etc. I have been to several third world country and you see first hand when the government doesn't pay for anything and the only people who have good things are the very rich. Is that type of country you want to live in?

[harriettubman]

Besides mission trips and a possible soup kitchen, what else does your church provide? Churches can't provide all the programs poor people need. Yes, the government has to offer some social programs. They come in the form of grant funded programs.

I don't like all this talk about being against "Big Brother Government" but as a minority myself, I'm thankful we've had government programs and laws. Where would I be if the civil rights bill hadn't been signed into law by the "government?" Where would I be if women were still denied the right to vote by the "government"? Where would I be if the government didn't offer student loans?

Does your church provide programs for parents of sudden infant death? Food stamps? Welfare? Medicaid? Medicare? Prescription programs? Teen pregnancy? Low income clinics? Social Security? Dental services for low income? Research for health disparities? And a host of other programs. There need to be rules set in place but yes, some government programs are very okay with me. I'd rather help an uninsured person get insured than pay $10 billion a month in Iraq.

Who cares what the politicians give to charity as long as they pay their taxes?

[whit4brains]

The issue I have is everyone I know who watches Fox will NEVER admit that they are biased to the right, even when it is so obvious. Whereas everyone I know who watches MSNBC will easily admit that it is biased to the left, especially in the evening. Fox News watchers will just repeat the lame "fair and balanced" mantra and believe that they are actually seeing news programs without bias. They are the ones who get their news ONLY from Fox, which no one should do. I have been going over to Fox's website for the past month and I haven't seen even one positive story about Obama. Even the ones that should be are spun a certain way or have info missing from the story. Fox news is NOT "fair and balanced"...not even close. I don't have a problem with them being biased to the right, I just wish they would admit it or at least drop the "fair and balanced" and "no-spin zone" BS!

[harriettubman]

I watched Fox for quite a while. I was trying to see what they were all about. Not any more. Their reporting has truly gone off the deep end for me but they have an audience for that type of reporting, they're called polarizing Republicans.

If Bill O'Reilly can admit that Obama has run a brilliant campaign then I can believe he hasn't lost all of his marbles yet. However, Billy will be voting for McCain. He said he doesn't know what will happen if Obama is elected. Isn't that some BS?

[mrskorn]

Never say never. I admit I am biased to the right. You are biased to the left. I also watch all three news stations to see what people are saying. I can also say that even though I am for McCain/Palin, I don't think that they don't have their flaws. I have not seen anyone on Obama's side admit the same. I get the feeling that people think he is perfect.

I have been on this website, CNN, MSNBC and I have not seen one positive article about Palin. No matter what she does or says....I know you all hate her, but she wouldn't have gotten where she is if that were true. Like posted earlier, each side is biased.

[bitterindependent]

cause their is nothing positive about palin except the fact that she supported a lot of obamas policies before she got on the mccain ticket.......(i.e. energy policy, spreading the wealth..in alaska...etc)...now she has sold her soul to the neocons instead of being a true conservative...

[laire]

mrshorn,

The reason you don't see anything positive about Gov. Palin is because she has clearly shown her self not be qualified to be president or vice president. I think people have acknowledged she is a good attack dog and has charisma but intellectually she does not have it and she is clearly shown her self to be very ignorant on issues.

[hoopesaz]

Read more responses. They may admit that MSNBC leans left, but in the same breath they say "...but MSNBC tells the truth and Fox lies".

How, how honest is an admission that MSNBC leans left if at the same time you contend that the left is honest, true, and honorable and that the right is just the opposite?

Here's the TRUTH. MSNBC advocates for the left. Much of what they say is based in truth, but it is often distorted to some unreconizable version of reality. And the exact same thing can be said of Fox and the right...a bunch of BS sprinkled with a little truth.

[tristix]

I agree they are both in it for their own parties BUT fox is more aggressive about it and they reach a wider audience so its more dangerous. Recently i checked the foxnews website and all their main stories were all anti-obama. Nothing like the other channels

[MajorKong]

You can be biased left or right and still practice good journalism.

The British press like the Daily Telegraph (conservative) and The Guardian (liberal) practice good journalism because their laws say they have to.

The pre-Murdoch Wall Street Journal also practiced good journalism.

I haven't watched enough of MSNBC but I've seen plenty of Fox (it's on 24/7 where I work) and they're not a news network, they're an entertainment network for conservatives.

[guamarcy]

It is very telling when the NYT article reported that "Fox News Channel executives would not comment for this article. Phil Griffin, president of MSNBC, agreed that at night his network gave a decidedly opinionated viewpoint." MSNBC does not try to make any pretense of being "fair and balanced" at night nor does MSNBC broadcast a "documentary" based on the rantings of an anti-Semite.

The difference also is that people like me who read Huffington Post by day and watch MSNBC at night, also read the NYT, Washington Post, LA Times, etc. whereas I have found, via vile emails based on Fox (aka Faux) news, that people who watch Fox do so exclusive of other news sources.

[harriettubman]

And Fox needs to stop saying they're Fair and Balanced because they aren't. They should say "for the GOP" only. At least others would stop watching to see if they're fair.

[mrskorn]

At least they try to have a person on from each side. I don't see MSNBC doing that. CNN is getting better.

I have had to laugh a few times when Rachel, the Mug, Maddow was expecting a guest to go along with her rant and they told her flat out, they disagreed with her. Shut her right up.

[mrskorn]

I think you are making blanket statments.
I read plenty of other news sources....Real Clear Politics, CNN, MSNBC, Wall Street Journal, Newsweek.

I try to read many sides...I see that you stick with very liberal rags....NYT (the worst), Wash Post, LATimes....yeah, that's a very balanced group of papers. Who sticks with their own views?!

[mrskorn]

You all are just proving the point of the article. Each person's bias, yes we all have one, determines how they see things.

[blueskybigstar]

True to a point, but when it comes down to it, some people can more easily admit when they are wrong than other people and can take in new information faster to change their opinions. Then, on the other hand, you have people who know they are wrong and continue to lie. Democrats and independents often disagree with each other and have different reasons for supporting the same things. When it comes to the Republicans, there is no room for dissent, only absolute loyalty, and the same talking points. This is why they have almost expelled every good Republican from the party over these twenty eight years, because the good ones would have blown their whistles on them a long time ago.

[arrtimus]

Hillary found out the same goes for Democrats

[bdaved]

It's like it says in that fantastic song "x's for i's" : "People only see the things they think they want to see."

[bdaved]

You read the story and there's Joe the Plumber talking about voting for "a real American, John McCain". Did he really say that? That's a story in itself if speakers at McCain-Palin rallies are still talking like that, because it certainly seems to imply that there is a candidate who is not a "real American".

[FarOutFish]

Remember “James J. Blaine, the Colossal Liar from the State of Maine” or “Ma! Ma! Where’s my Pa? Gone to the White House. Ha! Ha! Ha!” political invective has always been a part of the American political process.

[bdaved]

God bless somebody with a sense of history. It's just that I thought that particular duck had gone out of official favor in this election. What was I thinking?

[blueskybigstar]

The Republicans can't stand to be laughed at.

[FarOutFish]

The “Pew Research Center” studies back up the differences between MSNBC and Fox News. It does seem NMNBC has been more negative towards McCain than Fox has been with Obama.

Things look much better for Barack Obama--and much worse for John McCain--on MSNBC than in most other news outlets. On the Fox News Channel, the coverage of the presidential candidates is something of a mirror image of that seen on MSNBC.

The tone of CNN's coverage, meanwhile, lies somewhere in the middle of the cable spectrum, and is generally more negative than the press overall.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1011/color-of-news-coverage

[FarOutFish]

Sorry the chart didn’t post. You can find it at the link.

[blueskybigstar]

Don't give me a shill organization to tell me stuff I and most everybody knows is not true. Pew used to have a good name.

[AnalyzeIT]

I hope you realize why they were "much worse" on John McCain; simply because they had to keep calling him out on his and Palin's lies.

Certainly nothing negative about that, just trying to get the truth out.

OBAMA-BIDEN

[blueskybigstar]

There is just much more manure to cover on him. The study is too open for interpretation and misinforming.

[ellwood]

Interesting data, but not too relevant. The amount of "negative coverage" will depend on the amount of actual negative content in the news, assuming there is such a thing as an objective reality. Although it may be hard to discern at times given that we are all biased in some way or another, I think such an objective reality does exist. :)

The blame for the devolution of rational, civil discussion in this country can be laid mostly at the feet of the current GOP and its partisan media outlets, in the opinion of many. Where have all the smart, responsible republicans gone? Oh right.. they're voting for Obama.

[OneTop]

There isn't enough news for any 24 hour cable news channel as they exist today. Or to put it another way, the cable channels will not spend the money on reporters and such. It is much cheaper to interview other talking heads and pundits and cycle the same 4 or 5 stories hour after hour while changing the talking head.
The only way they have of differentiating themselves is to promote the left versus right thing in a search for an audience.
And that is precisely what they do. Actual news or facts has nothing to do with it.

[blueskybigstar]

Exactly, but when it comes to Fox and some of the others the story is far more sinister.

[kcam44]

can't wait to watch the fox news meltdown on tuesday nite...I've waited so long to see the look on Hannity's face when Obama wins. He has spent two years throwing the kitchen sink. The American people have pretty much spoken. I guess Hannity's new multi-million dollar contract will be well worth it, as he spends the next four years srcutinizing Obama and his policies, while Ayers and Wright will be forever etched in his daily doses of hate. Elisabeth's Hasselbeck will be AWOL on the View the next morning.

[blueskybigstar]

Let this be your last indulgence. They use the money they earn from your viewership to reinvest in things which are not in your best interest. They only care about money. Deny it to them.

[Minnehaha]

The sad news is if Obama is elected, they have only just begun. They will criticise every move he makes. They will continue to twist the truth and mount continous battles against him. So get ready we haven't seen nothing yet. Atleast most Americans are aware of the tactics.