Talk:Media Matters for America/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

BLP

You're not actually claiming that Media Matters is a living person, are you? - Crockspot 18:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh is a living person. Remarks (some not even within quotation marks) have been on this article for two months with no attribution. That is a BLP problem. Italiavivi 03:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
It's also an attribution/verifiability problem. If you want to restore the material, just find a reliable source. It's not a complicated issue. Croctotheface 06:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Case against MMfA dismissed, question re: update

Hello - The case brought by Andy Martin was dismissed with prejudice last month and I notice that the article claims that it is ongoing. I'm a member of the technical staff at MMfA, so I didn't want to make the updates myself for fear of appearing to violate NPOV. Could another community member make these updates, or should I just do so myself?

Media Matters founder David Brock was sued for defamation and false light invasion of privacy by Illinois Republican Andy Martin in May, 2007. [ 14 ] The case was dismissed with prejudice in June, 2007 with the court citing a Connecticut injunction prohibiting Mr. Martin from, "filing new lawsuits, actions, proceedings, or matters in federal fora" without obtaining the court's permission. [ CITE 1 ] Subsequent motions to remand, vacate, and recuse by Mr. Martin were denied and, in its ruling, the court held that the plaintiff, "fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted" additionally noting that Martin’s complaints about Media Matters’ characterizations were without merit. [ CITE 2 ]

Here are the relevant court documents...

http://mediamatters.org/static/pdf/07C3154MartinvBrock-01.pdf

http://mediamatters.org/static/pdf/07C3154MartinvBrock-02.pdf

Thanks for your help.

PAW 19:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and added these updates. PAW 14:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Secondary sources

I have noticed that about 12 of the 15 footnotes are attributed to MM themselves which is mainly for verification purposes and the rest are critical responses. Are there any non-editorializing secondary sources to help establish the notability of this subject? MrMurph101 02:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly "independent" or "conservative."

In the header Bill O'Reilly is referred to as "independent" which in itself seems to be NPOV as it is how he likes to refer to himself, not how he is generally referred to. He is widely recognized as being a conservative commentator (does anyone really need proof of that fact?) Some are objecting to referring to him as anything but "independent," while simultaneously removing any reference to this being self-designation. This is simply a way to inject POV into the article. The fact that he is "registered independent" has nothing to do with it. The label has nothing to do with his voter registration, it refers to the opinions he expresses on his show. Coulter and Limbaugh are not "registered conservatives" after all. Comments? Loonymonkey 00:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure he is conservative on all matters. And he claims to be independent. I tend to say "Remove all adjectives" for NPOV. --Blue Tie 01:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
The current form isn't much better. Currently it reads "Their targets include both news reporting and commentators such as Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O'Reilly." This basically groups O'Reilly together with avid and self proclaim conservatives, not solving the problem of his political standing. I personally like "Their targets include both news reporting and conservative commentators such as Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and independent Bill O'Reilly." because it seperates O'Reilly from the avid conservatives. CO2 02:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
At this article, O'Reilly's self-identification does not really matter. He is a commentator, like Coulter and Limbaugh, and MM does items about him. The fact that other MM targets tend to be self-described conservatives is not surprising, considering that they seek to target "conservative misinformation". Croctotheface 02:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Move the labels and "targets" to the criticism section. No names or labels are needed in the lead. CO2 02:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why information about people they often do pieces on belongs in criticism. However, I'm fine with the current formation, which just mentions that they target both opinion journalism/punditry and non-opinion journalism. Croctotheface 02:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I was going to suggest removing it entirely from the lead which seems to be the consensus now, anyway. The current form goes a long way towards making this a better article. (personally, I think it's still got a long way to go, though, especially when we get to "criticisms." It still reads like one of those "liberal sentence/conservative sentence" debate pages). --Loonymonkey 15:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a better way to characterize differing points of view? We can evaluate facts, but that doesn't really seem to be the issue here. If it's just a matter of disagreement, it's not really our job to evaluate opinions. Croctotheface 15:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Contradictory Claim regarding the BOR Sylvia's incident

Regarding the BOR claim of not providing the entire transcript of the Sylvia's Resteraunt issue. The MM article does not contain the full transcript or context. Simply listenting to the entire broadcast, which BOR posted, and reading the MM article verifies that BOR is correct. However, MM claims otherwise with a reference. How is the best way to handle this? It is verifiable that MM is lying, or was at least lying when the original article was posted (I haven't checked today if they have updated it.) Do we allow a known lie to be included even if the claim is verfiable with a reference? Arzel 14:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It's true that MM does not post the full transcript of the show. I don't think it would be a reasonable standard to say that an item lacks context if it is not accompanied by a full transcript of a 3 hour radio show. MM's argument is that they did not just pick quotes out: they included a transcript with all relevant context. If the current version of this article is accurate, O'Reilly is charging that MM picked out two quotes and presented them as if they came one after another. MM's response is that they had both audio and a transcript that provided the full context of those quotes. Croctotheface 15:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I copied the text here for discussion. (Emphasis Mine)

Bill O'Reilly, who is frequently a target of Media Matters' criticisms, has accused them of "specializing in distorting comments made by politicians, pundits, and media people" while "smearing" those who do not agree with "left wing politics" such as Senator Joseph Lieberman.[18] (1)O'Reilly said that he believes Media Matters took his comments regarding a dinner with Al Sharpton in Harlem out of context.[19][20] (2)Media Matters countered by saying that they posted a full transcript of his remarks and that O'Reilly did not explain what context was missing from their piece. (3)O'Reilly claimed that the Media Matters piece put together at least two out of context comments that were initially spoken five minutes apart and presented them as one comment in an effort to mislead readers.[21] Appearing on the 'O'Reilly Factor', Juan Williams said that Media Matters "wants to shut up anybody who has an honest discussion about race."[19] (4)In an appearance on NBC's Today, a Media Matters representative said, "If Bill O'Reilly got caught robbing a bank, he would say he was taken out of context" and that Media Matters items always include quotes with full context, along with a transcript and audio or video.[22]

  1. BOR assertation which is backed up.
  2. Assertation by MM to invalidate previous claim by BOR which is a not true (also not referenced).
  3. BOR assertation to back up the claim of out of context invalidating previous claim by MM.
  4. Assertation by MM to invalidate previous claim again by BOR which is only true if their context is that they provided the full transcript of the quotes they used.....

It appears that any criticism against MM is quickly negated, and in the case of this situation is backed up by remarks which although referenced, are simply not true. How does one rectify this in a NPOV way when BOR is correct and verifiable, and the statements by MM are incorrect but verifiable? Arzel 16:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess the question here is: how do you define "full transcript"? Do you mean a transcript of all 3 hours of his radio program? Do you really believe that it's necessary to have all that for context? What context is lacking from the Media Matters piece? It's clear that O'Reilly and Williams are having a conversation about race. It's clear that O'Reilly is seeking to make the point that black people and while people aren't so different. It's also clear that he expressed surprise that black people in a restaurant acted like white people do in a restaurant. It's true that he said that black people are just now "starting to think for themselves". I don't see how my characterization is different from what MM posted. Could you explain what is wrong with that? Or what's missing? Croctotheface 16:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Well I certainly don't expect them to include the entire written transcript all of the time, however they have a habbit of parsing out the audio comments. They cut out a few minutes of audio betweent the two segments of their covereage, and all of the beginning comments setting up the context of what BOR was trying to say. If you listen to the entire broadcast, his "surprise" comes off as almost sarcastic in tone, in that he wasn't really surprised, but that the average white person would have been surprised. In the MM comment you lose that context. Regardless of the point of context, and the definition of full or partial transcript, it is clear that MM did not include the full transcript, written or audio, of his discussion with Williams which is germaine to the context of the criticism. Furthermore BOR, does provide the evidence that they did not by posting the entire audio of the discussion with Williams. Arzel 18:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I removed the sentence that referred to "full transcript." I think it was an inelegant phrase, either from me or someone else, from before this controversy really got started. The sentence with the "robbing a bank" quote articulates MM's position better. What do you mean by "germane to the context of the criticism"? I mean, lots of things could be "germane to the context" but not be necessary for the remarks to be presented in context. How does what they MM provides paint a misleading picture? I mean, you can listen to O'Reilly's tone and hear sarcasm, that's one interpretation, I suppose. However, I don't think you need to hear the WHOLE interview to hear sarcasm in the tone of voice that somebody uses. How do the partial transcripts that MM posted not provide necessary and appropriate context? You seem to think that quotes are "out of context" by definition if the transcript isn't "full". I don't see why that follows, and you haven't explained why it does. I don't think it's possible to read the partial transcripts that MM provided and not understand the full context. O'Reilly was trying to say nice things about black people--that's evident from the MM partial transcript. Croctotheface 21:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
It should be up to the reader to decide if something is important or not. In an interesting corralary, Rush Limbaugh was accused by MM by taking their comments out of context for not reairing the entire broadcast relating to his "Phony Soldiers" remarks. This criticism was just removed from this article. This is exactly the same thing. I'm not saying it should belong, but given the recent nature of this (9.26) I am adding a little to this section. The MM sentence of "robbing a bank" is simply an ad hom by MM. Arzel 14:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Since the defense to this is considered OR, even though it is verifiable, I have removed the Ad Hom defense attack by MM. It has no context to the criticism leveled. Arzel 18:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
You're not really answering my questions here, and you seem to misunderstand the "robbing a bank" bit. That's their way of saying basically what I said in response to you: that O'Reilly accuses them of taking him "out of context" without ever explaining what context is missing. I still don't really get your complaint about missing context in the MM piece. They had a partial transcript, yes, but a partial transcript with full context. The alternative would be to transcribe an entire 3 hour radio show. All that said, I certainly don't think that the article NEEDS that line, and it's likely no worse for it. Croctotheface 21:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
The problem with context, is that it is largely the point of view of the person making the comments. BOR claims that his comments were taken out of context because of the missing intial few minutes of conversation with Williams, and the few minutes in the middle. The response from Williams was that BOR's comments were taken out of context. MM response was that they don't and that they included the entire transcript along with the quote of "robbing the bank". Now it is a known fact that MM did not include the entire transcript, written or audio, of the conversation with Williams. They probably don't need to include the entire 3 hour auido, but to leave out the first few minutes and a few minutes in the middle makes it impossible for someone going to MM to hear the entire conversation and see if he was actually taken out of context. Obviously, you feel that entire context is given, I don't, and thats fine. The real issue I have been (unsuccesfully) trying to get across, is where does OR cross the line. MM claims to include the entire transcript. BOR claims they do not. It is easy to verify that MM is not quite telling the truth, but can you say that in the article? Arzel 00:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
First, MM does not say that they included the entire transcript. The article used to say that, but I think it was a misquote or overly aggressive paraphrase. MM does hold that they included a transcript, and that that transcript included all relevant context. I've asked you repeatedly to tell me, specifically, what O'Reilly said that is missing from the MM partial transcript and is necessary for context. You have not addressed this question. You have said that because MM omitted parts of the interview, someone reading their item can't decide if O'Reilly's quotes were taken out of context. Why is that? What did he say in those missing parts that changes the context? Croctotheface 00:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Paul Waldman states they included the full audio and transcript during his appearance on the Today Show with Matt Lauer.
Initially before Williams spoke he talked about how he felt the situation with OJ Simpson was largely race based. He feels that OJ was guilty in the Nicole Simpson death, but that the two black jurors he interviewed thought he was charged basically because of his race, which leads into him trying to talk about why this happens or happened. MM starts their transcript with "Now, How do we get to this point?".
The segment between the two quotes starts with him talking about he growing up in a mostly white neighborhood which changed overtime with African Americans moving into the neighborhood. He talks about how he never heard his parents utter any racial slurs, but that his grandmother was racist because she never met any black people, and the only image she had was that from television and she was afraid of black people which translated into an irrational hostility. He also said that he tried to change her perceptions, and that he had a good relationship with African Americans through sports. Although he couldn't change the fear of his grandmother, he thinks that this fear is breaking down in most other places, but unfortunately it is being replaced with the rap music cluture, which he said glorifies drugs, prostitution, deregation of women. And that white America can't understand why it is being embraced by black America. However, he thinks the majority of black America doesn't like it either. He then goes and talks about some of the great black role models (in his opinion) of the past. States how much their is to admire about them, but that the "gansta rap" gets all of the media attention. Talks more about actors like Denzel Washington, who does a lot for charity, is a great actor, yet you don't hear that much about him, and that a primary problem is that the media, largely run by whites promotes Snoop Dog, and Ludacris. He then ties it back into OJ, saying that he thinks now, today, if he is convicted in the Vegas incident, that their won't be an outcry, that people won't judge by the color of his skin, but by his actions. He also metions the Vick incident, and then breaks to discuss with Jaun Williams. He has a little small talk with Williams, and asks if he is off base in his comments, to which Williams responds "No", and Williams is happy he is taking up this subject. Williams makes a comment then how O'Reilly going to Sylvia's was a foriegn adventure, to which O'Reilly says "No, No, I like that Soul Food..." which then leads back into the MM comments.
After MM stops its transcript O'Reilly continues on with more praise of Will Smith.
There is a full 5 minutes of O'Reilly talking about the predjudice he encountered from his grandmother and his praise of African Americans in general. BOR has said and done some stupid things, but MM did remove context by leaving out his comments inbetween the two sections they quoted, probably because if they didn't it doesn't make him look bad. Arzel 03:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Regarding a "full transcript", you're right that they said that. However, I think that in their mind, a "full transcript" does not mean a full transcript of the segment, because it is clear from their use of elipsis that the transcript in their item is a partial one. I think their definition of "full transcript, then, is a full transcript of the comment from which they are quoting.
You explain, in great detail, what O'Reilly said in the omitted parts. However, you do not explain why they are necessary context. You seem to assume that they should be included because they would make O'Reilly look good. However, "putting remarks in context" is not the same thing as "trying to make the speaker look good". I don't see an exlpanation of why those omitted remarks are necessary to provide context for the remarks he was criticized for. Again, you seem to be assuming that somebody cannot make a prejudiced remark or a remark that relies on stereotypes if their overall goal is to criticize prejudice or stereotypes. That's just not the case. If someone just took a clip of O'Reilly screaming and yelling about something and didn't show what prompted him to scream and yell, that would be out of context. This is not out of context. "Context" is not "the stuff that doesn't make O'Reilly look bad". Context is what's necessary to understand the remarks he was making. It's not necessary to see that O'Reilly prasied certain black people in order for a reader to appreciate the remarks that he was criticized for. I don't see how his saying that Denzel Washington is a good role model changes the idea that he "can't get over" that black-run restaurants are like white-run restaurants. I don't see how it changes the notion that black people are just now starting to think for themselves rather than let Sharpton or Jackson think for them. Croctotheface 03:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
"Context" it is defined as
  1. The part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or passage and determines its meaning.
  2. The circumstances in which an event occurs; a setting.
Obivously we have different opinions. I feel that when you hear the missing sections, especially those between the two segments the context is completely different, and there are at least a few people that back this up (Jaun Williams and Watkins for example). The intent of MM was to imply that BOR was making racially insensitive remarks. From MM As Media Matters for America has documented, O'Reilly has made a number of provocative statements about race. When you listen to the entire broadcast it is clear that this was not BOR intent. Arzel 00:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I just don't understand the foundation for your opinion. You seem to believe that a person who believes he is being racially sensitive cannot, in the course of speaking, say something racially insensitive. The transcript on the MM piece does indeed include the "part of the text or statement that surrounds the quoted passage and determines its meaning." You have not explained why this material that they included does not provide sufficient context. You have asserted instead that because O'Reilly was trying to say nice things about black people, he couldn't possibly have been condescending about race or stereotyped black people at the same time. That doesn't follow. The partial transcript that MM has on their item does indeed include comments from O'Reilly such as, "It has nothing to do with the color of anybody's skin." I don't see how anybody could read that item and not understand the kind of conversation O'Reilly was having. I also think that the comments that have caused controversy basically stand on their own--O'Reilly said that he was surprised that the restaurant was just like a white-owned restaurant, and he said, "I think black Americans are starting to think more and more for themselves." I don't see what kind of "context' changes that comment from suggesting that a significant number of black people had previously not been thinking for themselves. You haven't explained either why that comment can't fairly be called "racially provocative" or why praising Denzel Washington changes the meaning of that remark. I see no evidence whatsoever that more "context" would change the meaning of that quote. Croctotheface 02:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
You need to stop arguing your opinion, which seem to be the opinion of MM. I have already stated that I don't believe the context is expressed correctly. It is up to the reader to decide context. Clearly, MM did not include all of the relevant audio or transcript for everyone to determine if Bill O'Reilly's claim of out of context claim is correct. I have sumarized what was left out, I don't know how to make you hear it the way I heard it, I don't claim to be able to change your interpretation of whether the context has changed. We are at a point of no progress, and I am not going to argue semantics of the issue. Besides, the section is reasonably worded right now, with the exception of MM being the cited source (until the Today Show updates their archives). I suspect that in the near future additional third party sources will in fact state that MM did not include the entire audio transcript, but it is a moot point right now. Arzel 15:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

(removing indent) I don't need to stop anything. You're doing the same thing that I am. Just because you believe it doesn't make it so. I've asked you how the context changes if they include the material you've described. You haven't addressed this, except with vague statements about what does or does not "make O'Reilly look bad". That's not the same as context. You haven't explained what the statements actually mean versus what they appear to mean becuase of missing context. You've just asserted that if the statements were in context, O'Reilly would not look bad. That's obviously your personal opinion, and you don't provide evidence for it. Regarding "additional third party sources", I suspect that this controversy has run its course as a news story and will not receive any more coverage. Unless O'Reilly says something else to continue it, it's pretty much over at this point. Croctotheface 01:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Big Fuss

There is some big fuss where a media watchdog group has said that Media Matters fed CNN and CBS some lies and All three owe Bill O'Reilly an apology. (Like that would happen). Anyway, this other media watchdog group has leveled these charges, presented the evidence and so on. It should be here in this article. --Blue Tie 16:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


Here is the link to the information below:

ALEXANDRIA, VA – CBS and CNN continue to make inaccurate attacks against Bill O’Reilly. They claim he made racist remarks during his radio program this past week regarding a dinner he had with Al Sharpton at a Harlem restaurant. The charges are false. Even the Reverend Sharpton has said they are false. In light of these despicably false accusations, Media Research Center President Brent Bozell is calling upon CBS and CNN to distance themselves from left-wing hate groups and apologize to Bill O’Reilly for their participation in the smear campaign against him:

“Bill O’Reilly’s accusers—the dishonest leftists at Media Matters, CBS and CNN—have gone beyond the pale. There was absolutely nothing that Bill O’Reilly said that was in any way offensive,” stated L. Brent Bozell III, President of the Medias Research Center. “People are sick and tired of these far-left character assassination campaigns, whether they come from Media Matters or MoveOn.org.

“CBS and CNN must distance themselves from dishonest, far-left, hatemongering organizations such as Media Matters,” Bozell continued. “Media Matters and MoveOn.org have two things in common. Both are funded by ultra-leftist billionaire George Soros and both have rich histories of sleazy character assassination campaigns. Those who continue to associate with disreputable organizations such as these are only embarrassing themselves.

“Mr. O’Reilly’s words were taken out of context—deliberately. Yet, neither CBS nor CNN checked the facts before giving credibility to the smear against him. Failing to apologize now makes them willing participants in this smear.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue Tie (talk • contribs) 22:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


That's just an opinion piece (and a pretty inflammatory one at that). It's certainly not encyclopedic, doesn't present any unique facts on the issue, and is saying essentially the same thing that BOR said in his own defense. They just say it with far more vitriol and use more specific personal attacks. You may agree with their opinion, but there is no reason to include it in this article. --Loonymonkey 22:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


Maybe You don't like it but it is verifiable from a reliable source. That is sufficient for inclusion. --Blue Tie 22:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Whether I like it has nothing to do with it. It's just an opinion piece. As such, there would be no reason to include it in this article. And no, opinion is not "verifiable." Worse yet, it's factually inaccurate! The author does exactly what he is accusing MMoA of doing by repeating the long-debunked lie that Media Matters is funded by George Soros (it is not). This fact is cited in the article we are discussing. --Loonymonkey 22:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
You seem to have a misconception about wikipedia. Opinions are able to be included in articles. As far as Soros funding Media Matters, well I've been involved in those kinds of games. Money is fungible. MM's denials are not very convincing. --Blue Tie 23:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
So then any accusation, no matter how slanderous, should be considered true until "disproven" beyond all doubt? I don't think any reasonable person would agree with that standard. And yes, of course opinions can be included in articles, but not if they are presented as fact (which is what you are arguing for) and certainly not if they are factually incorrect. More to the point, for reasons I've already stated, there is no reason to include it and you haven't made any kind of argument as to why you think it should be included. You just keep repeating that it should. As a certain user who was arguing against inclusion of opinons on an entirely different article once said: "Per WP:PROVEIT if you are seeking to add something you must prove it." Do you want to guess which user I am quoting? --Loonymonkey 23:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
No. That is not what I said. I would appreciate it if the discussion did not devolve into Strawman arguments where you start declaring what I said ... when that is not what I said. Getting to the point, you have not given any good reasons to exclude it. WP:PROVEIT is exactly what I said should be done, and if you notice, I have done just that. Just look at the start of this section. You will notice that it is proven. --Blue Tie 00:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


It's not a strawman argument at all. Look at your own comments here. You stated essentially that you believe the accusation, because MMoA hasn't disproven the accusation to your satisfaction ("MM's denials are not very convincing"). This ignores the fact that there isn't any proof of the accusation in the first place. WP:PROVEIT puts the burden of proof on you, not me. Nonetheless, I have given several good reasons not to include it in the article most notably that it is a false accusation and does not add anything to the article beyond what was already stated by BOR himself. You have not given any arguments for inclusion. Your argument at the start was simply "It should be here in this article" which is no argument at all.
I don't have any intention of going back and forth like this forever. I'll let others weigh in, but it is essential to note that an unproven statement about a living person should never be included in an article and should be "aggressively removed." This is at the very core of the Wikipedia principals. --Loonymonkey 00:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Unident. Yes, its a strawman. I have not stated I believed it. There does not need to be any proof in the accusation. You do not seem to understand WP:PROVEIT. You have given no good reasons to exclude it -- probably because you do not understand wikipedia. You seem to be mixed up ... thinking its about truth. Its not about truth. Its about verifiability. But you do not have to know a thing about wikipedia to understand this: It is offensive to put words in the mouth of another person as you do with me. --Blue Tie 00:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

In other words, what you are saying is that the criticism is from a reliable source, so it passes WP:V, and the fact it is an opinion piece has no bearing on the argument. Just chiming in for clarification. The Hybrid 00:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, if you're going to resort to personal attacks, I'll take the high road and step out of this. You still haven't provided any arguments for inclusion, which has been one of the central points of this thread. I would suggest you let your emotions cool and concentrate on making reasonable arguments for inclusion. --Loonymonkey 01:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
The reasonable argument for inclusion is that it is a verifiable piece of criticism that would nicely improve the criticism section. If this is unreasonable, then I don't think that I want to be reasonable, The Hybrid 01:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Hybrid, your previous edit summed up my view with one point not emphasized, but which I shall emphasize now: Any time an opinion is expressed, it must be attributed and not be presented in the voice of wikipedia. --Blue Tie 03:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

We need not represent the points of view of each person on a panel

The MM guy is quoted because he was responding on behalf of his organization. The story here, regarding criticism of Media Matters (not criticism of O'Reilly), basically has (1) O'Reilly level this critcism and (2) MM responding. Those are the relevant points of view here. People defending O'Reilly because of the criticism of him that inspired his criticism of MM is not relevant to this article. Accordingly, I advocate removing those comments. As a coda, this version gives a misleading account of Lauer's point of view. He also speculated that O'Reilly might "want a do-over", which indicates that he didn't think it was exactly the case that his original comments were wonderful. Croctotheface 02:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

How is it misleading? It was a specific quote, and it in the reference. Are you saying that it is out of context? How would it be anymore misleading than what MM did to BOR? Plus it is reliably sourced. Arzel 03:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
You're not responding to the heart of what I said, which is that his views on the matter are irrelevant. Unless he criticizes MM, his comments do not belong in a section on criticism of Media Matters. When you address my main point, I'll address the question you raise regarding what I said in my "coda". Croctotheface 03:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely agree with Croc's comments above. As is, the section is grotesquely POV on the side of O'Reilly. Why so many comments defending O'Reilly's statements? There are many comments from reliable sources indicating they agree with MM's view; none are represented here. They don't need to be, just like the O'Reilly defense comments have no place here. O'Reilly claims his comments were taken out of "context". MM says they provided the context and the relevant quotes. The basic facts are all we need here to maintain NPOV. Unless a logical argument can be made here shortly as to why the section should be skewed in favor of O'Reilly, I will remove the recently added pro-O'Reilly commentary.-Hal Raglan 13:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be best to note the issue received media attention and not take any side at all. It should just note each side's argument and leave it at that. MrMurph101 23:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Is there a better denial by MM? The one expressed in here is over the top and does not directly address BOR's complaint. --Blue Tie 23:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
O'Reilly's complaint is that their piece lacked context. I have no idea what context is he supposes is missing from the piece. I don't think that you could read their piece and think he made the "iced tea" comment right after he made the "even though it's run by blacks" comment. I guess I could turn your question around and ask if there's a "better criticism from O'Reilly" because this one doesn't seem very strong to me. Croctotheface 23:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
You can't have it both ways. Part of the problem with this, is that it is a Self Reference. If you were to use a third party reference (the Today Show) could you pull the one comment from the reference and claim NPOV? I submit that you cannot. MM didn't respond to the question presented, they only attacked BOR again in an Ad Hom format. The source for that quote should not even be used for this response. I am removing the "robbing the bank" quote for violation of BLP Reliable sources (reminder, BLP issues don't just apply to the subject article) and WP:NPOV violations. Arzel 23:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't really understand what you're trying to argue here. We can't quote the MM guy unless we talk about the rest of the segment? Why? If we use a quote from a book, we need to talk about the rest of the book, or else we violate NPOV? Croctotheface 02:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
MM did respond to the question presented. O'Reilly defended himself by spouting an excuse commonly utilized by conservatives whenever they are queried about controversial comments..."It was taken out of context!" The MM representative's remark wasn't an out of the blue "attack", it was in direct response to O'Reilly's complaint. That said I don't think the quote absolutely needs to be in the article.-Hal Raglan 02:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I guess I could partially be accused of trying to make a WP:POINT. This is my contention. BOR criticized MM for taking him out of context (definition left up to interpretation). MM responded during an discusion on Today when they made that quote. MM then reported on themselves using just that quote. The reference for the MM response should be the Today Show, not MM. By including the MM reference you have a source which is a self-reference, ie. MM says this in a reference from MM. It should be MM says this in a reference from a third party. Now I wouldn't have a real problem if the response by MM wasn't an attack on BOR which amounts to an Ad Hom. BOR claims they took him out of context by positioning two segments next to each other, and the MM response is that BOR would claim out of context if he robbed a bank. They don't answer the question they respond with a comment to minimize the criticism by BOR. MM also states they didn't take him out of context and included the entire transcript, which is a fine retort. We should use a reliable source which doesn't come directly from MM.
Hal, if it were not for several people defending BOR I would agree, but given that some liberal people are defending him I don't think your response has merit. Arzel 04:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
The Today show is the source. If you want to change the reference so that it is not the MM link but it is instead the Today broadcast, great, it would improve the article. Croctotheface 04:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
We will have to wait until we can directly source the Today Show, it is not currently in their archives. Arzel 15:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
We don't need to have a link to have a source. You can verify that the information is accurate by looking at the MM item. The source would be, like, "Today Show, NBC, [date]." Croctotheface 01:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"They want to shut you up."

Now that the pro-O'Reilly POV problems have been removed from the Criticisms section (thanks to Croctotheface), I'd like to mention one other issue I have with the section about O'Reilly's perceived racist comments. Juan Williams's comment on The O'Reilly Factor, made the day after the incident, strikes me as bizarre if taken as an attack on Media Matters. "It's so frustrating," Williams is quoted as saying in the sourced article. "They want to shut you up. They want to shut up anybody who has an honest discussion about race." Clearly O'Reilly fans will want us to believe that Williams is "frustrated" solely at Media Matters because the organization wants to censor anybody who ever attempts to have a discussion about race. But is that what he is really saying? I haven't read a transcript of the conversation but based on the quote in the article Williams's vague reference to the mysterious "They" could very well mean "The Media" as a whole, not specifically Media Matters. If any transcript exists, I'd like to know if he was absolutely and categorically accusing MM. Was he asked a direct question about MM, and responded, "They want to shut you up."? I'd like to point out that I'm unfamiliar with Williams and any positions he may have. Has he repeatedly and specifically attacked MM regarding this issue before? If not, I submit that his quote is sufficiently ambiguous to possibly warrant removal as a criticism of MM.-Hal Raglan 02:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If you read the opinion piece he wrote for Time[1] regarding the incident, Williams clearly wasn't specifying only Media Matters.-Hal Raglan 03:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
It is hard to know what exactly he is refering. The quote listed is in response to the criticism leveled by MM and subsequently picked up by CNN. However, I think he was generalizing to any group that might bring this up as criticism. BOR is clearly talking about MM and Moveon.org when Williams made the comment, and I think that most people understand that his comments were in part directed towards MM. Arzel 04:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I think you're right about the intent of Williams's remarks. I've kept the comment in the section but expanded it to correspond exactly to what the sourced article quotes him as saying.-Hal Raglan 13:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Given the current sourcable information, I think it reads in a NPOV fashion. Arzel 15:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

We need to clarify the pronoun. Right now, the reader is unclear about who "they" is. Croctotheface 00:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm unsure how we could clarify the use of "They" without being accused of interpretation, since its ambiguous as to exactly what Williams meant in the sourced article. He's not specifically referring to Media Matters. In the Time piece I provided, Williams's makes a similar reference to the mysterious "They", meaning " critics [who] want to shut up Cosby, O'Reilly, me and anyone else who points out the crisis in black America." I think if Williams's defense of O'Reilly is to be included here -- and it makes sense to do so since he was present during the conversation in which the controversial comments were made -- a better, more MM-focused quote should be utilized. He specifically slammed MM a couple times, I believe.-Hal Raglan 01:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I think something more specific to MM would be better, if it's available. Croctotheface 02:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Glenn Beck is not an authority on MM funding by definition

The fact that he makes a statment, without evidence, does not mean that we must include it in the article. I read the transcript, and he provides no evidence supporting his assertion. We don't know what basis, if any, he has for what he's saying. As such, I see no reason it merits inclusion. Croctotheface 23:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Glenn Beck does not state that Clinton is funding MM in the linked transcript. Herb London of the Hudson Institute says that "there is some connection between these dots." Due to IP vands from last night, I believe I'll violate 3RR if I further touch the article today. --guyzero | talk 23:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Funding is a seperate issue. As far as I know, even the nuttiest of blog pundits haven't claimed that Clinton is directly funding MM. A vague quote about "seeing a connection between dots" is completely meaningless on an encyclopedia page. --Loonymonkey 23:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. --guyzero | talk 00:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. The assertion is basically slander to begin with as nobody has ever come up with any evidence to support it. The fact that it is mentioned at all should be enough. We don't need to add a new quote every time some right-wing pundit repeats the claim. --Loonymonkey 23:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
How exactly does a political commentator's questioning of MM's dubious funding sources resort to slander?Fsjonsey 17:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think "slander" is necessarily the correct word, but repeatedly alleging that the funding sources are "dubious", w/out basis, is obviously intended to make MM look like its involved in something potentially illegal. Its not a case of honest "questioning", its rightwing propaganda.-Hal Raglan 17:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
They are making an accusation about a living person yet present no evidence whatsoever and have absolutely no evidence to back up their claim. That's the very definition of slander. The fact that the accusation is made is probably noteworthy, but it is not necessary to catalog every single instance of some blogger repeating the accusation. --Loonymonkey 00:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Um, thats funny, considering Mrs. Clinton said she "started 'and' supported" MM. After all, Rush Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" line is in his wiki article.. It would appear that your concerns Hal are... inaccurate.--68.115.80.156 00:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

{{cite web}}

I need some help converting all references from the simple

<ref>http://yoururlhere.net</ref>

to

<ref>{{cite web|url=http://yoururlhere.net |title= your title here |accessdate = 2007-10-03 }}</ref>

It will really help when/if we try to get this up to featured article. Carbon Monoxide 23:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Meh, Y Done anyways. Carbon Monoxide 03:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Start of MMs

This section was cut from the page. I see no reason for it to be removed. It's a cited source, it's certainly criticism, and it's not a "gotcha quote". Carbon Monoxide 02:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Aside from "slime machine", which is just a generic insult, I don't see what criticism is being articulated there. The rest of that section is just a quote, and I don't know what purpose it serves. Croctotheface 02:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Plus the POV problems are unbelieveable: "MMfA has been criticized by John Gibson of Fox News for links to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign" seems to indicate that there are links when, in fact, none seem to exist.-Hal Raglan 02:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
How about ..."MMfA has been criticized by John Gibson of Fox News for supposed links to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign"... ? Carbon Monoxide 02:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
That's better, but I don't really see the criticism, or even the factual basis. Hillary makes an off the cuff remark about "helping start and support" liberal organizations, lists MM as an example, and that means that there is a link? Croctotheface 02:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I have mixed feelings about this. In a way, I think it would be notable enough of an attack on MM to include in the article if additional conservative pundits of Gibson's stature were to make the same claim. Outside of blogs, my Google search did not find anyone other than Gibson who makes such an accusation. If this ever develops into a widespread allegation in notable conservative publications, it could possibly be included in the article, perhaps in a separate section such as "Conservatives allege link to Hillary Clinton Presidential Campaign". But then we would have to consider wikipedia's BLP policy, which does not allow for unsupported accusations of possible illegal activity to be included. To play it safe I don't think this should be inserted into the article at this time.- Hal Raglan 02:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, if being linked to the campaign is illegal for whatever reason, then that leads me to a couple of different conclusions. First, that kind of criticism, properly based in fact, certainly is weighty enough to mention. Second, it would be unusual, if there were some sort of breach of election law, that it would not be investigated by relevant authorities. Croctotheface 02:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The Economist reports the link between the two.

She has also devoted a lot of effort to improving her party's infrastructure. She helped John Podesta, her husband's former chief of staff, to found a think-tank, the Centre for American Progress, which is a ready source of ideas and talent. She also supported the American Democracy Institute, which is run by veteran Clinton allies, and Media Matters for America, a media watchdog group, which was founded by David Brock, a former Clinton-hater turned Clintonite. All this helped to ensure that, for all the energy unleashed by the netroots and Al Gore, the Washington Democratic establishment has remained a wholly owned subsidiary of the Clinton family.

This is still fluid, but if the connection is ultimately made and MM loses it's non-profit status and becomes a political machine it would have further implications within wikipedia. Currently, MM is used as a source on a number of articles, however under the rules of WP:RS MM could be viewed as an extremist source of a political nature, and many of the current uses would probably have to be removed. Arzel 04:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how much I agree about that. It's clear at present that despite the fact that MM is not classified as a wing of the Democratic party, it's partisan. It clearly has a point of view, and I don't think anybody could look at the group, its work, or its mission statement and think that their goal is neutrality. So I'm not really sure what substantive impact anything that you're talking about would have on MM's power as a source. Croctotheface 09:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Cliff Kincaid

I reverted a recent addition of this, which editors a while back decided was not a significant item. I dug up an old version, with neutral phrasing. If we do decide it should go back in the article, this is more along the lines of what it should look like:

On August 19, 2005, Media Matters for America posted an item regarding a letter that Cliff Kincaid, editor from the media watchdog organization Accuracy in Media, said he had received from an Afghan ambassador. Media Matters for America wrote that the letter was not a scanned document and that it "bears all the hallmarks of a do-it-yourself, cut-and-paste job."[10] Within hours of the post, Kincaid posted scanned images of the letter and envelope he said he had received, and wrote that Media Matters for America had accused him of "having fabricated or forged a letter from the Ambassador of Afghanistan."[11] Media Matters for America then issued a subsequent post stating that Kincaid "misrepresented the original Media Matters item” in which they "simply pointed out that the letter as posted on the America's Survival website consisted of separate elements cobbled together from various sources."[12]

-- Croctotheface 09:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the current version of the article explains this addition just fine. Carbon Monoxide 23:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
The version you prefer had POV problems; I've reverted to Croc's more neutral version.- Hal Raglan 02:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
The current version represents the facts. America's Survival was the response from Kincaid from which the original version included. I simpled added an additional statement from that citation stating a valid criticism. Exactly what are your POV problems with it? Arzel 02:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
My latest edit should make clear what the POV problems were. I've rewritten for neutrality. If you still are having problems noting my POV concerns, I'll explain here. But it should no longer be necessary.-Hal Raglan 03:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, the version you have reduced to removed the citation which was in the version Croc included. Your version only includes references back to MM which makes the section pretty much meaningless. Arzel 02:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
The section was in no way meaningless, but the removal of the citation was unintended. My most recent edit removed the obvious POV problems and reinstated the citation, while clarifying that it was Kincaid who was making the complaint.-Hal Raglan 03:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Hal, you're last edits seems to solve the issue. Carbon Monoxide 03:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm glad you agree.-Hal Raglan 03:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree as well. Arzel 03:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Funding sources

During the August 2007 Yearly Kos convention Hillary Clinton admitted that she was one of the founders of Media Matters for America, along with other progressive groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.160 (talk) 01:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This seems like nonsense. Delete? Croctotheface 01:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
There is a redhot supposedly "gotcha" quote attributed to Hillary Clinton currently being robotically repeated over and over throughout the far right blogosphere, in which she proclaims that she was one of the founders of MM. Unless her alleged comment can be reliably sourced, yes, it does seem like nothing more than nonsense. Any attempt to reinsert the detail into the article w/out adequate sourcing should be reverted.-Hal Raglan 01:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Here is the quote in question. “…putting together a network in the blogosphere and a lot of the new progressive infrastructure, institutions that I helped start and support like Media Matters and the Center for American Progress…” Hillary Clinton is the source. A google search will reveal the video of her saying it. It's probably on You Tube, if that helps. Evensong 02:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Is there a video or transcript with, ironically enough, context? Does she clarify whether she means "start", "support", or both? And what kind of "support"? Croctotheface 02:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
"Is there a video or transcript with, ironically enough, context??"
Yes. I found it on You Tube. Here is the URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbzC6-N9mwM
"Does she clarify whether she means 'start', 'support', or both? And what kind of 'support'?" Since she used the conjunctive "and", and not the the disjunctive "or", I would presume she means both. As for what kind of support, that is a question for Ms. Clinton. Evensong 05:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Since you are noting that you must resort to "presuming" what Clinton's point was, surely you can see that clearly this quote is sufficiently vague in its meaning NOT to include it in the article. It is in no way the definitive proof that she was one of the masterminds behind Media Matters, as is being claimed by rightwing bloggers.-Hal Raglan 13:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the quote is vague as to whether she is the mastermind behind Media Matters, but not because because of any ambiguity as to whether Ms. Clinton's use of the conjunctive "and" really meant the disjunctive "or". If she said "start and support" it is an extraordinarily safe presumption that she meant exactly what she said: "start and support", not "start or support". Also, the reason why this may merit inclusion is not whether or not she was a mastermind behind Media Matters. That is a red herring. The reason this may merit inclusion is that she, a candidate up for election, claims to have to have played a role in starting and supporting a 501(c)3 group prohibited from participating in candidate election advocacy. That alone is noteworthy even if her role, whatever it may be, does not clearly violate the prohibition against political activity. It is quite clear that you do not like the rightwing, so you may be having some problems examining this issue objectively. So here is a test. If President Bush had said that he "helped start and support institutions like the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth", a 527 group permitted to actually engage in election advocacy, would you not support that statement's inclusion in the SBVT page? Evensong 16:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
That "quote" is not only unconvincing, its not even complete. This seems suspiciously like Al Gore's "I created the internet!" comment all over again (trust me, there are probably tens of thousands of conservatives who still believe Gore really said that). I did do a search and I couldn't find anything regarding this outside of rightwing extremist blogs. I'm sorry, but unless a quote in full can be found, reliably sourced, revealing that Hillary Clinton claimed to be a founder of Media Matters, this needs to be left out of the article.-Hal Raglan 02:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
See above, or here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbzC6-N9mwM. Just to be clear, if you find the quote in question to be full and reliably sourced, do you support its inclusion? Evensong 05:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, if she just misspoke, and said that she "helped start" institutions that she was not so much involved in helping start in any kind of literal sense except as far as she believes that they should be started...I'm not really sure what the point is. Are we supposed to say that she founded the organization because of something she said in a speech? SInce you say that the specifics are "a question for Clinton", I'm not sure what you want the article to say. If you just want to report the quote when we really don't know what it means, then I don't see what that woudl accomplish. Croctotheface 06:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I want the article to say something about Ms. Clinton, a candidate for elective office, claiming a role in starting and supporting Media Matters, a 501(c)3 organization prohibited from providing support to people running for elective office. Whether her role and support was or is illegal is wide open for debate, but her comment is still noteworthy and worthy of inclusion. Put it this way. If President Bush said that he "helped start and support institutions like SBVT", would you not consider it noteworthy enough to include in the SBVT page? Because there is a whole section of that page devoted to connecting Bush to the SBVT. Evensong 16:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
According to the right wing "news" website newsbusters, this is Clinton's quote: "We are certainly better prepared and more focused on, you know, taking our arguments, and making them effective, and disseminating them widely, and really putting together a network, uh, in the blogosphere, in a lot of the new progressive infrastructure, institutions that I helped to start and support like Media Matters and Center for American Progress." Again, this seems like the Al Gore internet "controvsery" all over again. With Clinton's comment, right now it hasn't been discussed at all outside of rightwing blogs, therefore the only "reporting" and/or interpretation of her comment has been left to her most deranged opponents. This quote cannot be included in the article as alleged proof that Hillary Clinton founded Media Matters. Simply linking to a You Tube video, then interpreting the quote, is POV and OR. Lets wait to find a reliable source regarding this.-Hal Raglan 13:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I find your objections to be misplaced. First of all, the source of Ms. Clinton's quote is Ms. Clinton, not rightwing blogs. Therefore, since she is the source it meet wikipedia standards. Also, when the source of a statement is the person actually making the statement, then the source is self-verifying and meets wikipedia verifiability standards. Second, interpretation is not an issue. She claimed that she helped start and support Media Matters. It was plain and unambiguous. There is nothing POV about noting that she said that she "helped to start and support institutions Like Media Matters" when that is exactly what she said. Her claim is noteworthy not because someone alleged she "founded" Media Matters. She clearly did not say that. Her comment is noteworthy because as I discussed above, she is a candidate for elective office claiming a role in starting a 501(c)3 organization prohibited from providing support to people running for elective office. Whether her role and support was or is illegal is wide open for debate, but her comment is still noteworthy. The Gore/Internet controversy is different and irrelevant. In that case, a statement that he did not make was attributed to him. In this case, a statement that Ms. Clinton did make is being attributed to her. Evensong 16:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
First, you seem to have misinterpreted wikipedia's verifiability policy, which is "Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." I don't think that anybody would argue that conservative blogs or You Tube fit the definition of a "reliable, published source." I'm sorry, arguing that Hillary Clinton is the reliable source makes no sense to me. Also, its irrelevant whether you personally "want the article to say something about Ms. Clinton, a candidate for elective office, claiming a role in starting and supporting Media Matters, a 501(c)3 organization prohibited from providing support to people running for elective office." Thats strictly your POV and opinion and has no place in this article unless such a view can be attributed to a reliable source. Your claim about the alleged irrelevance of the Gore/Internet controversy comparison strikes me as strange...Gore DID make a statement regarding his role in the creation of the internet that was deliberately and grotesquely misinterpreted by his opponents. Hillary Clinton's comment was sufficiently vague (see MrMurph101's comment below) to allow somebody to claim she was saying something that she didn't. Unless a followup comment from Clinton or Media Matters is forthcoming regarding this, adding the current quote to the article as proof that she did something potentially illegal (as you indicate) would violate BLP. Now, if its that important to you to include Clinton's remark into this article, the odious John Gibson has recently leaped upon the quote as proof that Clinton "owns" Media Matters. Because he is on Fox News, Gibson is considered to be a reliable source and his accusations could be included here, as long as the POV is clearly noted as being strictly Gibson's.-Hal Raglan 18:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
It's too vague right now. MrMurph101 15:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree. It doesn't assert a criticism. Croctotheface 21:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


"...institutions that I helped to start and support, like MM and Center for American Progress... " From her own lips.

Are you people deaf? She's claiming to have helped start MM. Do you attach such stringency to other claims on this site?

Just because other media outlets didn't report it, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Don1962 00:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you always believe everything Hillary Clinton says? Besides, why is it relevant? What does "help start" mean? It's just this one stupid quote. She doesn't define her terms. Does she mean "start" as in funding? Does she mean telling somebody that there should be a media monitoring group on the left? Croctotheface 01:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
WP:SYN seems to apply here at the moment. There needs to be a secondary source that reported this at some point to begin consideration for inclusion. MrMurph101 02:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

On August 4th 2007, Hillary Clinton made a **claim** during a speech at the YearlyKos Convention that she helped start Media Matters. Here is a YouTube video of that speech. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbzC6-N9mwM Why is this not included in the article? It's certainly worth mentioning.

"seems to apply here at the moment. There needs to be a secondary source that reported this at some point to begin consideration for inclusion." - MrMurph101

There's a VIDEO of her making the claim and you don't think it's worth mentioning? This is why no one takes Wikipedia seriously. Shadax 21:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're so convinved that it is worth mentioning. We don't know exactly what she meant by "helped start and support", and nobody seems to have found out. I'm not sure if there's anything to the accusations that MM has violated election law, but that's a serious charge that we probably shouldn't repeat here just because some conservative accuses them. If there is some sort of FEC investigation or other serious evidence that it might be true, or if a significant number of reliable sources report on the controversy, that would be better grounds for including it. As it is, the idea that MM might be more sympathetic to Clinton than, say, Ann Coulter is not exactly earth shattering news to people familiar with the organization. Croctotheface 22:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Be patient please. I don't believe there is anyone flat out against presenting this material in some fashion. It's just that there needs to be more pieces of this puzzle to get the scope of the matter presented properly and within policy. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not the latest news and rumours. MrMurph101 23:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"We don't know exactly what she meant by "helped start and support"" - Croctotheface Speak for yourself. I know what the words "start" and "support" mean. Moreover, I don't think you fully understand the implications behind such a claim. Hillary claimed that she helped *start* Media Matters -- and for those of us who speak the English language, that means she had *some kind of hand* in the establishment of Media Matters. (presuming she's not lying) If you have a better explanation of what she meant by "start", then by all means share it with us. Shadax 00:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe she was referring to(but I doubt) the other two Media Matters entries on this disambiguation page. MrMurph101 02:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Good one, Murph. Shadax 17:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The passage on Media Matters’ funding contains an inaccurate characterization of Democracy Alliance, implying that the Alliance distributes monies to organizations. In fact, individual members of the Democracy Alliance donate directly to the organizations of their choice. An October, 2006 article from The Nation that is cited as a source in the Wikipedia entry on Democracy Alliance says the following: "The Alliance would not dole out money itself, but collectively the partners would meet twice a year through its auspices to decide which organizations to fund... Partners could then give money to the organizations they favored, voting with their checkbooks." While Soros is a member of the Alliance, he has never given money to Media Matters.

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20061016&s=berman

I work for Media Matters and don't want to appear to violate NPOV, but the current language simply isn't accurate - could another community member update this? A more accurate version of the Funding section related to Democracy Alliance might read...

Bill O'Reilly and others have claimed that George Soros is funding Media Matters through Democracy Alliance -- an organization of progressive donors. [16][17] The Democracy Alliance does not collect and distribute money on behalf of its members. In fact, Alliance members donate directly to the organizations of their choice. [ New Cite - The Nation] Media Matters has stated publicly on numerous occasions that Soros has never given money to the organization either directly or through another organization. [ New Cite - link below ]

http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/search_results?qstring=Soros+has+never+given+money+to+Media+Matters

PAW 17:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I made the changes described above, adding the two new references to the existing set. PAW 12:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It is up for debate on what Hillary Clinton meant with her statement at the Yearly Kos convention...it's up for debate if she actually had a hand in creating Media Matters. However, there is NO DEBATE that Hillary indeed did claim to take a hand in helping start and support the organization. This FACT deserves inclusion in the Media Matters page.
And if you appreciate irony, dig this: People on this talk page justify the exclusion of VIDEO EVIDENCE of Hillary's claim from the Media Matters page because they found it discussed on a "right wing" website...yet "left wing" Media Matters' OPINIONS are all over Wikipedia. Just look up John Gibson's Wikipedia page. Media Matters' INTERPRETATION of Gibson's words appear on his main Wiki page. The double-standard is blatant.
There is NO DEBATE...Hillary claimed to help start MM. You don't have to interpret her exact meaning...but as an encyclopedia you have a responsibility to include this fact.
Then again, maybe this isn't how Wikipedia operates. Factual evidence that casts Media Matters in a negative light is excluded...yet opinion that casts Media Matters' opponents in a negative light is included on opponents' pages. Is this stupid or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.58.248.33 (talk) 20:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

You can find all kinds of EVIDENCE of this organization's mischievous deeds at fox news's website. EVIDENCE, as in, not doctored information.

As a factual encyclopedia, shouldn't we include the evidence in the article? I mean, we have comments of various people, evidence cant hurt. 65.27.139.162 07:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Evidence and facts are quite different from mere interpretive opinions expressed by rightwing propagandists.-Hal Raglan 13:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Hahahaha. Evidence on Fox News website. That's a good one. They're still connecting Saddam to 911 and AlQaeda. Cheers 12.146.184.9 21:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
You're full of crap. FNC doesn't connect Saddam to 911. Leave the analysis of FNC to those who actually watch FNC, because you obviously do not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.58.248.32 (talk) 19:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms section

As I wrote in an edit summary, this section has begun to balloon out of control, unbalancing the article by occupying a disproportionate amount of space. I'm sure there are criticisms of MMFA to be found all over the internet. That doesn't mean they all have to appear in the article. The section should not be allowed to dominate the rest of the article. Please see WP:Undue weight --Rrburke(talk) 02:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It is starting to get a little sloppy. It would be good to note the more relevant criticisms and leave out that which bloats the article. MrMurph101 02:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Notable criticisms only should be included. Recent additions of trivial complaints from conservatives have caused the section to dominate the article.-Hal Raglan 16:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Could we change this section so that it uses paragraphs rather than bullets? I don't see any reason for the bullets. Croctotheface 16:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Just make a Criticism of Media Matters for America article. CO 16:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason "criticism" didn't grab me is that this is a group that does "criticism of the press" and so the "criticism" section sounded like this was a list of their crticisms. So I figured something else like "Is MMFA a reliable source?" or "crticisms of MMFA" or my favorite, "Does MMFA spew baloney?" I'm tired of the word "criticism." Too soft pedaling, it's not more neutral it's just more bland.SecretaryNotSure 14:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

By its own nature, NPOV is bland. To address your concern the section could be called "responses to Media Matters" and present the reactions of those they target. MrMurph101 15:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Puzzled about standards

I admit I am puzzled about what sources you consider reliable. newsbusters would seem to be the reverse of Media Matters, and absent other evidence, given about the same weight. Both The New Republic and National Review have offered commentary that Media Matters is a Hillary proxy, and I would think those are generally regarded as serious sources. I am also not sure what to make of your discounting right-wing bloggers without identifying them or their problems.

Brock is one of Hillary's biographers, after all, which is not mentioned in the MM entry. It would be too strong to say there is a double standard, but there does seem to be a different threshold for credibility depending on whether the source is left or right. Assistant Village Idiot 24.128.173.71 (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? What section of the article (or discussion on this talk page) are you referring to in your comment? Thanks! --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I was refering to the discussion page. Both the Funding and Media Matters as a source sections have discussion about what is to be accepted as evidence and what is not. I approve of the general principles that wikipedia employs on this. However, Hal Raglan dismisses some sources as right-wing extremists without saying why, while wikipedia seems to accept Media Matters as a reliable source. One could as well call themn a left-wing extremist site and dismiss them; yet for reasons which are not clear to me, they are regarded as at least somewhat respectable as a source. They are the main source for the criticism of Edward Klein's entry, for example. Newsbusters is specifically mentioned as an unacceptable source.
There may indeed be sound reasons for these editorial decisions, but they have not been justified here. It just seems wrong to accept or reject a source that is called into question without giving evidence why. I don't know whether there is a political bias, but there is certainly the appearance of one.
Assistant Village Idiot 199.192.1.67 (talk) 15:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
The Edward Klein article you mentioned (thank you!) has POV issues and I've tagged it as such. Further discussion of the sourcing for that article should go on that article's talk page. cheers, --guyzero | talk 17:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I actually do have a login, because I have edited some folk music entries a few months ago, but I must have created a slightly different name and password, which will take me a few tries to re-find. My standard one didn't work. Assistant Village Idiot 199.192.1.67 (talk) 20:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)