BROADCAST BIAS: MS NOW marks 3 decades of empowering Democrats, not American democracy
This Fox News opinion piece marks the 30th anniversary of MSNBC, which relaunched under the name "MS NOW" last November, arguing that the network has spent three decades shifting further left and serving as an advocate for the Democratic Party rather than a neutral news source. The author frames this as evidence of enduring partisan bias in American broadcast media, contending that the channel's self-promotion as a defender of "democracy" is misleading given its editorial slant since its 1996 launch.
The piece notes MSNBC first aired on 15 July 1996 and was initially closely tied to NBC News, with anchor Tom Brokaw publicly supportive of the venture in its early days. The author references hosts such as Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow as emblematic of the network's leftward drift, and cites a podcast remark by current host Nicolle Wallace, who said she refused to broadcast White House press briefings during President Trump's first term while hosting her show "Deadline White House."
- Fox News opinion piece criticises MS NOW (formerly MSNBC) on its 30th anniversary
- Argues the network has grown increasingly partisan toward Democrats
- Cites host Nicolle Wallace refusing to air Trump-era press briefings
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Critics of MS NOW argue that a network built on cable news' opinion-and-analysis model inevitably develops a consistent editorial slant, and that this particular slant has drifted so far towards one party that it now functions as an arm of Democratic messaging rather than an independent check on power. They contend that repeated framing of political opponents in existential terms, such as fascism or dictatorship, erodes public trust in journalism, normalises hyperbole over analysis, and makes it harder for viewers to distinguish reporting from advocacy. For these critics, holding the network to account for three decades of one-directional coverage is a matter of defending the credibility of the news industry as a whole.
The case against
Defenders of the network's trajectory argue that its hosts were reacting in good faith to what they genuinely perceived as extraordinary and alarming developments in American politics, and that describing those developments in stark terms was a considered editorial judgement rather than reflexive partisanship. They point out that opinion and analysis programming has always been distinct from straight news reporting, that audiences understand and choose it accordingly, and that demanding false balance on matters hosts believe pose a serious threat to democratic norms would itself be a form of distortion. For these defenders, the network's willingness to speak plainly, even at the cost of being labelled partisan, reflects editorial courage rather than bias.