Talk:Media Matters for America/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Critical Statements By Targets 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Links 

message: Cut from article:
:* Abu Ghraib "[Wall Street Journal] editorial (27 April 2005) falsely claimed Abu Ghraib report absolved senior officials." 
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)
thread_title: Vagueness of WSJ / Abu Ghraib example

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  What kind of organization is MMFA? 

message: 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.
: - Glen 03:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Biased Article 

message: === Should be elaborated further on the main page! ===
--0pt 00:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: --0pt 00:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should be elaborated further on the main page! 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Lead Paragraph

message: 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)
thread_title: Jeff Gagnon

message: I started a discussion at . Arbusto 02:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Using Media Matters as a source on wikipedia

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Small question here 

message: Can we clear up what the problem is? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One, CSN is not a reputable news organization. Gamaliel 15:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because...? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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 , 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Kincaid 'criticism'  

message: 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)
thread_title: Mamalujo

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Where is the context issue here?  Croctotheface 01:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Specific "Out of Context" Criticisms?