"

Getaway: Thank you for your comments. I most certainly did give my reasons  Read my previous comment. What you didn't do is raise any points on the discussion page before making changes. As for your charges:

1) FAIR and Media Matters are certainly media watchdogs, even though they're political. All media watchdogs are political. Rush Limbaugh is political. That doesn't make any of their views invalid, but it does call for balance. 

2) Phrases like ""axe to grind"" serve no function in intelligent debate. It would be equally pointless to argue that Limbaugh has an ""axe to grind."" He does, and I don't have a problem with that. He has every right to have an axe to grind here in the land of free speech, and so do FAIR and Media Matters. Having an axe to grind is just one way to say somebody takes a certain political position. Limbaugh's positions are one POV of a partisan debate and FAIR's are another. Their axes, excuse me, their views need to be balanced. By the way, I don't know as much about Media Matters as about FAIR, but FAIR makes no claim to be ""neutral and nonpartisan"" as you suggest. What they claim is to be accurate. You're welcome to challenge that accuracy, with sources. Which leads to my next point:

3) It's very easy to toss out weasel words like ""MM and FAIR both have long records of inaccuracy"" but you're not providing any evidence that their charges against Limbaugh are fallacious or inaccurate. Judging from Limbaugh's feeble response to FAIR's charges, we might be tempted to conclude that Limbaugh can't answer FAIR because FAIR got it right. If there's a problem with FAIR's accuracy, you're welcome to include it, with sources, in the paragraph. (I've issued this invitation three times already and nobody has taken me up on it.) But you do not get to blindly assert that FAIR isn't a credible source without any evidence to back you up, and you don't get to water down what I've written just because you don't like FAIR's work or because you can't find sources to back up your position.

4) FAIR isn't merely expressing opinion. It's documenting errors of fact. Please don't confuse opinion with fact, they're not the same thing at all. When Limbaugh claims that suspending rules on minority hiring will make earthquake repairs go quickly, he's stating an opinion. But when Limbaugh says the government suspended rules on minority hiring, he's making a statement of fact. FAIR is taking issue with Limbaugh's facts. 

5) I'm not asking for special treatment for FAIR. I'm asking that, as per NPOV rules, their view get equal treatment. Are you asking for special treatment for Limbaugh's views? 

6) Please focus on substance? I am. I feel it's important to provide a historical perspective on this controversy, and I feel the article needs to illustrate of the depth and scope of the controversy, which is provided by the Media Matters quote. I also feel this section needs a defining introductory sentence. For these reasons, I'm restoring much of the previous text. If you disagree, please take issue with me on this page. 

BTW I feel that Allen3 made a useful clarifying edit in an earlier revision, when he labeled FAIR a ""progressive"" organization, and provided a link to an article. I find that much more accurate than ""Liberal,"" since FAIR keeps its distance from classic liberalism, and sometimes takes issue with people who call themselves Liberal. Can we keep the ""Progressive"" label?  "