I love that "Lean Forward" tagline MSNBC has adopted as their slogan.

Is there any greater admission possible of their Obama Ministry of Truth status, than when they adopt the slogan of the Obama campaign for their network?

The folks here who regularly have a seizure at the mere mention of Fox News' "fair and balanced" tagline (where they merely express a policy of giving both sides equal time) ought to be coming completely unhinged at the unashamed bias of MSNBC.
After watching Fox Report from 6 to 7, I flipped over to Chris Matthews from 7-8, and had a chuckle about how Fox reported all the polls (ones favorable to both candidates), and Matthews on MSNBC only quoted the ones favorable to Obama!

What kind of drugs and electroshock therapy are required to take MSNBC seriously?

I dunno. Let's ask MEM's physician.

FEMA Channels MSNBC, Vows to 'Lean Forward' for Sandy Victims

What Obama and MSNBC don't want people to realize is that they want us to "lean forward" because it makes it that much easier to butt rape the nation.

What does the lean forward slogan mean, anyway. Is it an analogy for something? Isn't "Lean Forward" the precursor to "lose balance" and "fall on your face"?

It was the closest they could come to "lean left" without coming out and admitting their biases.

Fair and unbalanced was already taken.


BTW I take MSNBC as seriously as FOX.

Funny you should mention Fox.

From Politico:

• MSNBC has long been thought of as the left's answer to Fox News, but that may be an understatement.
  
  From August 27 through October 21, 71 percent of MSNBC's coverage of Mitt Romney this year was negative, far outperforming Fox News's negative coverage of President Barack Obama, which came in at 46 percent, according to a new survey by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism. The negative-to-positive ratio on MSNBC was roughly 23-to-1; the negative-to-positive ratio on Fox News was 8-to-1.

In other words, MSNBC is far more to the left than Fox is to the right.

The study also shows that after the first debate Romney had more positive coverage than Obama while Obama had more negative coverage than Romney. So much for some conservatives crys of the media being biased for Obama meme.

Actually, no:

• From the conventions until the first debate, a period of improving polls for Obama, Romney suffered his period of the most negative coverage; just 4% of stories about him were positive while 52% were negative. Coverage of Obama during this period was fairly evenly split (20% positive vs. 24% negative). That narrative reversed sharply with the first debate. For the next two weeks, Romney saw the mixed treatment (23% positive vs. 23% negative) while Obama was caught in the critical loop, with 12% positive and 37% negative. After the second debate, coverage returned to its more general pattern, with an edge for Obama.

In other words, for a two week period after the first debate, Romney received, at best, neutral coverage (50/50 positive/negative). Shortly, thereafter, the press was once again favoring Obama.

Well somebody is going to end up with an edge just because these things don't break 50/50. Obama performed poorly in the first debate and so he got the negative coverage. Likewise Obama won the last debate and that generated more positive coverage. Would it really make sense that Romney would have more positive after a debate he didn't win?

M E M, you apparently did not catch the point of what G-man posted above.

G-man cited the stats to show that in the 2 weeks after Romney's outstanding performance in the first debate, that on Romney's best day, the best the liberal media would give him is 50/50 favorable/negative coverage, before returning to the liberal media default setting of overwhelming negative coverage for Romney, that they maintained before and since the first debate.

Futhermore, Fox News is the only station that actually demonstrates anything resembling "fair and balanced" coverage.

As I pointed out after the 2008 election, Pew Research Center showed in its statistical research that Fox News alone demonstrated truly balanced numbers of positive and negative stories of both candidates.

The numbers for Fox in 2008 are quantifiably even. It can be argued that Fox "leans more conservative" than the other networks, but only by ignoring the overwhelming liberal/Democrat bias of the other networks.

Did you notice Obama had more negative than positive stories before the first debate? That was a period where everything was going wrong for Romney (empty chair, Romney calls half the electorate victims and so on) while Obama had a good convention.

The numbers go against your arguments of media bias.

While I'm on record as not a big fan of Clint Eastwood's empty chair speech at the RNC convention, it was hugely popular with most Republicans. I'd hardly call that as "going wrong" for Romney.

The 47% remark, while absolutely true, was less popular and I'd agree a net detriment. While that was popular among the base as well.

The articles I cite --FROM LIBERAL POLLING-- clearly vindicate Fox News as the more balanced reporting, in contrast to the clear Democrat/left-leaning bias of **ALL** the other liberal broadcast networks.

And again:

http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Political-Views-of-Journalists-My-Feud-with-Eric-Alterman-Part-2

93% of reporters voted for Obama.

Which makes clear their motivation for hyping every potential mistake by Romney, while simultaneously downplaying and even selectively omitting coverage of Obama's negligence and cover-up before, during, and after the Benghazi embassy attack, Obama's own Katrina in the wake of hurricane Sandy, "Fast-and-Furious", Obama's holy war on the Catholic church, and many other abuses of the freedoms of americans who don't worship at Obama's altar.