Talk:Neal Boortz controversies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To-do list for Neal Boortz controversies: edit · history · watch · refresh

[edit] Critics and rivals

  1. Cynthia Tucker

[edit] Controversial statements

  1. Add Media Matters back
  2. add Opposition to the ACLU
  3. Alleged Liberal Bias in Media
  4. Cindy Sheehan (aka moonbat
  5. Terri Schiavo
  6. Max Cleland
  7. Bob Barr
  8. Jesse Jackson (slogan master)
  9. John Kerry (Skerry, Poodle)
  10. Laura Schlesinger
  11. ADD and ADHD are "medical frauds"

[edit] Media Matters

I had a media Matters article, but it was removed by NatusRoma because "the references included in the Media Matters section do not support anything sufficiently encyclopedic for inclusion." The section was as follows:

Media Matters for America, Boortz has often been a hot subject of Media Matters' online reports. 
"Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and 
information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting 
conservative misinformation in the U.S. media." Although Boortz questions and refutes the 
claim [1] and points out that they are funded by billionaire George Soros, is a liberal 
web-based organization that reports and criticizes what it describes as "conservative 
misinformation in the U.S. media" Boortz has made comments that Media Matters distorts the truth 
and many times will cut a clip to make it say what they want. However, he thanks them for 
spelling his name right and to "Just keep on keepin' on" and to "Just get that "Boortz" name out 
there..." [1]

Media Matters is constantly trying to assert that Boortz is a liar, he's dishonest, he's a hater, and anti-Muslim, etc. A Media Matters section is quite relevant. Maniwar 13:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I would think that this would probably be relevant, however, it should be rewritten. I'd remove the sections that describe Media Matters as the wikilink to the article can do this. "Boortz questions and refutes the claim" - what claim? There is no discussion of what the claim is or how they criticise him. Better yet, I think the discussion might flow better if we stated the criticism and then address who charges it. For example, "Boortz has been criticised as being being anti-Muslim... by John Suggs and organizations such as Media Matters". As I mentioned on my talk though, I'm not sure this information should exist as its own article. I think it would be better to include it on the main Boortz article. Morphh (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip Morphh. Regarding your comment about it being combined with the main article, I only started a separate one because I see the potential of this being larger than the main article and perused around at similar articles to see how they did it. If the consensus is to combine both, then I'm fine with it. But as mentioned, I didn't think the main body of his profile should be made up of his controversies; that's why I started this as a separate post. Maniwar (talk) 18:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
No problem - I see you've been expanding it so I thought it would be jumping the gun to put up merge banners and such. Usually, the main article grows to the point of split but we'll give it a shot and see how others take it.  :-) Morphh (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)