Talk:Media Matters for America/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

MMfA correctness

The misinformation that Media Matters brings forward is not just a preception, but subsantiated and fact based. Calicocat 29 June 2005 00:52 (UTC)

According to whom? --Badlydrawnjeff 14:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

According to facts. I visit Media Matters occasionally, and the vast majority of their articles have direct quotations, audio clips, or a video feed. From what I've seen, their articles tend to be accurate. Where their bias is important is that they only point out conservative misinformation and ignore liberal misinformation, and as we all know, both sides are really good at lying. (Although lying is disinformation not misinformation.) --Atsquish 22:53, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

I think what everyone may be seeing is the subconcious bias of the reporters themselves. While you can have a reporter who is careful to bring up all sides of a debate the reports values will have an impact. For instance the decision on what stories to cover and for how long is based on what they think would get the most ratings. For a reporter they ask themselves what seems the

more interesting topic. Things that are not cut and dry Republican or Democrat but very much so Conservative and Liberal can be misrepresented. For instance conservatives complain about the huge amout of reporting the number of weapons the US has compared. There are also framing topics and such, this link can go into more depth, as will Moral Politics by George Lakoff, or any cognative science study. Framing invloves using single words to envoke an entire agrument. Partial Birth, pro-life, pro-choice, are probably the top three recognized for what they are. Conservatives have also sucessfully changed Liberal around. Which is why the Right-Wing pounded John Kerry for being the most Liberal senator in congress. They also used the Flip-Flopper frame very effectivly. So effective, even I don't know of any Kerry framing at all, and I vote democrat/green. As such Media Matters cannot be perfect everytime. They will miss subtle Liberal bias becuase it does not strike them as off or aruable. they will point out direct lies, but it is much harder to get around ones own bias. --Indolering

Wow, a liberal organisation dedicated to cataloguing right-wing bias isn't cataloguing left-wing bias, despite that not being their stated purpose? How shocking!

I wasn't saying that at all. They will miss more left wing insinuations, and not notice the liberal focus. They do watch the major news networks and point out blatent lies. -Indolering

MMfA questionable analysis

I object to this line: "On occasion, MMfA's analysis has been proven to be faulty." Whether it is true or not, the paragraph that follows it certainly comes nowhere near proving its analysis to be faulty. -Euler

I did too. I have been monitoring Media Matters for something that might be. I think I found it:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200508100002 I see no insinuation here. If someone backs me up I will change it.-Indolering

Okay, I added in a carefully worded section on questionable analisys. No organization is perfect, and MMfA shouldn't be assumed to be so. While there are many many illigitamate complaints against MMfA I found what I think is at least an ambigious analisys. I am not trying to sling mud. If anyone can edit it to be any more even keel please do so. I just spent and hour on a paragraph, so I don't think I can do any better. -Indolering

The following carelessly-written, non-NPOV screed was added in a single edit from an anonymous IP address.

I see the NPOV point. I worked on this for a couple hours. Please try and take out fangs form your critisism, however constructive it may be. If someone could help me correct the NPOV I would appreciate that. It think the section/point is very important and should not be left out.-Indolering

While MMfA usually only presents direct lies they also often object to insinuations. Many are blatent, like this Fox News report covering the Supreme Court ruling in Kelo vs. New London.

Fox coverage of a statement from "Government Officials" that American troops would come home when the Iraqi army was "trained and equiped" to handle insugent attacks raised such critisizm from MMfA. The Fox news report stated that, "Officials have said our fighting men and women will come home when Iraqi security forces are trained and equipped to combat the terrorist insurgency there by themselves. U.S. commanders have said there are 136,000 Iraqis properly trained and equipped, but some critics of the administration have put that figure as low as 3,000."

The MMfA anlysis claims that the report insinuated the "136,000 Iraqis trained and equiped" was enough to take over for US troops. The MMfA report cites Pentagon reports and quote officials as to how 136,000 troops have been through basic training they are not all trained and equipped for military operations. While the Fox report also quoted a lower figure MMfA argues that the Pentagon never said that say 136,000 troops were ready for military combat operations. The source(s) MMfA believes Fox is refrencing states that they are not all counter-terrorist personell. Since Fox did not cite a source for the figure this makes the MMfA claim debatable. If it is true the subtle bias could be explained that it was mistake or subconcious bias from the reporter.

Critical Statements By Targets

I added this piece:

Media Matters have however come under sharp criticism from some of the subjects of their 'fact checking.' Bill O'Reilly, host of the USA's top rated cable news show 'The O'Reilly Factor', has countered their claims on his program and refers to Media Matters as a 'far left wing outfit' and 'dishonest smear merchants.'

I felt it was fair considering how much O'Reilly is unfairly trashed by media matters on both their site and THIS ONE. (See Bill O'Reilly commentator)

Plus, my insertion follows the spirit of the O'Reilly Wikipedia entry under Cindy Sheehan where it ends with a quote questioning HIS credibility.

I'm assuming what's good for the goose is good for the gander in Wikipedia.

Am I right or are only left wingers quotes critical of O'Reilly allowed to stay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigDaddy777 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 1 September

Hi. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog. If your additions are encyclopedic, they will stay. If they are not, they will go. In this case, your contribution was mostly encyclopedic, except for the error in fact that you included, and thus I expect that it will remain in the article, in one form or another. I think it is probably best, however, to put criticizms of MMFA in a seperate section. Perhaps you could find some more of them and create that section? Hipocrite 19:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I suggest we alter, change or remove parts of that entry you brought up. There's no way for a visitor of Wikipedia to know what "..countered their claims..." means, for example: It could just as well mean O'Reilly dedicating an entire show to rebutting them or mean the times he's name-called MMfA. Right now it leaves much up to the imagination, and I wouldn't consider that to be any form of factual information at all. Mastgrr 20:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Doh! Just saw that it followed with quotes of O'Reilly regarding his opinion of MMfA. My point still stands though. "Countered their claims" is too vague. Mastgrr 20:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey Hipocrite,

Look at the Bill O'Reilly commentator entry and THEN lecture me on the difference between an encyclopedia entry and a blog!! Every week this entry seems to chronicle the latest distorted ani-O'Reilly takes on conflicts he's had with people in the news from Neil Boortz to Cindy Sheehan.

And BTW...If you think it's "probably best, however, to put criticizms of MMFA in a seperate section" then why not apply the same standard to the O'Reilly entry???

His entry is RIDDLED with cheap shots, inuendo, poison arrows comments and other distortions of incidents he was involved in.

Oh, I forgot, it's OK to do that to O'Reilly.

He's not a left-winger...Big Daddy 20:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi. WP:AGF is a policy you should defidentally read. You may notice I have no editing history at this article - that's because I don't know enough about the subject matter to comment. I do, however, know a lot about wikipedia, and writing for it. I'm here to help you improve our encyclopedia. The first thing - on talk pages, to sign things, you can type the tilde (~) 4 times - it'll give you something like this, except for you instead of for me: Hipocrite 20:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Now, let's you and I fix this article up to make it WP:NPOV. What do you think the biggest concrete problem is (IE, no more whining about liberal bias, but actually finding something we can do)? Let's find it, and fix it! Hipocrite 20:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Hippcrite,

Thanks for the kind response. I have to tell you though that the 'church-lady' type editor who erased all my entries and wouldn't take any emails to discuss the matter, used up all my AGF. Now I just AYAAL (Assume you are all Liberals) and nothing you or anyone else has said has dissuaded me from my assumptions! :)

I think rather than accusing me of whining, an apology is in order but be that as it may, let's move forward as you suggest.

I'm complaining about the O'Reilly entry not Media Matters. Unless it's further changed, I'm happy with it so long as my contribution remains.

I will talk to you further about O'Reilly at the talk link for his entry.

Take care,

Big Daddy

Ps Thanks for the nice welcoming email. I just read it!Big Daddy 20:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Big Daddy 20:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

No worries. I was trying to get you jazzed up to fix something by using "whining." Looking back, my sentiment didn't come over clearly, and for that I apologize. I look forward to working with you on the O'Reiley article (does this mean I have to take time out from my World Of Warcraft hours to watch some silly politics show? I hope not!) I'm pretty confident that some sort of critical bit should be in this article, and I bet there are enough responsible editors here to make sure something critical stays. Hipocrite 20:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Links

I suggest we remove the link to Media Doesn't Matter to America-blog because it's outdated (several months since last entry) and was only maintained for six days during it's lifetime as well. Mastgrr 20:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

"Lnks to criticism are allowed and perfectly acceptable" is how someone responded when I deleted a critical MM link on a conservative subject. Therefore, links critical of MM should be allowed to stay. http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Mark_Levin&action=history

If this link is deleted, I plan to systematically remove MM links that are critical of other conservative subjects. Don1962 00:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Scope of article

This article seems to be more about the website than about the organization. We don't need to hear about its non-profit stance as much as we need to hear about its political stance.

Also, the article should not imply or even hint that MMA objectively analyses the convervative press.

And examples of "errors" MMA claims to have uncovered should be explained in the article, so our readers can judged for themselves whether MMA is good at exposing conservative bias or merely a bastion of liberal bias itself. Uncle Ed 02:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

They don't "claim to have uncovered," what they do is monitor and point out factual errors, misleading comments, false reports. The focus is on facts. To use language like "claims to have uncovered 'errors'" is misleading and strikes me as subtel pov pushing. MMFA is certainly not a bastion for liberal bias. Moreover MMFA's work is not in the realm of opinion vs. opinion, with MMFA, the emphasis is on substantiation, corrorboration, accountability. MMFA is part of the reality-based community, yes, but in terms of their reports, objectivity is always the primary melody, whereas what might be called "advocacy" takes the supporting harmony part. My suggestion would be to hold their work up to the lens of Journalism ethics and standards. Calicocat 04:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

And what "POV" am I pushing, by commenting on the objectivity of an article? Please point to an edit I made to the article, and indicate which POV you think I "pushed" by making it.

Ironically, MMA is not in the business of (1) elevating standards of journalistic ethics in general, or (2) pointing out any and all errors, insinuations or bias regardless of which "side" these things support. I'm not sure there is any non-partisan media watchdog, and the MMA article should not insinuate that MMA is one.

Unlike many people (and I'm not pointing the finger at you, so please don't "accuse me of accusing you"), I am well aware of the differences between my outlook on things and how most other people look at them. I can tell when my "objectively correct ideas" (as I think of them) are rejected by others.

As one of Wikipedia's top pushers of NPOV, I emphasize that our articles should not take sides in controversies or try to "settle" disputes, but merely describe each major POV in the dispute (please see Wikipedia:Points of view). Uncle Ed 14:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

And, as a point of contention, they do "claim" to uncover. What MMFA says is not gospel, and is and can be disputed. Their claim is that they uncover factual errors from the right. It's a claim, plain and simple, and can be disputed. This is a simple thing, is it not? --badlydrawnjeff 14:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Someone can claim the sky is red, too. Calicocat 16:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Sure, but you'll have a harder time finding a legitimate claim that the sky is red than you will that says, for instance, that MMFA was wrong. Considering the inherent partisanship and bias in MMFA (Paul Krugman, for example, is definitely deserving of fact-checking and criticism, but has no listing at MMFA), "claim" is absolutely the correct word. --badlydrawnjeff 16:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Vagueness of WSJ / Abu Ghraib example

Cut from article:

• Abu Ghraib "[Wall Street Journal] editorial (27 April 2005) falsely claimed Abu Ghraib report absolved senior officials." [1]

Absolved them of what?

The MMA analysis reads more like an editorial itself (or even an attack piece).

WSJ was talking about the "photographs" published around 8 months before the 2004 US elections. Their editorial said that the "photographed abuses" were unrelated to interrogations.

Is MMA saying they were wrong about this, or what?

Exactly in what way did the WSJ editorial claim that a report "absolved" senior officials? And why is this important? Is it MMA's position that: (1) senior officials were guilty? or (2) that it remains indeterminate whether they were guilty? Or what?

I've spent a lot of time studying websites and books which present themselves as watchdogs of one sort or another. Everybody's debunking everybody else.

But the standard operating practice amounts to little more than comparing (A) your version of facts and values with (B) whatever your ideological opponents have said and done. Any discrepancy is called a lie, an error, an evasion, a distortion, or bias. (Never any hint that you, the "watchdog" might have a bias or an agenda.) Uncle Ed 17:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Section: Examples of MMfA Bias

I followed a link from the NewsMax.com article, about half of which (as of 2-17-2006, 1130 CST) is devoted to "Misinformation" that NewsMax has been responsible for over the years, which I have not yet verified, but will assume to be true for the purposes of this post. Several of the sources were from MMfA. However the MMfA article was not structured in the same way. Rather, it has sources of conservative "misinformation" that IT has found.

Both the structure of the articles and the nature of the examples given (criticism of NewsMax in the NewsMax article, examples of competent MMfA analysis in the MMfA article) seem to imply that MMfA is a credible source and NewsMax is not. Moreover, because MMfA is listed as a source in the Misinformation section of the NewsMax article, one might also infer that MMfA is a much more credible source of information.

Having never been to the MMfA website before (http://mediamatters.org/), I gave it a try. In the feature article of the day, (http://mediamatters.org/items/200602160003), I could not readily find any examples of misinformation that was not corrected later in the article, but the language of the article (though not beholden to high Wikipedia NPOV-standards) leaves me uncomfortable about the insertion in this article about MMfA being dedicated to "correcting conservative misinformation." "he was drinking before he shot a man in the face" implies that he was drunk or at least impaired at the time of the accident and consuming alcohol immediately before the accident even though he drank one beer 3 hours before the incident. According to (http://www.onlineconversion.com/bac.htm), there would be a negligible amount of alcohol in system. Personally, based on this information, I don't think the issue is alcohol, but carelessness on the part of Whittington, but mostly Cheney.

At the end of the page, questions are posed such as:

"If the shooting was, as Cheney said, his fault and not Harry Whittington's, why did he allow his spokespeople to spend three days saying he had done nothing wrong and blaming the victim? Did he instruct them to do so? If they did it on their own, has he expressed displeasure? Will they publicly retract their smears of Whittington?" offering no evidence of any 'smears', and offering only insinuations.

On the same page, there is contact information for FoxNews so readers can "TAKE ACTION."

In contrast, on the same day, of the 39 front page articles (center column), 25 are from newswire services and of those, 23 are from the Associated Press; only 6 were actually written by Newsmax. This seems more like a news service than simply a body of political activism. In addition, some liberal columnists write editorials for NewsMax, including Susan Estrich, who is a regular.

Don't get me wrong, though. I'm not claiming that NewsMax is never wrong. I concede that they probably have been and it has most likely tended to favor conservatives. I'm not claiming NewsMax does not show a conservative slant. They do. However, I BELIEVE that their credibility on the "facts" is greater than MMfA and think I have shown at least some evidence to support this.

So in conclusion, I believe that there should be criticisms listed in the main article for MMfA, and possibly some more positive information added to the NewsMax article if anyone is willing to contribute to this.

Feel free to prove me wrong. If there are no objections, I will add some of this info to the MMfA (in a much-condensed version of course).

-Erik

Stanley011's additions/OR

Stanley011 (talk · contribs) added a paragraph beginning with

Media Matters also posts content unrelated to their stated mission of "comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media"...

I NPOV'd the paragraph and added {{fact}}, since the statement was unsourced. Stanley011 has been removing the tag and adding more links to examples of what he considers to be this type of behaviour.

These additions do not provide evidence of the assertion. Simply looking at the links on the MMFA website and concluding that they do not adhere to their stated mission constitutes original research. To support the statement we need a reliable source which makes the assertion (preferably supported by an analysis of MMFA's pattern of behaviour. To that end I am replacing the tag. Guettarda 02:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the remainder of the paragraph, since the editor appears unwilling or unable to supply a source (see here and here). It seems apparent that this is original research. Guettarda 13:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There is no need to editorialize and provide commentary. Just state the facts. I would also argue that adding that Media Matters also posts clips of segments of MSNBC's Keith Olbermann's 8PM show "Countdown" in which Olbermann engages in criticisms and insults of Bill O'Reilly, is not appropriate as it pertains to the value judgement of "insults". Let the reader make that distinction. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the attention being paid to the Olbermann/O'Reilly stuff. I looked at this site and found several different video clips on the front page, none of which had anything to do with either. Apparently they have a large number of clips, so this material hardly seems notable by its presence. Nor does the content make it notable. Pundits are always making jabs against each other. In some cases they are notable enough to mention on one or the other's page, but in the scheme of things these little feuds don't amount to much. I think the entire link is non-notable, and appears to be used as the basis for an unwarranted assertion about the implied hypocrisy of the editors. -Will Beback 08:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not focus on the full range of what media matters does? Wouldn't a complete article on the subject also HAVE to include these segments? I was under the impression that we aim for accuracy at wikipedia, and accuracy means not excluding details, but perhaps I am way off base on my assumptions. Stanley011 15:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Focussing on the full range of activities does not mean focussing on two video clips. The biggest problem with those clips is that we cannot play media critics ourselves and characterize the material in them. For us to say, "the clips contain baseless accusations" would be original research, because it would our opinion that the charges are unfounded. -Will Beback 21:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is one of context. How do these clips fit into the broader pattern of material supplied by MMFA? Does MMFA see them as an part of their mission? Are they there because they are popular with MMFA's audience (Olbermann on O'Reilly can be hilarious), are they there because MMFA considers them to further their mission? Or are they just trivia? Do they constitue <1% of what they post, or do they constitute 10-20% of what they post? Without including that sort of context, there's no way to present that material and stay true to NPOV. It's a judgement call to say that these clips constitute a failure of MMFA to stick to its mission. If that call is to be made, it must be made by someone who has taken a thorough look at MMFA as an organisation. Short of that, if one of their enemies has accused them of failing to adhere to their stated mission, then we can say that "X accuses them of ..."

With neither of those, to include this stuff violated NPOV and NOR. Guettarda 21:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's not just 2-3 clips but rather 30-40 (at least--of JUST Olbermann, not including other liberal pundits who poke fun at conservatives) if you actually go to the site and look for yourself. Clearly then, such postings are a significant part of MMFA's range of activities and an article that omits any mention of them is just plain inaccurate, and at the very least, unencyclopedic. Stanley011 14:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

If there are dozens or hundreds of clips of liberal pundits than we should say that rather than mentioning just two. The main issue here is with your characterization of the content of the clips, which appears to be your own opinion. -Will Beback 20:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

What kind of organization is MMFA?

I added "leftist" to better describe the political ideology of the organization. Wikipedia articles should be accurate and unbiased. thanks Vincent Shooter 12:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I put this back to progressive again. While there may not be an operational difference between the two terms, we're not able to call them what they're not called. If they call themselves leftist, or if we can find a neutral worthwhile source that calls them leftist, then we can call them leftist, but for the sake of accuracy, it needs to be "progressive." If there's any question on the matter, refer to our neutral point of view policy on the matter. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's a matter of neutrality - it's a matter of accuracy. They have a "leftist" agenda - that's not a pejorative aimed at the group; it's simply an explanation of what they're about. -- LoudMouth 12:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Tru dat

How is their own self-description inaccurate? Gamaliel 16:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

by the logic in the comment by badlydrawn above, wikipedia cannot label any subject unless that subject labels itself accordingly. if mmra calls itself "progressive", how is "leftist" (or something similar)inaccurate? and why is there a resistance to describing the political leanings of a political group? what is the big controversy here? -- LoudMouth 17:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

As a standard "what does this mean" thing, you're right - I see no operational difference between the two. Wikipedia, however, has policies on verifiability and point of view that pretty much have to be followed. As "leftist" is a wee bit loaded at times, and since we can't really call them leftist because they aren't described as such, we're best off using the term they use. Our feelings on what MMFA is and does is irrelevant to the article, we can only report what's known. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

i agree that "leftist" has been given an unfair connotation, as if "leftist" is a negative attribute. i withdraw my argument - you're right to leave it as is. Thanks -- LoudMouth 20:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Biased Article

There is a definite slant to this article. After all, according to the resources section, it seems to getting all the information on MMfA from MMfA itself. Furthermore, there is no section about criticisms of MMfA or of its website, and there is no section on the critical question of where MMfA gets its funding. Sections on both these topics are included in the article on Accuracy in Media. I would hope that Wikipedia would give similar organizations across the political spectrum fair and equal treatment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leopard261 (talk • contribs) July 27, 2006.

{{sofixit}} - Glen 03:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Fix it? Are you kidding? Attempting to "fix" it would be dealt with very swiftly and strictly by the libs here Equinox137 09:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're right, Equinox. I have tried to add a "Controversies"/"Criticisms" section, with fairly-worded examples of bad missteps and false charges by MMFA. (There's sections like this on entries for the conservative sites like MRC.) The entire section was immediately DELETED without explanation. - THREE times! There's definitely a bias problem going on here. D323P 19:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see your name in the list of contributors. When did you add the material, and was it osurced? -Will Beback · † · 21:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I edited earlier without a username. Yes, it was sourced, with footnotes. i have written a section below to comment on this further. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by D323P (talk • contribs) 00:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

This isn't any different from the code pink article. I got here through the wiki article on fair & accuracy in reporting (fair) and that article seemed to be done well. The fact is, Media Matters is a leftist/progressive news site that basically attacks well known conservatives CONSTANTLY. Heck, it is funded by George Soros & the moveon folks. Wake up! Media matters is EXTREMELY BIASED "News". It makes Fox look like socialists in comparison. -Bill Jenkins

And interestingly enough, Media Matters is identified, in the very first paragraph of this article, as a "progressive" watchdog monitoring "conservative" commentators. Are you suggesting that this article is claiming that Media Matters is politically balanced? It seems as if you are confusing this article with the Web site itself. If you have complaints about Media Matters, then by all means, send them to Media Matters. Seventypercent 01:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not certain if this is a discussion regarding the "Cliff Kincaid letter." That section needs significant work. The Kincaid response situation is NOT WP:RS. It is self published webpage. I could not find similar material on Accuracy_in_Media's site. Realistically, that section is a criticism of a letter Kincaid received, and in the end there is no WP:RS defending the letter or disproving the MMA's claims that it is not verifiable as legitimate. Recommend reliable sources, removal, or rewrite. DocGratis 16:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

Should be elaborated further on the main page!

--0pt 00:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I take issue with many aspects of this article, but in the interest of time I will only delineate a few.

First of all, the creators of this page take at face-value David Brock's assertion that Media Matters is a "progressive" media "watchdog."

By affixing the term progressive to this organization you are making the supposition that MMA is nonpartisan, and adheres to fixed, unyielding principles, which are normally associated with the American left, and which guide its criticism of major media organizations, regardless of party affiliation. Something analogous to Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting.

However, this assumption couldn't be further from the truth.

MMA is consciously modeled after L. Brent Bozell's Media Research Center, and like that organization is closely aligned with a specific political party, and the activists, officeholders, pundits, etc., associated with that party and its ideology.

In fact, it could be argued that MMA is more of a lapdog, since Brent Bozell has occasionally broken ranks with the Bush administration, e.g. his criticism of Harriet Miers, whereas David Brock-to the best of my knowledge-has never issued any substantive critique of current members of the Dem. minority in either the House or the Senate.

This leads me to my second point.

Namely, the conspicuous lack of any section devoted to criticism.

Are you implying that Media Matters has no critics, or that its methods have never been scrutinized over the course of the past two years?

Finally, why is there no mention of David Brock's dubious ethics and questionable past behavior within the context of this article?

Isn't that pertinent to the discussion of whether the work of his brain-child-or the brain-child of his wealthy leftist benefactors, rather-has any inherent credibility?

Ruthfulbarbarity 00:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there no way to post a criticisms section on this article that cannot be deleted by partisans of MMA? Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral but this article is so evidently biased (and not only by lacking a section on criticisms made about MMA) that it is not even funny. Try deleting a criticism section from entries of World Net Daily, NewxMax, or FOXNews and see what happens. What is good for the conservative goose is good for the so-called "progressivist" gander! ShawnM 23:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

One other thing, this article would be a good as an addition to a section on criticism of MMA's founder David Brock as would this one. The credibility (or lack thereof) of the founder of MMA would be a reasonable acid test standard from which people can assess the reliability of MMA as a source generally speaking. ShawnM 00:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Because this section is specifically about criticisms of MM, links to audio and video clips criticizing MM during the organization's attacks on Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh should certainly be appropriate for this article. After all, MM inserted itself into the dispute. Don1962 00:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with including this description of an interview a MM official had on a prominent cable TV news program during the MM attack on talk radio that was watched by millions?

In an interview with Paul Waldman, a Media Matters' senior fellow and director of special projects , MSNBC MSNBC commentator Tucker Carlson, in an Oct. 3 interview labeled the organization a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party. Don1962 00:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Lead Paragraph

The Media Research Center wikipedia article's opening paragraph presents a NPOV introduction to that organization, and I believe we should maintain the same standards with this article. Also note the NPOV lead paragraph(s) for the FAIR article. From time to time, various editors have attempted to insert "leftist", "left-leaning", "liberal", "far-left", etc descriptive labels into the first paragraph here. I've just slightly rewritten/reorganized the lead section to conform to the NPOV tone of the MRC and FAIR articles. If you can think of a better way to avoid POV problems, please edit accordingly or discuss the matter here. Thanks.--Hal Raglan 18:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this description POV?

After the organization in 2007 attacked prominent radio and television hosts, critics called Media Matters a left-learning attack group.

Media Matters has frequently inserted itself into political controversies and attacked public figures such as Don Imus, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly. Therefore, I feel a description of what critics say about the group should be allowed.

Don1962 00:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This belongs in the criticism section and properly sourced with attribution. Which critics say this? Are they notable? Did they use the phrase "left wing attack group"? Please move it to the appropriate section and provide a reliable source that backs up this claim. Thanks, --guyzero | talk 22:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Jeff Gagnon

I think this section needs to be researched. It is uncited and it is possible that Media Matters had very little to do with his exposure. --Blue Tie 07:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the following paragraph to this talk page because it is generally false:

The organization is credited with being instrumental in the fall of Jeff Gannon, a.k.a. James Guckert, a reporter for the conservative online news service Talon News. Gannon was featured prominently during White House press briefings and was viewed as asking softball questions of White House press secretary Scott McClellan during press conferences. He was also seen as mocking leaders of the Democratic Party. Media Matters tracked Gannon's movements and discovered secret or fraudulent activities on his part. For example, Media Matters reported Gannon's activities such as advertising himself as a male escort and posting nude pictures of himself on the Internet. They also revealed that he was operating under a false name. After Gannon was exposed, he resigned from his position at Talon News, which had been unaware of his false identity and actions. Talon later shut down to "re-evaluate operations."

--Blue Tie 10:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Using Media Matters as a source on wikipedia

I started a discussion at [2]. Arbusto 02:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.

There should be no question that Media Matters, by its own description, is POV. The phrase "correcting conservative misinformation" alone should be evidence enough that MM content does not constitute NPOV.Fsjonsey 17:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Small question here

How is Media Matters able to archive multimedia clips, some of which are quite lengthy, from news networks without infringing copyright laws? Ethereal 10:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I've wondered this too. My guess is they use fair-use and use enough to establish full context of the statement they wish to comment on, which is why in lengthy pieces they have to cut to the next comment. I in no way have law experience though :P Dmanning 03:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Cybercast source

Can we clear up what the problem is? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

One, CSN is not a reputable news organization. Gamaliel 15:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Because...? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Two, this Soros stuff is just ridiculous. Why is there a discussion of who they are not getting funding from? Why is this notable or encyclopedic? Why not include other people whose money MMfA does not receive? Gamaliel 15:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be a discussion about who they're getting funding from, actually. The denial from MM is an interesting wrinkle to the story. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Then it should discuss who they get their funding from, not who they don't get their funding from, using a right-wing hit piece designed to attempt to make the organization look duplicitous. Gamaliel 16:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It does that already, and I'm still not convinced it's a "right wing hit piece." --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence does that, with information taken from a legit source. The second sentence is an unsourced denial regarding Soros with no information about why this is important, relevant, or encyclopedic. The third sentence is from a hit piece framed to make MMfA look like it is backpedalling or covering something up regarding the second sentence. Gamaliel 17:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Good grief. While Wiki entries for conservative sites, like MRC, contain "controversies" and "criticisms," they've been DELETED from Media Matters' entry. The funding issue is discussed and displayed prominently on the MRC entry. There's no reason why it shouldn't be posted on MMFA's entry. And for CNS to be called "not a reputable news organization" is unfair, and it's indicative of the problem of liberal bias here at Wikipedia. This entire entry reads like a glowing press release for Media Matters. Any remotely unflattering characterizations or incidents have been scrubbed. *Sigh* Sorry for the rant, but I'm frustrated by what I see to be an obvious double standard and a bias against posting any unflattering episodes or comments about MMFA. Thank you! D323P 19:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have absolutely no issue with a sourced discussion of MM's funding sources. What is at issue here is a discussion of the organization not receiving funding from George Soros. Nothing has been presented to establish that this is a notable controversy or criticism or is in any way relevant or encyclopedic. Gamaliel 17:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the recent revert (which also restored the dubious unrelated intro material) which stated "the relevance of the Soros information is that it clarifies where MM's funding comes from." Could you please explain how a discussion of their not getting money from Soros clarifies anything? What needs to be clairifed? What is the controversy or issue at hand? Where is the reliable source that substantiates that this is an issue at all? Gamaliel 18:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It appears that they are, in fact, getting money from Soros, however, it is coming indirectly, through proxy organizations owned by him. That is how I understand it. --Blue Tie 03:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

exactly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Prove it. If you do, I'll be the first to support such a statement in the article. But the fact that Soros gave money to someone who gave money to MMfA isn't a connection, it's a conjecture, and as such has no place in the article. According to WP's article on Move On, Linda Pritzker of the Hyatt hotel family gave over double, almost triple what Soros did to that organization. Is Pritzker funneling money to MMfA? Why would Soros or anyone else need to do so in any case? Why not just give it directly? What would be the big deal if he did give money to MMfA? The fact that some right wing hit piece thinks there is something sinister afoot is no reason to assume that there is. I am removing this conjecture from the article and I will continue to do so unless someone presents a case that shows some sort of direct connection and not conjecture and sinister whispering. Gamaliel 00:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

So if another source can be provided that Soros funding is linked to MMfA, you'll stop reverting it? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by a link? Because I don't think the existing source proves a link, it's all just smoke and mirrors. I would think the minimum standard would be a reliable source demonstrating (and not speculating about) a direct one to one connection. Gamaliel 18:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not really smoke and mirrors, it's an actual link between Soros and MMfA funding. Why do you feel it needs to be "direct" to be included? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Because if the link is indirect, then it is speculation beyond the scope of this article. Soros to MoveOn to MMfA proves nothing because plenty of other people donate to MoveOn, some in much larger quantities. Gamaliel 18:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but given the controversy surrounding it, which is the issue at hand and not the funding, that's why it's worth noting more than many others - and, in fact, we should mention the others as well. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, I ask: what controversy? A hit piece on an obscure partisan website is not a controversy. Gamaliel 18:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'm not sure it's a hit piece, and Soros's funding and the groups he funds are controversial in many circles. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I support Gamaliel's view on this issue. The CSN article is undeniably nothing more than a hit piece, written strictly to make it seem like MMfa is up to something shady when it comes to funding. The article is full of conjecture and negative comments from partisan conservatives. Why anyone would argue that CSN could ever be used as a reliable source is beyond me. And I don't understand why people are making such a big deal on this. Take a look at the article on Media Research Center. They are funded by numerous conservative organizations, but there is no suggestion made in the article that their acceptance of these funds is "wrong". Despite the claim above that "The funding issue is discussed and displayed prominently on the MRC entry", its only mentioned in passing and, in fact, the organizations aren't even identified as conservative. They are simply ambiquously described as being "foundations". Why are people insisting on having a double standard here?-Hal Raglan 18:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Just because a source is partisan doesn't mean it's not reliable. Are the facts in doubt? Is the reliability of source in terms of factual content in doubt? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that some partisan sources have comparatively high journalistic standards and can be considered reliable in the presentation of facts. The facts as detailed in the CSN article are that MMfa issued a statement clarifying that they do not receive funding directly from Soros. MMfa's statement was issued in response to CSN's assertion that they did receive funding from Soros. The rest of the article attempts to paint MMfa's statements in a negative manner, suggesting that they are somehow "covering up" their financial sources. This is pure partisan spin and innuendo. Gamaliel's edit of the section retains the details about MMfa receiving financial support from "wealthy liberals", and this is cited to what is normally considered to be a reliable source. That's good enough. Why should we care who does not fund MMfa?-Hal Raglan 19:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be about who doesn't fund MMfA, but who does. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and MMfa's actual funding sources can undoubtedly be detailed utilizing a more reliable source than CSN. I know you keep insisting that the CSN article isn't a hit piece but it sure reads like one to me. Why can't this article simply mention MMfa's funding sources the way the Media Research Center article does, in brief passing and without any editorial suggestion of nefariousness? Richard Scaife funds MRC, and he's every bit as controversial as Soros...and yet there's not a hint of wrongdoing in the MRC article regarding his funding of that organization.-Hal Raglan 20:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

'Controversies' added

I have added a well-researched, honestly worded section of 'controversies' to this article. It is BADLY needed. This article on Media Matters has been specifically cited to support the allegation that there is a rampant liberal bias here at Wikipedia. [[3]] Someone erased my changes before, falsely claiming there were "factual problems." That's rubbish. If you edit this page, please comment below. Thank you. Stop the bias! D323P 00:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Since none of the "controversies" you added were actual controversies, I've changed the heading to "Criticisms". And because blogs are not reliable sources, I've removed a complaint you included from a blogger. I've also reduced the section's horrific POV problems.-Hal Raglan 15:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me, but blogs can be reliable sources if the facts are right!! And you fail to cite the so-called "horrific POV problems." There are none, as far as I can see. Please. Let's make this an honest article. Thank you. I have no problem changing the heading to "Criticisms." D323P 04:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If you really believe that the section you wrote had no POV problems, I strongly suggest you immediately read the following: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Also, since you demonstrate an eagerness to refer to other editors you don't agree with as "vandals", read Wikipedia:Vandalism in order to understand what constitutes vandalism on wikipedia.-Hal Raglan 03:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I have read those. Read my comment below. D323P 04:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop the vandalism. All three 'criticism' items are fair and factually accurate. The Wiki entry on Bill O'Reilly promotes an anti-O'Reilly blog in the article! There is nothing wrong with linking to a blog if the facts are accurate. Remember, it was blogs that uncovered the Dan Rather forgeries. As much as people want to give the impression that MMFA never errs - sorry, folks, but they do! Thank you for keeping this article fair and up to Wikipedia's standards. D323P 01:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

A quick glance at the blog post sourcing the O'Reilly guests paragraph reveals that it's not up to snuff regardng what WP requires of its sources. Opposition to including some of this has nothing to do with the belief that "MMFA never errs", but rather Wikipedia policy, specifically WP:V. The converse of what you say is also true: we should not reduce our standards for sourcing to give the impression that Media Matters does err. If the same criticism appears in a reliable source other than this blog or others like it, I would be OK with including it. As it is, it seems way too much like one person or one group's opinion. Also, your blanket revert is somewhat frowned upon. I made a chance to the item on Hume's pronouns that improved the prose and neutral phrasing, avoiding the "ever said such a thing" POV language with something more netural. Simply reverting back to the version you originally added or endorsed is not the way to go with things like this. Croctotheface 02:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"A quick glance at the blog post sourcing the O'Reilly guests paragraph reveals that it's not up to snuff regardng what WP requires of its sources." Puh-leeze. Why don't you let the reader make up his own mind about that! In addition, this is unequivocally a clear-cut case of a double standard. Blogs are OK when criticizing conservatives, but not when criticizing MMFA. MMFA may be an "organization," but does it really operate any differently than a blog? Of course not. Why is MMFA an acceptable source for citing "criticisms" of conservatives, but a conservative's blog isn't acceptable to criticize liberals? It's an obvious double standard. D323P 04:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with liberal vs. conservative. If there is only one blogger or a small group of them covering a topic, it fails WP:V, which is Wikipedia policy. Here is the text dealing with this issue from WP:V:

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

The blogger in question, based on what I've seen at the link, is not a professor or journalist or someone otherwise recognizable as an expert, but rather just "some guy". This does not meet the threshold required of sources by WP:V. Croctotheface 10:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"I made a chance to the item on Hume's pronouns that improved the prose and neutral phrasing ..." Maybe you did, but it has been deleted again I see. The bias here is unbelievable. D323P 04:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, making statements in your edit summaries to the effect that those who disagree with you are engaging in vandalism is counterproductive and against the spirit of Wikipedia. This is a collarborative project, and editors are encouraged to assume good faith when dealing with content disagreements. Croctotheface 02:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism is vandalism, bro'. Did you see the comment by Equinox above? When one user said the article needed a criticism section, another user wrote, "So fix it." Equinox, replied, "Fix it? Are you kidding? Attempting to 'fix' it would be dealt with very swiftly and strictly by the libs here." He is absolutely correct! That is exactly what is going on here. I am working in good faith; "others" are not. D323P 04:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

These "libs" you speak of could be acting in bad faith. However, you are encouraged to assume good faith, as I said above, which you have not done. Content disputes are NOT vandalism, as the policy says very clearly. Even if someone's motivations behind disagreeing with you over content are caused by their political point of view, that still doesn't make their edits vandalism. How about finding better sources for what you want to include and trying to establish consensus here on the talk page rather than edit warring? Croctotheface 10:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"Better sources"? In one of the examples I listed (and you deleted), the only source was Media Matters itself! You are only proving Equinox's point that "[a]ttempting to 'fix' it would be dealt with very swiftly and strictly by the libs here." Thank you for following Wikipedia guidelines, such as assuming good faith and not vandalizing. D323P 01:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

"Bias"

Media Matters consistently claims that it criticizes "content not intent" and specifically repudiates the use of the term "bias." It is therefore inaccurate to say that it targets media "it perceives to have a conservative bias." I have therefore changed the statement to reflect the perception they state they actually have rather than attributing a position to them that they don't say they take. Janus303 00:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Just because they "claim" it doesn't make it so! MMFA's own website refers to a "conservative agenda." That is clearly their own biased POV. D323P 23:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

But what if there is one? How can fact be biased? Fifty7 20:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I want to remind editors that this page is for discussing improvements to the Media Matters for America article, not a general discussion of the subject itself. Croctotheface 15:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I gotta say it appears they are discussing the wording of the article, and what they are saying, even if long winded, is on the topic raised regarding the wording of this article. It seems totally appropriate to me to use this Talk page for discussing the wording of the article. That is why I keep reverting the repeated attempts to remove information the remover apparently doesn't want people to see, particlularly where his comments are more directed toward name calling than toward wiki policy. And the policy actually cited does not fully support his/her position. Thought you all should know, and this is my opinion. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 02:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That comment above, which keeps getting removed by an administrator, is certainly someone's opinion about the group. Saying that because he offered his opinion in response to a discussion of wording within the article does not mean that his opinion is germane to that discussion. I support the decision to remove it. Croctotheface 03:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

His being an administrator does not mean he is correct, and your implying so makes your own opinion questionable, only because you have revealed a bias toward administrators generally. Wiki policy trumps administrators every time, respectfully speaking, of course. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 04:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I brought up that he is an administrator because by virtue of being elected to the position, he is expected to have a greater understanding of WP policy than you or I. You are very insistent that your reading of the policy is correct, but I'm not convinced. You seem to be couching your opinion on the "don't edit other's comments" language, but what he did was not EDITING comments, it was removing them. I have seen off-topic comments removed in plenty of cases, and in general I find that it is a prudent thing to do. At this point, I'd probably advocate removing (or at least archiving) our present discussion because it does not pertain to improving the Media Matters for America article. Croctotheface 04:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If you disagree with my decision, the proper thing to do is discuss it with me on my talk page or bring it to another administrator for a second opinion, perhaps through one of the notice boards or their personal talk pages. The improper thing to do is to do what you have done, disrupt this page with an edit war to make a point. I ask that you please stop this edit war and take this off-topic discussion to another forum, either my talk page or a relevant noticeboard. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 14:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, I was just following wiki policy, and you cited wiki policy that I read and overcame and noted such in the history comments. You never responded or explained why my quoted sections do not apply. You are the one edit warring here. I am just following policy.

Seeing as you are continuing to force your view, I'm going to do what the wiki policies are designed to avoid, and that is to get discouraged and just give up. You have not proven that a person responding to a question about the presence of bias violates policy for responding, albeit with a long-winded response. You have just declared what you wanted, even adding new warning messages to the top of this page, then declared I was not in compliance with the new warning messages. And when you read that policy, one could come to the conclusion that what you are doing is wrong. But you overcome that by casting aspersions on me for attempting to follow policy and the original poster for attempting to respond to a debate. I mean we are talking about a talk page here. Almost nothing gets removed from that except in egregious circumstances that are just not the case here. But you apparently have personal goals that supercede wiki policies.

At this point, with you clearly driven to remove that guy's comments from this Talk page despite policy, I simply see no more need to spend time trying to do what's right, for which I only get rewarded with being told I'm edit warring. What a joke.

By the way, if I disagree with your deletion, why is it I am required by you to jump though your hoops. As the deleter, you should be required to clearly explain your deletion before it gets deleted. I am very dissatisfied with what has happened here, and perhaps your role as an administrator should be reviewed. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 21:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that this was such a negative experience for you, but you have not acted appropriately in this matter. Proper methods of dispute resolution on Wikipedia are not "hoops" that I personally designed for your torment, but standard methods of resolving disputes regarding all articles. Edit warring is simply not a proper response to this matter, nor is attacking my motives and making false accusations because you don't get your way. I have no motive other than to assist in preventing Wikipedia talk pages for becoming a platform for off-topic rants. I suggest you read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, where it specifically notes that WP is not a message board or a web forum or other place where off-topic rants might be appropriate. Article talk pages are for discussion of the article only and it is standard practice to intervene when it becomes a platform for drive-by rants or other things contrary to its purpose. It is not a free speech zone where the gripes of a one-time Wikipedia user are preserved for all time. Apparently you disagree with this idea and feel the right thing to do is to preserve this user's speech, but these pages are tools to improve an encyclopedia, and it is not our mission to provide a platform for the world's rants. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 22:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't give up, do you. I considered what you said in history then provided a counter response from the policy you cited, but you never responded, just began to make ad hominem remarks. I am not in the slightest intimidated by your repeatedly mischaracterizing my efforts to comply with policy. You made statements, I responded, you moved on to the next issue never addressing my response, and suddenly I'm accused of edit warring, again and again, just for trying to follow wiki policy. And you persist in doing so. That guy's comments may have contained "gripes," but they were in the context of responding to legitimate Talk page material. They were not mere rants calling MMfA George Soros's puppet or anything like that. It appears to me that you personally did not like what he had to say and you personally felt driven again and again to excise his comments. Weighing you against me, exclusion versus inclusion, inclusion is the desired path. Are you afraid of free speech, especially where the guy was merely responding to legitimate issues raised legitimately on the Talk page? The guy was not making a "rant," he was responding to someone else, perhaps too passionately for some, but in the context that is my reading of what happened here in this case. So go ahead, exclude the guy's legitimate if inartful response and mischaracterize my actions again. It rolls right off my shoulders. Someone really does need to review whether your position as administrator should be reexamined. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling

I'm sorry that you didn't get the response you wanted from me, but in disagreements, other parties generally don't agree with you. Imagine that. We have an honest disagreement about the worth of these comments: in my judgment they were a drive-by rant by a one-time user who managed to rack up an impressive number of personal attacks, vandalism edits, and homophobic remarks in his brief eight edit history; in yours they were a reasonable but ham-fisted response. But your conduct in this disagreement was not in the least reasonable: first edit warring, then attacking my motives in every manner imaginable and claiming you are being attacked by non-existent "ad hominem remarks". "Afraid of free speech"? Never mind the ridiculous nature of this attack - do you really think this is appropriate and civil? You are fond of quoting policy - is your conduct in line with Wikipedia:Civility?

If you really think my conduct and not yours is what needs review, then you are welcome to persue that in the appropriate forum if you are interested in jumping through those policy "hoops" and are not merely attempting to get in another attack. I will stand by my actions and I am willing to defend them on the administrator's noticeboard or to Arbcom. But I ask that you take these steps against me, or take the issue to my talk page, or do anything else but continue to waste everyone's time here on this page, including your own, with this pointless grandstanding. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 02:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll grant you this. I was not aware of this: "a one-time user who managed to rack up an impressive number of personal attacks, vandalism edits, and homophobic remarks in his brief eight edit history." Honestly, I was not aware of that until now. Honestly, had I been aware of that, I likely would not have restored his comments. Please understand I only considered the one edit in question and, in isolation, it looked wobbly but on target to me, and you did not convince me otherwise. Based on this, I'll have to say I apologize for causing this big brouhaha over this guy's single comment. I was totally unaware of his previous conduct, as you describe it. In fact, when you called him a troll, I viewed that as a personal attack on a newbie and not very nice. And that would be a correct conclusion based on a single edit without being aware of the totality of his edits. But I was unaware that his prior edits amounted to exactly that, or indeed that he even had any prior edits. Do you understand now. I am basically saying we both acted correctly from our point of views, only I was not fully informed of his prior edits, and for your part, you did not clue me in on this until now. So I'll just say oops, I'm sorry, and let's part friends. Cool? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 03:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. I'm sincerely glad we could settle this amicably. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 18:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of criticism section

Wikipedia clearly and unequivocally states that "All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source." The sources are clearly reliable and published. Again, Croc, please remember the Wikipedia guidelines and assume good faith. D323P 00:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:A says:

Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, that would be an example of an unpublished synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and it constitutes original research.

That is exactly what is going on in this case. As such, it should not be included per Wikipedia policy. Croctotheface 00:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, just to clarify, there needs to be a source that makes reference to the discrepancies in quetsion here as criticism or controversy. As it is, there are several paragraphs that all have a fact A (with citation) and a fact B (with citation), but the context and the title of the section serve to advance position C, that MM is embroiled in criticism. Also, regarding assumptions of good faith, User:D323P has reverted this article multiple times despite a consensus against the edits he wishes to include, particularly the Brit Hume correction and O'Reilly Factor guest tabulations. It's hard to assume that he is operating in good faith with respect to establishing and following consensus. Furthermore, the item about Mel Gibson completely misrepresents what the Media Matters item says. The article says: "A September 24, 2006 post claimed Bill O'Reilly was incorrect in his Culture Warrior book when he wrote that the Washington Post's Ann Hornaday 'criticized [Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ] for bad history.'" (emphasis added) In fact, the MM item did not say that O'Reilly got this particular quote wrong. The MM item instead says that O'Reilly was incorrect in a different suggestion: that Hornaday uncritically praised Fahrenheit 9/11 and criticized The Passion of the Christ. In fact, she criticized both films for preaching to the choir. Since I'm sure that this is a good faith mistake, I trust that D323P will remove this incorrect item himself. Croctotheface 00:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

A ... "Position C" is not that "MM is embroiled in criticism." As in the sections on Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter and Media Research Center (notice that they are all conservatives; do you see the recurring theme here, folks?), the 'criticism' section cites verifiable and published examples in which the organization erred in its stated mission. Do you see the statement under this box? "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." B... There absolutely has been no "consensus against the edits." Within minutes (if not seconds!) after its posting, User:Croctotheface has deleted material containing verifiable and published material. C ... With regards to the Bill O'Reilly/Mel Gibson issue, MMFA clearly and unequivocally misled their readers by linking to a review which was not the review of the Passion film itself. Maybe this should be clarified. I will, for the time being, remove this section until it is further clarified. However, I will do so only under the condition that the other items remain in place. D ... The "Neutrality" flag perfectly affirms Equinox's oh-so-true comment that "Attempting to 'fix' [this article] would be dealt with very swiftly and strictly by the libs here." The liberal bias here is rampant and pervasive, and editors are not assuming good faith. D323P 01:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your reference to O'Reilly et al is meant to illustrate. I can't speak to the Coulter or MRC examples, but from my work on the Criticism of Bill O'Reilly article, I recall that the controversies and criticisms relating to him were reported on by the mainstream media or advanced by people such as Keith Olbermann who are mainstream media figures themselves. As such, they are examples of NOTABLE criticism. If criticism of Media Matters is coming from a small handful of blogs and has not merited coverage in reliable sources, then it does not pass WP:A. As such, I don't see evidence of the PREMISE of the section--that Media Matters is being criticized. That in itself is the "position C" which is being advanced. It really reads as if one editor spent some time researching Media Matters items that he finds dubious and then put them into the encyclopedia. I have seen no evidence that any of this is not original research. Croctotheface 02:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that you've removed the disputed content. I think that it's obvious that we need some more opinions here. Maybe a third opinion is in order. Croctotheface 02:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what is the criticism in the below paragraph? Who made the criticism? This simply appears to be that Media Matters recognized a mistake was made and then issued a correction. If that's not the case, then this needs to be rewritten, and adequately sourced, to make the criticism--and the critic--more obvious:

"A July 24, 2006 item claimed that Fox News Channel anchor Brit Hume, in a broadcast the previous day, referred to the GOP-led House of Representatives as "we." After reviewing the tape of the broadcast in question, Media Matters issued a correction stating that it "should not have asserted" that Hume had said such a thing."-Hal Raglan 01:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The below paragraph also doesn't make clear what the criticism is, or who made the criticism. I suspect it may simply be original research, and should be removed:

"An August 2, 2006, post claimed that the allegation that Hillary Clinton made an anti-Semitic slur in 1974 had been "discredited." Media Matters' source for the allegation was Gail Sheehy, who had written a biography largely sympathetic to Ms. Clinton. Meanwhile, the object of the slur, in addition to three purported witnesses, told CNN in 2000 that Ms. Clinton had indeed uttered the remark."-Hal Raglan 01:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've rewritten the below paragraph for clarity and accuracy, but I still don't understand why a blog site that is solely dedicated to monitoring Media Matters for alleged "mistakes" should be used as a reliable source:

"Media Matters' methodology in their periodic studies has also come under question by the blog site "Media Matters Watch". According to a May 22, 2006, study by Media Matters, the guest list of the television program The O'Reilly Factor was "dominated" by Republicans and conservatives. Media Matters Watch challenged the results of the study, alleging that several guests who are often perceived as liberal, like Jonathan Turley and Alex Jones (journalist), were labeled as "neutral," while others were "questionably tagged" as conservative.-Hal Raglan 01:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

My opinion on a lot of these issues should be clear from my edits and comments. In addition to the original research/unpublished synthesis concerns, I'm also concerend about the precedent that some of these items would establish. The Brit Hume pronoun story is a case where MM made an error and issued a correction. I fail to see how this is notable, let alone evidence of "criticism". The criticism coming from "Media Matters Watch" seems like a tautology--obviously a blog dedicated to criticizing Media Matters is going to criticize Media Matters. Including mentions of such "watch" groups' criticism in WP articles could also set a terrible precedent: each and every group that has a blog could get its stuff printed in Wikipedia articles about the group or individual they criticize. This would be, for lack of a better term, horrible. Croctotheface 03:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that MM reads like a blog itself. They publish very little, and most of their information is video and audio commentary with opinion and commentary (sometimes) by MM authors. Moreso, MM appears to be an anti-Fox news blog with a few others thrown in for good measure. Considering the great weight that MM has in attributing critisims in other articles on Wikipedia it is only fair that some of the controversies regarding MM be included in this article. The Kincaid issue a clear example of a legitimate controversy which should be included. Arzel 04:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Kincaid 'criticism'

I am pulling this section. I don't see how it works as significant criticism against Media Matters. The events went down as follows (summarizing I know) Kincaid posts a HTML document with images inserted for the letterhead and the signature, and the body text of the letter is retyped text. Then Media Matters says that this 'letter' is an "electronic collage." Kincaid reply they are making it seem like I didn't a letter (which for reason he lists) he originally post electronic collage. He then posts a black and white scan of an envelope and letter. Media Maters says that they called it an electonic collage, and Kincaid doesn't deny this. Uh How is this a criticism of Media Matters? DocGratis 03:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. This is an obvious controversy of MM. The first paragraph from MM reads as such. Accuracy in Media (AIM) editor Cliff Kincaid has posted a "letter" on his America's Survival Inc. website that he claims to have received from Afghan ambassador Said Tayeb Jawad. The "letter" thanks Kincaid for sending a petition to the ambassador calling for the extradition of Newsweek investigative correspondent Michael Isikoff to Afghanistan. But the "letter" from the ambassador, which makes reference to "the over six hundred supporters" who purportedly signed petitions calling for Isikoff's extradition, bears all the hallmarks of a do-it-yourself, cut-and-paste job. MM clearly indicates they do not believe Kincaid recieved such a letter. Considering how much criticism MM portrays on others it is only reasonable to assume they have their own criticism, and the fact that an obvious criticism is not included here when marginal critisisms like the Disputed War on Christmas from the BOR Criticism article. As for the citiations, what makes MM's ability to do You Tube any more legitimate than a some other blogger? Arzel 05:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Kincaid is not a legit source, I meant the final word on it is MM, how likely is it going to be a criticism of MM? MM said that Kincaid claimed to have a received a letter, and called the thing he originally posted an electronic collage. Which it was. What Kincaid originally posted was a gif of the letter head and a gif of the signature with HTML text between it. Clearly nothing about that demonstrates a letter was received, or what the letters contents were, if it was a real letter. At most MM could be guilty of inflammatory rhetoric. But nothing about what Kincaid posts demonstrated the veracity of a letter, or its contents. In fact, it is a fake letter. It is NOT the original letter, nor is a scan, fax or other direct reprint of the letter, it is a retyped letter with gifs attached at the top and bottom. And to quote MM's second article Kincaid's claim is the letter was "fake but true". DocGratis 12:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I think we are asserting just how much of a controversy this is. I think your interpretation is wrong. What MM says clearly makes a statement to the claim that Kincaid has made. It would appear if anything controversy still exists regarding this issue. What is you reasoning for not wanting it included?Arzel 14:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This really isn't much of a "controversy". I think that it is certainly a criticism of sorts, so there is an argument to be made for inclusion on those grounds, but I don't see a controversy in the sense that it received any sort of notoriety outside "I hate Media Matters" circles. MM could be guilty, as User:DocGratis says, of a degree of sloppiness in allowing readers to assume that they had evidence that Kincaid was making something up. However, their language was measured, as they later pointed out. Croctotheface 16:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. At worse it is sloppy and slightly inflammatory (They should re write for NPOV (har har)). But their original assertion was correct. This is the letter (or the version of the letter) that Kincaid originally posted [4], it has no veracity to it. It may be a represent a real letter, but it itself is not a letter or a copy of a letter. (note that ref (is FROM kincaid's site, and is the 'letter' that Kincaid and MM orginally wrote about, later he scanned a copy.) DocGratis 17:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

DocGratis, your ref doesn't seem to link correctly. In any case, who's opinion is that it has no verocity? Arzel 02:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not a matter of opinion. (I've fixed the link) The link shows the letter Kincaid posted. It could say anything between the images. A picture or a scan of the intact letter would have some element of authenticity to it. DocGratis 04:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Another classic example of the rampant and relentless liberal bias here at Wikipedia. The Kincaid episode has been totally and unceremoniously scrubbed. D323P 20:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

BOR criticism of MM - NPOV

I have seen a flurry of recent changes to this article dealing with the criticism BOR has with MM. It is well documented that BOR considers MM to be a far-left organization funded indirectly by George Soros. Why then is his information considered persona non grata on the article when MM is used as a source of criticism for numerous other articles? I sense a serious double standard. DocGratis your reason for not allowing this appears very biased. This is a criticism of MM by O'Reilly. Arzel 01:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic use of logic and brilliant complaint. Except that I did not remove BOR's statement. But his claim that Soros funds MM to drive his particular political machinations is not supported with any evidence. Even if Soros gave funds those organizations, and they in turn gave MM that does not show control. This is not the game Illuminati, nor is it the Kevin Bacon game. BOR is not persona non grata, his statements in this instance are facta non grata. But he can be cited in the sense that he claims or even states. But it better be in quotes. You want to point articles where MM is being used in a POV manner feel free (I'll even look at them). But slapping a POV on an article because you feel like Soros needs to be blamed for something in the MM article is nonsensical. Finally, statements about Soros (or any other living person need to adhere to WP:BLP aka we need facts not claims by talking heads.) DocGratis 02:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no feeling one way or the other regarding Soros, however, some feel that MM is funded indirectly through him. This is valid criticism of MM, what additional evidence do you need for it to be a valid criticism of MM. Why is the bar set higher for MM criticism then for anyone they criticise? Arzel 02:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of MM is fine, saying that Soros is using MM to drive his agenda is a statement about a Living Person and would be a criticism of him as well as MM. Citable facts are need, proof is needed. This particular connection (Soros runs MM, has repeated been attempted in this article, multiple times, all with no evidence to support the claim.) And as I said before show me the MM criticism against other articles and I will take a look at it. DocGratis 03:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

As for MM criticism relating to other articles, what I said was that MM is used as a source for criticism. For example, the Joe Scarborough issue http://mediamatters.org/items/200701050011 on the http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Criticism_of_Bill_O%27Reilly article is the primary source of criticism. Yet this is nothing more than a blog report of the incident, and it cuts commentary by Bill Kohn possibly changing the context. It just appears that there is a lot of bias regarding anything which could possibly be viewed as negative against MM, yet their blog reports are littered all over the place almost without question. They even have a section for what they percieve as attacks against them (this being one) non of which are included here. All I am saying, is that if they are going to be used as a source, then it should be noted moreso that many groups are critical of them for doing so. Such as Kincaid (which by itself is worthy) and O'Reilly. As I have said earlier (not sure if in this discussion), MM appears to be using WP as an outlet for its opinion. In their defense the same can be said of some conservative organizations (which I don't condone either), but they appear to be less noticable (at least from what I have seen.) Arzel 03:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Still with the conspiracy? If sections are being removed without comment then reinsert and start a discussion. MMfA is not a blog it is a news monitoring website, you will never see pictures of cute kittens theyve found elsewhere on the net. I have not yet looked at the Scarborough video but you seem pretty fixated on it, do you have a FULL transcript or video so I can identify your suggestions of deliberate selective editing? Dmanning 04:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I never said there was a conspiracy, and I am not sure how to insert missing information into a MM article. I don't have the full transcript or video they used, and considering they used several sources it would be difficult to find them all, but all of this is a moot point. It is not up to me or you to analyze the video. Simply read the article I linked, listen to the video that MM has on their website you will they grouped together several clips to make a montage of BOR to make him look bad regarding Scarborough. They do not include any context of what was said leading up to the statement, or what follows. I expect that kind of reporting from satirical reporting like The Daily Show, but not there. MM is not journalism, it is "gotcha" reporting and blogs. Seriously, if you read the Scaraborough report it reads like a blog. IF the same report was on an individual blog it would not be considered. Why is MM different? If their research (which is completely without proper reference or peer review) was on a personal website it would be laughed off WP, not to mention their research would never stand up to any peer review. I realize it is not on that page right now (but I suspect it will be reinserted). Arzel 14:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy: "Additionally, I suspect that some of you work directly with MM." and "MM appears to be using WP as an outlet for its opinion." but thats not important. "If sections are being removed without comment then reinsert and start a discussion." I was refering to WP, addressing your concern that certain opinions dont seem tolerated.

I dont see that that the makes BOR look bad, he makes very specific points about NBC journalism then all the discussion between guest and scarborough is about the points he makes, ocassionaly Bill Kohr suggests what BOR might have meant or have been refering to. The only problem I see with the argument is that when Scarborough's name came up O'Reilly was trying to say that he has some reason that he doesnt count Scarborough as part of NBC. That is the only point MMfA fails on, it shouldve made that point clear but if they'd expanded that would be extrapolation and research which I know you dont like, even though you disapprove of MMfA doing research AND not being 'journalists'. As to context, it's there, loads of it full 4-5 min sections of Bill Kohr and Scarborough talking the only thing missing is the shouting. They grouped together multiple sources because they wanted to show the clips shown on scarborough were valid and they context for those clips, the video itself is 20mins of mostly context to a few statements they wanted to draw attention to - above and beyond the minimum requirements held by pundit/discussion shows. Possible selective editing is still only possible and I was hoping you had links to something providing missing sections of why it was wrong but you clearly dont.

Again I'll make the points I made before, which I doubt you're reading, MMfA does not hold copyright to any video it provides, it can only provide enough to fully show the context of the statement they wish to highlight. It is VERY easy for anyone to refute MMfA transcripts and video, provide the full thing or the sections of missing video which, again, to my knowledge has NEVER happened. If this video was on any other site and did not contain personal attacks (hence no Crooks and liars, no daily kos) I would happily accept it. The reason a source is unreliable (rather than biased) is because it has been shown to lie, engage in name calling or personal attacks. No newspaper undergoes peer-review with other news papers, you are confusing them with acemedic journals. If you mean an internal review policy then you will have to show where they state their internal policies. The important part of Newspapers is that they have a complaints process which doesnt require legal action first, is there an example of someone making a complaint and it not being addressed transparently on the site (this requirement goes beyond the newspaper process)? Dmanning 22:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Self-identification versus labeling. If you add "MM is a far-left attack site" it will be reverted as you are suggesting fact. If however you say "Bill O'Reilly considers Media Matters a far-left attack site" that is fine and people can be left to wonder his motivation. I agree with DocGratis about Soros but MMfA refutes even indirect funding. Infact, it can be read as soliciting funding by suggesting he can wite them a cheque at any time. Any indirect funding claim would have to carry how that funding goes directly to MMfA because I would like to assert my ownership/control of Trident through paying my taxes.Dmanning 03:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that you should not include "MM is a far-left attack site" I did not add it and had no intention of doing so. Arzel 03:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Just explaining todays spate of reverts ie not crushing opposition. I realise now the topic is Soros.

I think the difference being (you with the UK Trident program) is that Soros is notable, and his funding of groups is also notable. Arzel 03:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I am very notable and my taxes are very notable to the Inland revenue (if I dont pay they'll throw me in jail) Dmanning 04:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok thanks Arzel. Next time you cite and example of MMfA being used with bias, how about it is one where it is USED. I read the whole MMfa article, then looked for where it was quoted in the BOR article. It was not even used. And as Dmanning said, MMfA is not a blog, and in fact on most of their articles they specifically include a full transcript, so it is easy to check for out of context quotes. Soros is notable, and his funding is notable? Ok, how about I make a chart that shows BOR funding the Red Cross funding "Feel the Music" a group that would rather spend money on kids banging on drums, then support our troops... BOR is funding "Feel the music", Lets put it on his wikipage. Or better yet, talk about BOR is waging a war on Christianity, making the Red Cross roll out a new Red Diamond symbol, just because the current symbol is a cross.Red cross#Red Crystal But it is pattenly ridiculous, to just draw arrows and claim these donations mean anything. If Soros was placing people on the board, and giving instructions about how to do things, and someone had proof that would be notable. DocGratis 10:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I realize it is not in the current article (I suspect it will get put back in, but I will look for some others in a few days as I won't have time this weekend.) I don't think either of you realize what a blog is. Here are a few definitions I found on the net.

1. A short form for weblog, a frequent and chronological publication of comments and thoughts on the web. They usually include philosophical reflections, opinions on the Internet and social or political issues.
2. Blog is short for weblog. A weblog is a journal (or newsletter) that is frequently updated and intended for general public consumption. Blogs generally represent the personality of the author or the Web site.
3. A weblog or internet diary. Weblogs enable users to publish short comments and ideas instantly for other people to read. Blogging can be an effective communications tool for small groups of people to keep in touch with each other.
4. A “web log” or online diary. Blogs have been identified as an increasingly popular source of online publication, especially regarding political information, opinion publication and alternative news coverage.
5. A collaborative space either stand alone or within a website that visitors can post comments, link to, add to, or just read on a weekly, daily, hourly basis. Used extensively on journalism sites for breaking news etc.

What does MM do? I complies existing news (some of what is really just other blogs) and puts them into a chronological log, with additional commentary and opinion, in the form of a report or newletter taking the express point of view of MM. Now tell me that doesn't read, look, and sound like a blog. As for the Soros issue, I never said the arrow ment anything. The criticism is that George Soros funds MM through several of his other foundations. Just because you don't like the criticism doesn't mean it isn't legitmate. I don't even think it is a conspiracy, there are far more convoluted conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 and the war in Iraq, this is miniscule. in comparison. I would ask why is it such a big deal to MM supporters? Arzel 14:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

While it is correct to say that MMfA is similar to some of the definitions of a blog, that does not make it a blog in the sense that it can not be used as a WP:RS, by your definitions CNN.COM is a blog. It is too inclusive. Some of MMfA pieces have opinion in them, but a lot of what they do is media watchdog, they do post transcripts, and show fallacies and inaccurate statements. Yes, the Scarborough MMfA piece does make BOR look bad. Because he mis-states and overstates some things. MMfA is quite good at using peoples own words against them, but it does provide the transcripts at the bottom. So on one hand you complain that it is taken out of context, but then you say they are just posting transcripts. Secondly, if the criticism is that Soros funds MMfA, then proof is needed to post that on here with anything other than BOR claims "Soros funds MMfA, and uses it to...", and that will most likely be followed by MMfA denies these claims states "we have never recieved funding from Soros or the Rising Tide, furthermore if Soros wanted to contribute he could". It doesn't matter if this is small conspiracy, big, not important or critically important, it has no factual support. It will not be up here as anything other than a directly attributed quotation, without facts. DocGratis 20:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you taking the editorials on MMfA as news articles? You are using the term blog as an attack on it's honesty and reliability. I'ld prefer to keep debate on those direct terms. You could show that news.BBC.co.uk was similarly a blog but it contains nothing non-news based, no personal statements from writers which for me is the defining feature of a blog. All this just seems like a problem you have with new media, solely website organisations can have the same high standards as newspapers, they just havent been around for 100+years. As for Soros, Ive said before I see no reason to distance themselves BUT any criticism has to show HOW and WHY he is giving an organisation like MoveOn money explicity earmarked for MediaMatters when he could transparently do it directly. I have not seen this valid concern addressed but by all means add the "indirectly" criticism with my concerns added. Dmanning 22:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Mamalujo

Mamalujo writes "media matters is not a reliable and unbiased source". How is this so?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sstteevvee (talk • contribs) 17:58, June 12, 2007

Media Matters is a partisan source. This fact however does not mean that they are consistently reliable or unreliable, but their claims must be evaluated for possible bias and conflicts of interest. A simple example of this is a political candidate running for office. The candidate is an excellent source for information about his goals, proposed policies, and campaign promises, but a completely inappropriate source for information about his opponent's campaign. --Allen3 ^talk 23:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Specific "Out of Context" Criticisms?

This is my personal opinion, but I think Media Matters is strong because it mainly uses primary sources...here's what so-and-so said, and here is a video of them saying it, without much editorial. These are strong "arguements", in my opinion, of whatever point they are trying to prove, because it's always "straight from the horse's mouth". Now, basically the one counter-arguement that can be given to this is "oh, my statement was taken out of context"...is there any documented evidence of Media Matters taking something out of context? E.g., media matters reports "X" but the pundit said "W X Y Z"....on the internet, there is lot of talk of media matters taking things out of context, but not examples. So, *if* such cases exist, I think those are what should be in a criticism section. The vagueness in the article presently (and also the critic's mouths) is not convincing. Jakerforever 18:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thinking quickly, not deeply, I'd have to agree. (I don't know about the first 2 sentences because I don't look at the web site to know if this is true or not.) Wikiworthy sources are always required. This is an encyclopedia, after all. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 23:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

What a coincidence! Tonight (or last night) on O'Reilly, O'Reilly said to his guest that a story from MMfA, a far left web site (his words, not mine), is taken totally out of context, and his guest using the article to support his claim seriously undermines the weight of his guest's arguments (my words, not his). I didn't see the story myself, only heard it reported elsewhere, but if someone wanted a story about MMfA taking stories out of context, someome might want to check the O'Reilly transcript or video when it becomes available. Just an idea - not a statement of wikiworthyness of any particular source. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 03:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

From what I see O'Reilly reuguarly says MMFA takes things out of context (as it happens MMFA is often reporting on him) but I'm wondering if he's ever systematically walked through an example...I guess what I'm saying is that it's one thing to 'say' things have been taken out of context, and another thing to demonstrate them. I've tried looking for transcripts (on the fox webpage), but what's available is pretty sparse. But yes, if there's anything out there, I think it's what the critique sections needs; it would be better than statements without examples. Jakerforever 14:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Media Matters frequently takes things out of context they said O'rielly expoused racist views on the radio facor when he went to Harlem with Al Sharepton. Juan Williams who works for NPR backed O'rielly up.[Fox News Sept 25, 2007] Meida Matters is a smear sight should not be a relliable source for Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.135.42 (talk) 00:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Where is the context issue here? Croctotheface 01:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)