Talk:Media Research Center

message: I'm wondering about how (or if) to include the MRC's self-described mission and history.  That seems perhaps more relevant than a legal action in which they were involved. 
"The mission of the Media Research Center is to bring balance and responsibility to the news media. Leaders of America's conservative movement have long believed that within the national news media a strident liberal bias existed that influenced the public's understanding of critical issues. On October 1, 1987, a group of young determined conservatives set out to not only prove - through sound scientific research - that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene. What they launched that fall is the now acclaimed --- Media Research Center (MRC)"
My concern is this - when a determined group of people have an end in mind which they intend to prove, even the best scientists have a way of making sure that is what they prove.  It's called "experimentor bias" in the social sciences.  The MRC is high profile and I'm sure believe that their findings are evenly balanced, but with a pre-determined assertion, finding evidence to back it up is usually not hard.  
I'm not advocating discrediting this organization (that would be POV in the extreme), just including facts about their mission and funding - it's important and pertinent information which any person should know before taking as fact the findings of any organization.  I would welcome thoughts and comments on the matter.  --ABQCat 00:46, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear sir.  Please don't edit my edits based on npov without providing under which auspice you are referring to.  The NPOV neutral language as I've read states that factual information is not subject to POV.  The above quote is factual(also it's from their own site) and does not violate NPOV.  The edit I made was directly from the meta description of MRC website and it's been clearly recognized by most major news that MRC is a conservative group. --dis- 13:38, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Old comments

message: In this edit, the words 
:funded almost entirely by Richard Mellon Scaife 
were removed. Why? If the information is correct, it should be in the article. If not, it would still be desirable to have a true description of its financial sources. regards, High on a tree 03:08, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: funding

message: Simply in the interest of an accurate description of NewsBusters, is it important to include in that section of the article mention of how on NewsBusters' own 'About' section on their site, they repeatedly refer to the media as having a liberal bias?
"Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), the leader in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias.
In August of 2005, with the guidance of Matthew Sheffield of Dialog New Media, the MRC launched the NewsBusters blog to provide immediate exposure of liberal media bias, insightful analysis, constructive criticism and timely corrections to news media reporting." - http://newsbusters.org/about
I'm just thinking that with that on the site's own 'About' section, that it would be important to include in a description: their belief that the media has a 'liberal media bias' whether it be factual or not. Lettersandpackages (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: NewsBusters description

message: Needless to say, I think someone else put this up for humor. While very funny, I think it needs to go. Any others seeing something in it that I'm not?
:Where's your signature? —Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: "However, to this day, the MRC continues to promote the idea that the WWE holds a liberal media bias."

message: http://newsbusters.org/node/3465
:: Why?  Is Wikipedia a liberal blog or is it presenting the FACTS on the MRC and Newsbusters? Equinox137 07:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: MRC and Newsbusters are good at exposing Democrats, but they always turn a blind eye when Republicans screw up and when it's time to expose them. That's why it's worth mentioning in the article. Ericster08 (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  someone rip into this please 

message: I have re-written this entry so it is less biased. The entry had obviously been written by someone who has a bias against MRC. I have changed the biased language of the opening line. I have also added "examples of content," yet "controversies" and "criticisms" still remain.
Wikipedia needs to be more neutral in its content of conservative voices. Very sadly, Wiki is building a reputation as a source of liberally slanted information. The previous MRC entry was a good example of that. Thank you. I appreciate any feedback. HonestAndFair 17:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please ... 

message: Per Rhino7628's request, I am discussing on talk before reverting this edit by that user (even though they did not feel compelled to discuss on talk before making the original change). I'm reverting one more time (actually someone else has done it already) because the intro as rewritten by Rhino is no good. If that user wants to move the label "conservative" out of the first sentence so be it. But the rewritten version reads like an advert for the group (and also trails off before finishing the thought). Background info about conservative leaders believing the media has a liberal bias does not belong in the intro. Comments like "young determined conservatives" and "acclaimed" (though the thought is not finished there) are not NPOV and do not belong here. The idea that the MRC does "scientific research" is absurd (just as the idea that Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting does scientific research would be absurd--these are media watchdog groups who watch the media). Anyhow another user has reverted already but here's an explanation to Rhino for what it's worth.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 20:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you have made it clear that you are going to oppose any suggestion by myself or anyone else on these boards whose opinion differs from yours, I'm going to rely on you to suggest a compromise.  Please suggest.  I am awaiting your reply.  If you have not compromise to suggest, then please stop reverting my edits.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhino7628 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're wildly mischaracterizing my view. I explained above why your changes do not work. You are just as capable of suggesting a compromise as I am--this is not my burden. You are the only person pushing this right now and several other people (not just me) are reverting you. The intro as you have rewritten it is just bad writing (again, you don't finish your sentence) and not NPOV so I am reverting it again. I believe you have also now violated WP:3RR. Thanks for coming to the talk page though, whereas before you were demanding that everyone else discuss on talk whilst you reverted as much as you pleased.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 22:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tried once, twice, multiple times to give you the chance to sound objective, but you obviously cannot.  This is no longer worth my time.  Enjoy your one-sided views in peace.  You have the option to prove to me otherwise by editing the intro., but we all know that will never happen.  Peace out.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhino7628 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: Text that has been deleted by TheRedPeacock on the ground of WP:RS
:However, over the network's decision to add Rachel Maddow as primetime host, Tim Graham appeared on the Fox News Channel morning show Fox and Friends to criticize the decision, calling Maddow "this lesbian Air America radio host".  
I believe this material should be re-added to the article, and anyone clicking the link can clearly see that the information is reliable.  MMFA is partisan in the editorializing and whom they chose to cover, but the clips and quotes they take are WP:RS.  We shouldn't rely on MMFA to characterize the MRC, but it is appropriate to use MMFA as a source for a quotation used in the article.  Also user:theredpeacock templated me with a NPOV warning, so he might also have a NPOV concern, although he has not articulated his concern over that on this page. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 01:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rachel Maddow Lesbian 

message: I said above that I don't think Media Matters for America can be used as a source or a viewpoint in this article. However, I think they and other US media watchdog groups (notably FAIR) should be listed in the "See also" section, and I've just added them. Does anyone disagree? Perhaps more importantly, are there any other groups we should add? (PR Watch was already there, and quite rightly too.) Cheers, CWC 17:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a problem with that.  Accuracy in Media should also be added.--Drrll (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I've added it. I see we now have all 5 groups listed here (PR Watch being part of Center for Media and Democracy). Cheers, CWC 08:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also section 

message: Not sure who, when or why, but the traditional "References" section was labeled as "Notes" and citations to assumedly uncited content were included there.  I have removed those to the "See Also" section and re-ordered the sections to have the  immediately after the article conclusion as is, I think, the Wikipedia norm? JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference section edit

message: I've got a real problem with this pair of sentences.
:<B>Bozell and a group of other young conservatives founded the MRC on October 1, 1987, with only themselves, a black-and-white television set, and rented computer at their headquarters. Their initial budget was at US$339,000.</B>
The <U>1st</U> sentence characterizes MRC as starting on a shoestring budget, just a few (non-salaried?) guys and some outdated and rented equipment.
<BR>But the <U>2nd</U> sentence belies that. It implies that for some reason, even with lots of funding, they <U>chose</U> to open shop with "only...", which makes it sort of nostalgic trivia (encyclopedic in terms of providing exhaustive information, but not encyclopedic, since it's not a properly characterizing summary).
<BR>— Mwr0 (talk) 02:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description of founding either very misleading OR pure trivia 

message: The introduction of the Media Matters for America article states that it "is a politically progressive media watchdog group".  Why does the same introduction not exist for MRC?  I have adjusted the introductory sentence of the MRC article to mirror the style of the MMfA article. Krjcheck (talk) 14:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What happens in one article has no bearing on what happens in another. Edits should be made on individual merit. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancy between description of Media Matters and the MRC. 

message: Given the descriptive subtitle ("exposing Liberal Media bias"), does this mean that they ignore conservative media bias?
2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: NewsBusters

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Media Research Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0%2C9171%2C973551%2C00.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0%2C9171%2C973551%2C00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070128190044/http://www.mediaresearch.org/about/aboutwelcome.asp to http://www.mediaresearch.org/about/aboutwelcome.asp
*Added  tag to http://www.cultureandmediainstitute.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Someone want to fix this? Doug Weller talk 16:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I gave it a try by following infobox template guidelines and updating the "mission" per the source. (Alas....) The article/lede does need to reconcile the 2  mission statements and give a NPOV lede as you point out.  – S. Rich (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

text: Mmm - I only added 'american' 'nonprofit' as the two more prominent things out of the cite.  Thats consistent with Charity Navigator.  But I'm not seeing a lot in Google or prominently so ...  Media Bias Factcheck doesn't seem thrilled with them and Sourcewatch mentions some criticism... nothing worth headlines or obviously DUE.  I think leave it at 'politically conservative' and the words they have or mission statement is clear enough on what it is and there just are no seperate things of much note.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Confused That depends whether your applied definition for “...of much note” matches what's-laid-out not in WP:NOTABLE but WP:LEAD. Are you somehow implying that external criticism is the daily-business with every single “politically conservative” pressure-group that exists? —Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 02:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV - no criticism in the lead 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Media Research Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090315015903/http://www.heritage.org/Research/PoliticalPhilosophy/HL380.cfm to http://www.heritage.org/research/politicalphilosophy/hl380.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Media Research Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090125051345/http://www.mediaresearch.org/archive/mediawatch/welcome.asp to http://www.mediaresearch.org/archive/mediawatch/welcome.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120317124054/http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasalert/archive.aspx to http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasalert/archive.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080619161123/http://www.mediaresearch.org/bios/noyes/noyesbio.asp to http://www.mediaresearch.org/bios/noyes/noyesbio.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100815010821/http://newsbusters.org/people/political-figures/george-soros to http://newsbusters.org/people/political-figures/george-soros
*Added  tag to http://www.eyeblast.tv/site/about
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516235809/http://www.mediaresearch.org/specialreports/2002/sum/exec20020509.asp to http://www.mediaresearch.org/specialreports/2002/sum/exec20020509.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080704125813/http://www.mediaresearch.org/SpecialReports/2001/sum/kyoto01.asp to http://www.mediaresearch.org/specialreports/2001/sum/kyoto01.asp
*Added  tag to http://www.timeswatch.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Culture and Media Institute fails WP:NCORP for a standalone article and should be merged into Media Research Center (MRC). The article is sourced with primary or non-RS sources: from its own website, from its 'parent company' MRC (which is a generally unreliable source per RSP), or from The Washington Times which is only marginally reliable on RSP.
Culture and Media Institute doesn't appear to be a separate organization from MRC. It's domain name cultureandmediainstitute.org now is redirecting to the NewsBusters' website, another project of MRC's. A search on newsbusters.org for "Culture and Media Institute" doesn't bring up anything to indicate it is a separate organization from NewsBusters or MRC, and the earliest use of the term calls it "MRC's Culture and Media Institute". References to "Culture and Media Institute" on newsbusters.org ended seven years ago. This seems to indicate that MRC has 'retired' the CMI name/project and rolled it into NewsBusters.
Per WP:NPRODUCT,  Neither article is so large that a merging of content would make the target article 'unwieldy'. Also, since MRC is considered generally unreliable within Wikipedia, it would be best to put this content and any necessary mrc.org citations into the Media Research Center article where  per WP:GUNREL. Platonk (talk) 02:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Culture and Media Institute]] into [[Media Research Center]]