"

 User:Alien3 thinks I'm edit warring... 

...which is confusing, since I'm not even close to 3RR. But, anyway, I thought I'd drop by and explain my reasons for pulling the cite from the first sentence of the article. Per WP:LEDECITE: 
Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source.... 
Pedantic semantic squabbling aside, I don't think there's anyone who contests the validity of the characterization of MM as ""progressive."" Given that the same assertion is sourced exactly one paragraph later, I think the citation should be cut from the lede. 

All that said, I'm not sold on MM being a reliable source for characterizations about itself. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that MM described itself as ""impartial"" (it doesn't, btw). Would it be alright, then, for Wikipedia to describe MM as an ""impartial media watchdog,"" replete with cite to their web site? IMO, MM can't be a WP:RS for information about MM; they're biased, and anything they say about themselves is inherently POV. What's more, if we're not taking MM at their word, but, instead, only citing them for claims that Wikipedia editors find credible, that's differently problematic for being WP:OR. It's not our place to weigh the veracity of primary sources; we shouldn't even be using them.

To the end of sidestepping the whole issue, I'd like to offer this source instead for the claim that MM is a progressive organization: . But I don't think it should appear in the lede, either. 

I'll leave it to some other editor to use the ref (or not, I'm easy), lest I be accused of further edit warring. 24.177.120.138  "