Talk:Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting/Archive 1

Archive 1

Leftist and rightist outfits

I don't think it's a POV to state the political affiliation of an organization. There simply are leftist and rightist outfits. FAIR makes no secret about its political stance; in fact, it is advertised everywhere. For instance, in its What's FAIR page, it describes itself as a "progressive group". If it denied its political leanings, that would be an NPOV issue, but it does not. -- VV 20:20, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I find nothing backing up the claim that FAIR is "left". // Liftarn

Are you fucking kidding me? Trey Stone 05:33, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The fact the describe themselves as progressive does not automatically infer that they are liberal, to suggest otherwise on this assumption alone would be original research. As it is this is definitely POV so I'll change it to simply progressive for now. Something along the lines of "widely believed to be liberal" can be added, provided outside sources can be found to validify such a claim. 81.178.71.79 20:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I noticed user 70.253.172.12 reverted my edit. Can you please specify your reasons for doing so here? I've removed liberal and this time just left it without an political adjective, as is the case with AIM. 81.178.71.79 00:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted to an earlier version of the opening paragraph. Its not necessary at all to instantly label FAIR as "progressive" or "liberal" in the very first sentence. Let the reader decide. The paragraph fully explains what FAIR describes as its mission. It also states that conservative critics have interpreted their self-described "progressive" views as meaning they have a strictly liberal bias. The reader can follow the provided links and read FAIRS's mission statement. Compare this to the opening paragraph of the Accuracy in Media article. Certainly few people would argue against that media watchdog group's conservative bias, but the editors of that article have taken pains to avoid labeling them in that way. This has been done to conform to wikipedia's NPOV policy. The same should be done here.Hal Raglan 19:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

"The fact the describe themselves as progressive does not automatically infer that they are liberal"

That is such a dishonest statement that I find it hard to even want to debate you. Progressive means Left-wing-- it means Liberal.

In order to have an intelligent discussion, both parties have to be fundamentally honest-- saying that a self-described 'progressive' organization is NOT LIBERAL is very dishonest.

128.138.173.224 02:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed!

I think characterizing organizations as left or right wing is essential. It is, in fact, the very type of info that users depend on Wikipedia for. It is, however, necessary to have objective soruces doing the characterization.American Clio (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)American Clio

Why "characterize" an organization at all? That's POV editorializing, which has no place in wikipedia. Objectively detail the group's alleged bias or political bent, with reliable sources, and let the reader decide. This article already does that. Also, FAIR describes itself as "progressive", which is clearly noted only a few sentences down into the lead. The term "left wing" is pretty loaded, and generally used in a negative way by the media.-Hal Raglan (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Progressive economic controls

I could not find support for this assertion: "Non-leftists are often dissatisfied with FAIR, one issue being the group's stance against Christina Hoff Sommers, calling the group McCarthyite and unworthy of the label fair." --GD 09:00, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Left-wing and progressive are two very different terms. FAIR simply states itself as a progressive group its only progressive policy is about economic controls on media, not content.

"As a progressive group, FAIR believes that structural reform is ultimately needed to break up the dominant media conglomerates, establish independent public broadcasting and promote strong non-profit sources of information."

A level playing field and a better media market are economic ideas of the right. Calling fair a leftist organization is wrong and shows a lot of POV and bias.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.175.73.106 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 7 July 2004 (UTC)

> "A level playing field and a better media market are economic ideas of the right."

Wrong. Check out these leftist sites: [1] [2]

Both the Left and the Right have used the term 'progressive'. In fact, not too long ago in my country of residence there was a Progressive Conservative party. Since liberals would be more likely than conservatives to agree that FAIR's policy is 'progressive', I think it's FAIR to say that it is a liberal group. Vacuum 16:22, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

How come a bunch of radicals (talking U.S. "progressivism" here) got to claim they were the ones advocating progress? 's notttt fairrrrr... Trey Stone 05:31, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps it is because ithas been radical groups that have driven all the significant changes in US policy, at least, those for the better, such as the Abolitionist movement, the feminist movement, and civil rights movement, just to name a few. All of these were considered radical in their time, and indeed some aspects of them remain so. Zinnling 07:07, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

"FAIR simply states itself as a progressive group its only progressive policy is about economic controls on media, not content.": No, FAIR also challenges content. It views media outlets as seldom providing criticism by passionate progressives.[3] (SEWilco 19:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC))

"Left-wing and progressive are two very different terms."

The above statement is either complete idiocy or is an outright LIE.

Left-wing and progressive are THE SAME THING AND EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT.

128.138.173.224 02:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.234.240 (talk) 12:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

FAIR's Funding

Is there are source for all this information on FAIR's funding?--GD 10:01, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I deleted the part about the funding. The source was clearly POV (even its title contained an allegation the CIA's Ford Foundation). Also, the term establishment foundation was not NPOV. - DocendoDiscimus 13:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

FAIR as a "progressive group"

The cite I've provided, from FAIR's own "About us" page says "As a progressive group, FAIR believes ..." (1st para, 4th line). Please take the time to actually read the sources being cited, before removing them with a comment like "Nowhere in the cite given does FAIR say it's "progressive" " Isarig 16:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a new cite. The original cite supporting the original content, [4], did not support the statement. FeloniousMonk 18:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's a new cite introduced by me yesterday, which you removed without reading. I was not complaining about you removing [5], I was compalining about you removing [6]. That's why I asked you to take the time to actually read the sources being cited, before removing them Isarig 18:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

FAIR claims of conservative bias

The reference cited provides FAIR's position that

'Given that most media outlets are owned by for-profit corporations and are funded by corporate advertising, it is not surprising that they seldom provide a full range of debate. The right edge of discussion is usually represented by a committed supporter of right-wing causes, someone who calls for significantly changing the status quo in a conservative direction. The left edge, by contrast, is often represented by an establishment-oriented centrist who supports maintaining the status quo; very rarely is a critic of corporate power who identifies with progressive causes and movements with the same passion as their conservative counterparts allowed to take part in mass media debates.'

This is a claim of bais in the media, favoring the "right edge of discussion". I don't understand why you claim the reference does not support the content. Isarig 19:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it says that the "right edge of the discussion" is solid (because owners and reporters share an ideology), while the left edge is shaky because it is answerable to corporate power that generally doesn't share its ideology. That's a far cry from saying that there's a conservative bias in the media. Guettarda 20:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It says the "right edge of the discussion" is presented by "committed supporter[s] of right-wing causes" while the left edge is presented by centrists. Putting aside the reasons for this phenomena alleged by FAIR, this is a claim of bias. Isarig 20:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

If nothing else, this proves that FAIR is a Liberal group. Liberals consider themselves "centrist" and consider conservatives "right-wing", according to Bernard Goldberg in Bias (book). --Uncle Ed 16:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see some further work on "liberal bias" or "conservative bias" and its supposed link to "corporate interests" (assumed to be conservative). From what I've heard of the New York Times, it's owned by a closely held corporation, not a publicly traded one: its owners and reporters "share an ideology" (to borrow Guettarda's phrase).

Not that I'm expecting Wikipedia to make a pronouncement on the subject (endorsing a POV is *yawn* forbidden by NPOV, for those who may have missed my last 5 years here). I'd just like to see a balanced description of the issue of ownership and editorial influence. --Uncle Ed 16:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Micah Wright removal

Hi, it seems Felonius removed a setence and link concerning Micah Wright and the fact that FAIR sells his book. I'm not sure what part of this setence Felonius was claiming was unsourced. The link was to a FAIR page where a book by Micah Wright is being sold. Felonius, are you claiming that the fact that FAIR sells this book is unsourced? The link is to their own page selling the book! -- Deville (Talk) 04:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The issue isn't that FAIR sells the book. However, this isn't a comprehensive list of books sold by FAIR. The reason it's mentioned is the assertion that "It should be pointed out that although FAIR claims to be an organization against erroneous reporting, it continues to sell a book by Micah Wright..." To begin with, "it should be pointed out" should never be in an encyclopaedia article. But the "unsourced" issue is that there is something "wrong" with FAIR selling the book. To begin with, it's a POV stated as if it were a fact; thus, it amounts to Wikipedia asserting a POV, which violates NPOV. You are free to say that Person X (who counts as a reliable source and expresses a non-fringe POV) says that it is hypocritical for FAIR to see that book. In addition, assuming that the allegation about Wright is true, you would have to show that this somehow affects the quality of what he has to say - after all, it's a book they are selling, not the person. Is the book somehow false? FM was quite right to remove this. Guettarda 05:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I definitely agree with what you're saying about the tone, and and somewhat about the content of the sentence in contention. (The "somewhat" is that I agree that the tie-in could and should be made more explicit if the information is to remain.) However, there is valid content here: the fact that an organization whose stated purpose is to promote accuracy in media promotes the work of someone who was caught blantantly and intentionally manipulating the same media for partisan purposes is worthy of mention, no? For example, had Wright's book been promoted by an organization calling itself "Your Favourite Left-Center Media Watchdog Group (YFLMWG)", then this is not interesting. But, of course, this is an entirely different story: The reason I thought there was a problem is that FM's edit summary didn't discuss any of these issues. --Deville (Talk) 13:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.234.240 (talk) 12:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Liberal and Conservative unless we have proof that they are nuts

As an encyclopedia, the generally used terms for the two sides of the spectrum are left and right, liberal and conservative. We should not let outfits or people call themselves either progressive or libertarian when it fits their purpose. We should say liberal or conservative then say that they themselves choose to try to self identify as "libertarian" as that Cyrus Nasreth carictuhter in the Path911 writer guy. He tyried to pass himself off as not a neo-con or con. Chivista 14:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia is a global entity which covers the U.S., Canada, Australia, South Africa, and the U.K. (to name countries where English is the primary official language), to say nothing of other countries the world over where English is one of several official languages, to say nothing of other countries which have large English-speaking populations even if English isn't an official language.

And most parts of the world do not share the U.S. view of the word "Liberal." Liberals in the U.S. would be considered moderates in most of Europe and elsewhere in the world. Since the English Wikipedia is a global entity, it behooves us to avoid parochialism wherever possible.

All the best,

Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak}

15:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. As an amusing aside, I earlier removed the descriptor "extreme right-wing organization" from the Accuracy in Media article. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. ΞU

The Path 911 hack Cyrus Nowrasteh used to have "libertairan" as the opening line. I started the move to put the more generic and more commonly used "conservative" label. See the talk on that page. This is just an encyclopedia. The liberals want to be called progressive, the conservative want to be called liberatarian, but neither side has a right to be called something they are not. It is supposed to be what most ordinary people who hear and use the term... By The Way,,.. there is nothing wrong with the words liberal or conservative Chivista 19:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

As a liberal, I certainly don't think anything is wrong with the word or being called one. But FAIR calls themselves progressive and for us to call them something else we'd have to demonstrate that their label is incorrect. This may be the case with Nowrasteh, I don't know. On a website where we can't even call Fox News Channel "conservative", I don't see what's so wrong about using FAIR's preferred synonym. Gamaliel 20:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

The lead paragraphs in the wikipedia articles for Media Research Center, Accuracy in Media, and Media Matters for America, all similar organizations to FAIR, take pains to maintain a NPOV tone in describing these organizations. We should do the same here. I don't understand the compulsion to insert "progressive" or "liberal" or any other descriptor into the opening sentence of the article, especially when this issue is discussed only a few sentences later, with citations. FAIR self-describes itself as progressive and that is adequately mentioned and sourced later in the article. -Hal Raglan 00:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

False, the lead sentence for Media Research Center continues to say conservative, despite several users editing it out.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.234.240 (talk • contribs)

False. The lead sentence for Media Research Center continues to not include any such descriptor, despite several editors editing it in.-Hal Raglan 01:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That's obviously a different article about a different group and I don't think it's particularly relevant. Maybe it would be better to not say "conservative" in the first sentence of that article but we are not dealing with that here. FAIR identifies itself as "progressive" not "liberal" and I don't think we have any reason to describe them as the latter. If anything "progressive" generally notes that an individual or group is further to the left politically than traditional "liberals" and I certainly think (actually I know) that that is the case for FAIR.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

All may or may not be valid points, but still does not deny that Hal Raglan's above statement is false. He would be accurate if he removed Media Research Center. Either way, Hal's argument holds no water since FAIR even calls themselves progressive in thier mission statement.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.234.240 (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

How is anything in my above statement false? We should describe FAIR as a media criticism organization, just like the other articles on similar organizations do. Last I looked -- approximately five minutes ago -- Media Research Center has no qualifier slapped into the opening sentence. I don't understand the confusion here. Nothing is being kept out of the article. Like I said above: "...this issue is discussed only a few sentences later, with citations. FAIR self-describes itself as progressive and that is adequately mentioned and sourced later in the article." The whole point of the second paragraph is to detail FAIR's self-description, as well as others' perception of the group.-Hal Raglan 01:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Despite the claim made by an anonymous editor, I see no consensus here or in any of the previous discussions above to slap a descriptive label into the opening sentence. For consistency with other wikipedia articles, and to maintain NPOV, its best to describe FAIR in strictly encyclopedic terms, "a media criticism organization". Only a few words later, FAIR's self-description, as well as others's views of the organization's political bent, is fully discussed. I've reverted to the previous version, one which has been in existent for years. Lets further discuss the issue here before continuing to develop an edit war.-Hal Raglan 17:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

See wiki's help page on NPOV. If a group self describes themselves as progressive, it is considered to be prudent to describe them as such on thier wiki page. The majority here agree that it is prudent to "slap a descriptive label" on them if they self describe themselves with that label. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhino7628 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

What majority? I don't agree with you that "progressive" needs to appear in the first sentence and neither does Hal. The only users pushing to include this are you and IP 70.160.234.240, which I suspect is you as well considering you edited that talk page from your account. The original complaint was that Media Research Center was described in the lead as conservative but now that label has been removed by the IP user which I think is good. If you want consistency this article should not use the term progressive in the opening sentence.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I suspect you and Hal are the same person since you are the only ones agreeing to keep deleting the edits that the rest of us are making.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.234.240 (talk • contribs)

Well that's hilarious. I've never even seen Hal until this little battle brewed up. And who is "the rest of us" to whom you refer? I see an IP and a user named Rhino7628 which are more than likely the same user based on this edit. If that's true, you cannot log in and out intentionally in order to act as though you are two editors as it is considered sockpuppetry.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Super Bowl event

The "Super Bull" story is based on, as Isarig noted, a single article by Ken Ringle. The article itself was criticized by the experts that Ringle used in the article as well as by the American Journalism Review for mis-quoting their information.

The event of note was the pre-Super Bowl PSA on NBC.

I do agree that Snopes.com is normally pretty reliable, but in this case all they did was print the information from Ringle's article without any acknowledgement of FAIR's POV. I am talking with them about this now.

We could add that Ringle claimed that it was a press conference previous to the Super Bowl where an activist claimed that more women are attacked on Super Bowl Sunday led to NBC agreeing to run the PSA, and that there was a FAIR representative there who did not disagree with the activist's claim. But then we're literally back to "he said, she said."

Other than the AJR noting that Ringle's article was badly written, I haven't seen any other independent verification in this. Let's talk it out here before we go putting this accusation back on the site -- KellyLogan 20:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you post a link to the AJR critique? The fact that the claim was carried by FAIR material is not disputed by FAIR itself, as the new sources I've added show. Isarig 20:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk, what sources exactly are available for the paragraph you re-inserted with the summary "restore sourced content"? As afr as I can see, no a single statemnt in that paragraph is sourced. (compare and contrast with the one you reverted) Isarig 00:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hrm. Apparently not. AJR is down for maintenance right now. As far as the claim not being disputed by FAIR, which claim is that exactly? The Super Bowl violence claim was categorically denied by FAIR itself (http://www.fair.org/extra/9304/superbowl.html). And the story itself is presented incorrectly. The press conference was before the Super Bowl, the PSA occurred *on* Super Bowl Sunday. The point of Ringle's article was that a claim at the conference pressured NBC to put the PSA on the air. The PSA made no claim regarding violence other than stating that it was a crime. I did find a copy of the Ringle story and the followup in the Wall Street Journal where they compare the PSA calling domestic violence criminal to H.G. Wells' "War of the Worlds" broadcast. That should give you a bit of an idea of what kind of 'journalism' we are talking about here: http://www.skepticfiles.org/urban/hoaxbowl.htm -- KellyLogan 21:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The claim that is not being disputed is that at the press confernce and in other materials that were distributed by FAIR, incorrect information (such as the claim that violence is expected to rise 40% for Super bowl day) was distributed, which should not have been. There are multiple sources for that, including for example this, where Steven Rendell, a FAIR spokesman is quote saying (of his group's assertion that reports of domestic violence increased 40 percent on Super Bowl Sundays) "It should not have gone out in FAIR materials." ; describing the figure as anecdotal and saying "yes, you should strike that." The section you removed was not about the PSA at all, so I don't understand your repeated allusions to the PSA. At issue is the press conference (a day before), at which the claims were made. I'll restore the original version, until you can support your critcism of Ringle with some sources. Isarig 23:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I've separated out the two events and created a new Criticism section to put these things in. That should make it cleaner. If you have a more direct reference that has Steve Rendell or other FAIR representative stating that they put the 40% statistic into their materials and distributed it, add that in. Given the murkiness and allegations of misquoting already involved here, and FAIR's absolute denial of stating that statistic(http://www.fair.org/extra/9304/superbowl.html), I'd like to see something firmer before we throw that into the mix again. -- KellyLogan 04:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The model of Wikipedia is that when you have reliable sources which say one thing, and reliable sources which say something different, you tell the reader both sides of the story and let them decide. We now have at least one reliable source (the Boston Globe) directly stating that the 40% statistic was issued by FAIR, and several reliable sources stating that a prediction of some increased level of domestic violence was issued by FAIR. I think that waiting for "something firmer" is unnecessary and harmful to NPOV; we are already at the point when we should be presenting both sides and letting the reader decide. -- 192.250.34.161 12:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, so you don't like my wording. And I can understand that, it was just a first stab -- so what's the suggested wording?SecretaryNotSure 02:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, with no objections I'll add the commentary about the "super bowl myth." From the previous commentary, I gather that the objection is that we can't 100% blame FAIR for starting or "originating" the urban legend, FAIR may have been the victim of the hoax. I don't believe there's an credible debate over if it's a myth or not. Also, we'll change the phrase "wife beating" to the more P/A "family violence" or "domestic violence." I'll come up with some better phrases.SecretaryNotSure 21:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Part of the issue is that FAIR's point of view needs to be represented. In the article linked above in this thread FAIR noted that commentators had "asserted that the coalition had claimed "national studies" linked Super Bowl Sunday to increased assaults. No such claims were made. In fact, FAIR made the point repeatedly that domestic violence movement is gravely underfunded and understudied." So basically FAIR denies that they ever claimed there was hard and fast evidence linking the Super Bowl to an increase in domestic violence--they only cited anecdotal evidence, or at least this is their claim. Obviously that's significant because if FAIR and the other groups were simply saying, "anecdotal evidence suggests there is more domestic violence during the Super Bowl" that's quite a bit different from claiming categorically that there is definitely more violence during the Super Bowl. FAIR also strongly criticized the Ringle article in the Post--providing good evidence about what was wrong with that story--and the Ringle piece seems to be the main basis for the Snopes article. In other words I don't think it's clear cut that FAIR or anyone else for that matter was behind this "myth" so we need to present both the accusations by Ringle and the denial by FAIR, while keeping the idea that the PSA was a success in terms of raising awareness of/starting a conversation about domestic violence (from the perspective of FAIR and a number of others this is what was notable about the PSA--not the controversy about the domestic violence stats, which is not to say we cannot discuss that controversy of course, it just can't overshadow the basic point that the PSA was apparently effective). One other thing. We can't use the word "hoax" to describe the situation. There's no evidence whatsoever that this was a "hoax," a term which connotes deliberate deceit. I think the word "myth" or "misnomer" would be a more neutral way to describe the Super Bowl/DV connection.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, more food for thought.SecretaryNotSure 00:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be helpful if FAIR's press releases, and mailings related this matter were its webpages, just as its commentaries on the reaction to its orginal statements are on their website. We cannot easily know whether they did stress that domestic violence research was gravely underfunded.

There is an excerpt of their press release is here http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1246 "The Super Bowl is one of the most widely viewed television events every year. Unfortunately, women's shelters report that Super Bowl Sunday is also one of the worst days of the year for violence against women in the home." following that- "The release cited press reports (New York Times, 1/5/92, 1/22/92; Chicago Tribune, 1/27/91) based on the accounts of those who work with battered women."

I actually read the 1/27/91 Chicago Tribune article (actually a Knight Ridder piece picked up by the Trib) The title is: "Aggressiveness in sports has a sorry spinoff Studies show a link to wife-beating"

To quote: "Super Bowl Sunday is the most violent day of the year for women, when the caseload at battered-women's shelters soars, according to separate studies in the late 1980s by women's groups in Marin County, Calif., Denver and Los Angeles."

FAIR endorsed and publicized this article by citing it in their press release. So we see that FAIR did not claim there were national studies, they merely let us know someone else said there were studies from across the nation. FAIR ignores this, and insists that they stressed the anecdotal nature of reports. The main issue was not whether the studies were national or not, it was their existence.

We must note that this article came out two years before their publicity on the matter, as a group dedicated to fact checking, they had ample time to verify the existence of these studies. The studies in those three cities apparently do not exist, else FAIR would have them front and center on their website, rather than weasling about how they never claimed there were NATIONAL studies.

It also should be pointed out what the 1/5/92 NYT article they cited actually was. The writer recounted a dream sequence in which Jane Fonda said that domestic violence was high on Super Bowl Sunday. Dream sequences are not reports of people who work with battered women, they are not anecdotes, they are NOT EVEN REALITY. That FAIR used it in a serious way, and later misrepresented it, is strong evidence that they acted in bad faith.

The use of a dream sequence as evidence, and the endorsement of an article which claimed something which isn't true should be noted in the article. They are very notable. I would never have heard of this FAIR group except I read about the "Super Bowl Hoax" elsewhere.

67.167.2.58 (talk) 21:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Sorry I didn't realize that I was supposed to make a new section on the talk page. New to this. 67.167.2.58 (talk) 21:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit to intro

Fair was set up to study political bias. Hence it's political views would be important to note. I changed the first line to mimic the lead in the article on the Media Research Center

"The Media Research Center (MRC) is a conservative media criticism organization based in Alexandria, Virginia, founded in 1987 by L. Brent Bozell III."

If my edit gets changed I will Change the article on the Media Research Center. Please discuss BEFORE changing.

thank you.76.184.118.98 19:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It is important to note an organization's political views and this is already done in the article. FAIR describes its politics as "progressive". This is detailed only a few sentences into the article. Others have called it a "liberal organization". This is also discussed in the article. I will remove the "liberal" descriptor from the opening page. Please feel free to edit the MRC article accordingly.-Hal Raglan 19:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a liberal organization. Nearly all conservative or libertarian organizations have their appropriate descriptors placed in the first sentence, as well as in all article which cite them as sources. Attempting to hide or confuse the reader to this fact is an act of dishonesty on the editors part, as well as further proof as to the bias of Wikipedia.--Rotten 08:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the liberal tag as there is no attempt to hide or confuse anyone statsone 02:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the "progressive" tag. No reason to slap this label in the opening paragraph, as FAIR's alleged political leanings are adequately discussed a few sentences later. See Accuracy in Media.-Hal Raglan 13:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm a beginner, so appreciate your help with this question I asked in the Media Research Center. Thanks in advance. Why can't we say liberal or even progressive on the opening sentence of FAIR, but we must say conservative in the opening sentence of MRC. Does NPOV only apply if the subject is a progressive organization? Please discuss here before revert. Thanks.Virginiabob 18:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The structure of this article flows toward and through the organization's own "progressive" description within several sentences. The MRC article doesn't have a similar section with more description of the organization so there are not many choices about where to put information about the organization. (SEWilco 19:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for the reply and yes I agree the MRC article does not have a similar section. I appreciate that you discussed it here before the revert, unlike some others here. I'll undo my own edit in response. (talk • contribs) 19:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC) Virginiabob 19:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

In general, I don't see what it really helps to use the "liberal" label when we can instead quote the organization's own self-description. Croctotheface (talk) 03:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Listed as a liberal group

My issue of the RFC here: there is a glutton of non-partisan media which explicitly states that this is a liberal group, including CNN, St. Petersburg Times, New York Times, dozens of mentions in The Los Angeles Times, over 100 mentions from the Washington Post, etc. etc. There are more reliable sources on this one than just about anything else. To instead only put in the intro that It has been described by Columbia Journalism Review's Michael Scherer[2] and by the Associated Press's television writer David Brauder[3] as a "liberal media watchdog". wreaks of WP:WEASEL issues. It is no more POV to state that this is a liberal group, given the breath-taking depth of non-biased sources, than to state the Republicans are conservative, or the Democrats liberal. I have also pointed out that Wikipedia consensus has properly shown, on other such articles (e.g., MoveOn), to include the exact phrasing I have used Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) is a liberal[1][2][3] media criticism organization.... While Wikipedia strives for a neutral point of view, we do not strive to remove any point of view at all (Neutral Point of view != No point of view); or else, we would have to state something silly like The Soviet Union was described by XYZ of the Associated Press as a liberal state. The Evil Spartan (talk) 03:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

In general, I prefer to use a group's self-description rather than ascribe labels that they don't choose for themselves. If they prefer "progressive", then I don't think it adds to the article to say something else. I don't think the "two sources describe them as a liberal watchdog" sentence adds anything, either. Croctotheface (talk) 04:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The group's self-description as progressive is already there. It seems like the proper place for descriptions by others to be after the group's description. It's only a few lines down from the top; is there a need to have the progressive/liberal listings in the first sentence? -- SEWilco (talk) 04:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

We could include it in the second sentence, but it should state it unequivocally. The fact that so many reliable non-biased sources have stated as much should not be ignored. The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't really understand why we need to keep rehashing this. I see no compelling argument for naming FAIR as "liberal" in the opening sentence. For one thing, that is simply incorrect if we want to be precise about American political categories. Anyone who is familiar with FAIR's work knows that it is significantly to the left of traditional American liberalism (unabashedly so, to the point that they would probably be offended to be called "liberal"). As is well known, U.S. individuals and groups who want to indicate that they are coming further from the left end of the political spectrum than the average "liberal" routinely use the word "progressive" which is how FAIR describes itself. FAIR regularly criticizes Democrats (even "liberal" ones) from a left perspective and their overall raison d'etre is an intense opposition to corporate media control (and, oftentimes, capitalism) that is far more dogmatic and Chomskian in its orientation than most "liberal" groups would ever find acceptable (liberal politics are still fundamentally capitalistic, FAIR's arguably are not).

Regardless of that point, which is critical if we are trying to be accurate, it seems quite obvious to me that the first thing we should mention is the group's own description--not the description of cherry-picked secondary sources (FAIR is routinely referred to in secondary sources without the modifier "liberal" preceding the group name, but Evil Spartan perhaps did not search for that). I see no reason to ascribe an adjective to FAIR in the opening sentence (we can do it in the following paragraph), but it should obviously be "progressive" and not "liberal" if we must. The fact that secondary sources call them "liberal" can of course be discussed but seems unnecessary to me. FAIR's left-wing proclivities are well known and not even denied by the group itself, so why cite a bunch of WaPo and other articles that call them liberal when we can have it straight from the horse's mouth with a slightly different (but more accurate) word? Perhaps the problem here is definitional, whereby some editors might see the word "progressive" as a sneaky way to avoid the liberal label. I think that sometimes that is the case, but when FAIR uses that word they are doing so to identify themselves as a group very much of the Left

Why Evil Spartan or other editors care whether we describe FAIR as liberal, progressive, or whatever in the first, second, or third sentence continues to elude me and is in my opinion a big waste of time.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

That's precisely the issue. The word progressive doesn't always mean liberal, and many people don't recognize it as such. In fact, you'll notice from the link I gave you that "liberal" was not one of the eight definitions, and the context would suggest simply Favouring or promoting progress. If you want to use the term "left-wing", that would suffice. But, one thing I've noticed is that an issue may continue to be rehashed when there's a deficiency in an article, and seperate people come along and try to fix it. The Evil Spartan (talk) 10:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that I don't really see the reasons that some editors find it so necessary that the article say "liberal". Even where someone uses "progressive" to run away from being identified as liberal, I can't imagine that "progressive" by itself is either inaccurate or insufficient. As Bigtime points out, "liberal" could be less accurate in this case, if the group's ideology is different from traditional American liberalism. The fact that the term is used elsewhere in the media does not mean we must adopt it here. Croctotheface (talk) 09:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

See above. Progressive is ambiguous. The Evil Spartan (talk) 10:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that a wikilink to Progressivism in the United States would solve any ambiguity issues. Besides, "liberal" doesn't have multiple definitions? Croctotheface (talk) 10:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Left-wing does not. What does everyone think of the statement:

Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) is a left-wing media criticism organization based in New York City, founded in 1986.

FAIR refers to itself as a "progressive group that believes that structural reform is ultimately needed to break up the dominant media conglomerates, establish independent public broadcasting and promote strong non-profit sources of information." FAIR describes itself on its website as "the national media watch group" and defines its mission as working to "invigorate the First Amendment by advocating for greater diversity in the press and by scrutinizing media practices that marginalize public interest, minority and dissenting viewpoints.

The Evil Spartan (talk) 10:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that "left wing" is less ambiguous than "liberal", but I see no reason to force that term on them, either, especially now that we are veering away from the sources (which your prior argument considered so important) and just deciding that we should pick a label to use. Since the group chooses to affiliate themselves with the "progressive" label, I see no reason to reject this choice. For whatever reason, they feel that this is the label that best fits their point of view. I don't think you can argue that "progressive", when describing a group that involves itself with politics, has any kind of unclear meaning. I don't think that anybody who reads this article would get the wrong idea about the group's ideology. Therefore, I see no reason that we should affix a label for the sake of affixing one. Just let the group's self-description speak for itself. Croctotheface (talk) 10:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, sources here: [7]. We can add left-leaning if you prefer. In any case, allowing a group to define itself is important, but it shouldn't be the only qualification. Otherwise, we're not adhering to WP:NPOV; otherwise we'd have our Swiftboat Veterans for Truth and MoveOn.org articles all describing a neutral non-profit. If there are neutral reliable sources that can establish something, it ought to be included. The Evil Spartan (talk) 10:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the sources--I saw at least two on the front page that describe the group that way, though I don't think that each and every hit that your search string returned necessarily does. (If it means anything, a similar search with "progressive" returns a similar number of results.) On the merits, two things in response: first, I don't think that the sources establish that the group is best described as progressive, liberal, left wing, left leaning, or anything else, just that there exist sources that use those terms. Also, your "if there are neutral reliable sources" standard would require us to use EVERY term--liberal, progressive, left wing, left-leaning, and any others that might also be used by reliable sources.

Second, I don't really buy your Swift Boat analogy, either. In the first place, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth does NOT describe the group as "conservative". It says that it's a "political group formed...to oppose John Kerry's candidacy". If anything, that supports my position that it's better to let the group's actions speak for themselves than choose a label to affix. Besides, your POV problem argument depends on the group choosing a misleading name. My argument is not that we must accept any misleading self-description and not present anything that controverts it. Instead, my position is that for FAIR, the term that they use, "progressive", is at least as accurate as any other label, and so the article is not improved by you and I deciding to pick another and apply it to the group. Croctotheface (talk) 11:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict with several previous comments (last sentence I wrote responds to recent point), also going offline now) Progressivism in the United States would probably not work unfortunately as early 20th century Progressivism (which is really the main topic of the article) is of course wildly different from contemporary progressivism (the section in that article contemporary progressivism is more what we are looking for, but I don't think we want to lead readers there directly as that would be a bit POV). Croctotheface correctly points out that "liberal" has multiple definitions (indeed it is a far, far more problematic term with a more complex and lengthy etymological pedigree than progressivism) and Evil Spartan will still have to explain why we should use the appellation "liberal" applied by some media publications (again, it's important that Evil Spartan did not include search results for FAIR which did not mention liberal--which are just as valid and I'm guessing just as numerous) in the lead rather than the group's own description of itself, which is arguably more accurate for reasons I outlined above. Neither FAIR nor the sources Evil Spartan cites use the term "left-wing" so of course we are not going to use that any more than we call Michelle Malkin "right-wing" in the opening sentence of her article.

But I still don't see why any of this really matters. If we want a paragraph in the lead with outside views of FAIR and its political POV (and, more usefully, its effectiveness, accuracy, etc.) then I would fully support that, though it should obviously include comments from various points of view including groups and individuals who both support and oppose FAIR. Evil Spartan is not going to convince me that the first adjective we use to a describe an organization should be one which they themselves do not use and which is arguably (quite convincingly I think) inaccurate. Why not instead have a sentence to that effect later in the intro? The introduction could use outside evaluations of the group from different points of the political spectrum which is, I think, where the FAIR-is-liberal argument can come in. That argument is not even remotely objectively true and thus does not belong in the first ten words of the article.

I do not support either left-wing or left-leaning as a term--there is no rationale to use those terms over the term the group uses to describe itself or "liberal" which, though not very accurate, is certainly used more frequently in reliable secondary sources.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously it is only described as that by some newspaper reports. Of course, because they others don't mention it at all. For that matter, only some news reports refer to Michelle Malking as conservative/right-wing. Only some reports describe the Republican Party as the same. However, if you believe the term liberal is more accurate, then, by all means, include it. In this context, given the definitions, it is considerably less ambiguous than progressive. And, we do say Michelle Malkin... is a socially and politically conservative in the opening sentence, which is right (if you don't agree, perhaps you will as zealously defend removing that title as you do this one). And I have already stated above why it's not a good idea to only use self-descriptions of a group: it introduces WP:NPOV issues. And, again, liberal is far less ambiguous in this sentence than progressive. You will notice that the first political definition for liberal is quite clear: and, as the above explanation implies, we could simply link it to liberalism. The Evil Spartan (talk) 11:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I would assume that Malkin does self-identify as conservative. I don't see why there would be a problem there. Croctotheface (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, you are correct, she does [8]. Rush Limbaugh, however, does not: [9]. Should that be removed? The Evil Spartan (talk) 11:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I confess to not reading the whole thing, but does Limbaugh actually assert that he's something other than conservative? I would tend to doubt it, just based on what I know of him, but if he rejects the label, then that should certainly be addressed. That's what we do in Bill O'Reilly, for instance. However, all of this, as I discuss above, assumes that "progressive" is less accurate than other labels for FAIR. I submit that it is not, and that there is therefore no reason for you or I to pick another to use instead. Croctotheface (talk) 11:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

He described himself as "mainstream", according to the article (should he have denied being conservative, the title would be appropriate; however, since I don't see he has, it is right). As for progressive, as I have said above, it is less accurate, insofar as it is more ambiguous. The great majority of the population does not recognize the term progressive as political affiliation - in fact, I'm still not convinced that FAIR meant it as such. Like I said, the definition wasn't even mentioned on wiktionary, and comes in several down on Google/Princeton: [10]. The Evil Spartan (talk) 11:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

So, to you, this issue hinges on whether "the great majority of the population" would be confused by our usage of "progressive" here but would not be confused by another term? Again, my contentions are that "progressive" is not at all ambiguous when used in a political context, that nobody familiar with politics would be confused as to FAIR's ideology based on their self-identification, and that no reader would be confused about their ideology after reading this article or after reading FAIR's body of work. Croctotheface (talk) 11:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Liberal

• CNN
• St. Petersburg Times
• New York Times
• dozens of mentions in The Los Angeles Times
• over 100 mentions from the Washington Post

Does wikipedia describe Bill O'Reilly or Neal Boortz as "conservative"? I would imagine Google searches for both gentlemen would probably result in dozens upon dozens of uses of that word. Lots of people seem to feel Maureen Dowd is "liberal" because of her unconcealed hatred of the Bush Administration, but her wikipedia article includes no such descriptor. If you read the articles themselves you end up with a pretty good indication of these individuals' points of view. I personally don't care how many Washington Post pundits say the organization is "liberal", FAIR describes itself as progressive. Since its obviously an arguable point, we should go what FAIR says about themselves in their mission statement. Why do you so strongly believe FAIR is defining itself inaccurately? Why do you believe this article should be different from Accuracy in Media or Media Matters for America?-Hal Raglan (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

On the Accuracy in Media talk page, there was a discussion that "the word "conservative" needs to be in the lead paragraph" (emphasis added). If secondary sources are cited for AIM being conservative, why is a similar inclusion inappropriate here? Biccat (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This has been heavily discussed above obviously. FAIR calls itself "progressive" and that is in fact more accurate - as an organization they are actually to the left of traditional American liberalism which is why they employ the term "progressive" rather than "liberal" to describe themselves (it's not an effort to hide anything, the people at FAIR are much closer to Noam Chomsky than Barack Obama or John Kerry and "progressive" is thus a more accurate term). In secondary sources they are sometimes described as liberal, as progressive, or simply as a media watchdog group without a political adjective. No one has really explained why we would choose to call them "liberal" in the intro when; A) That is simply not accurate; B) It is not how the group is self-described; 3) It is only one term used by third-party sources to describe the group. As to the AIM article, I can't say what was going on there and it doesn't really have a bearing on the discussion here unless the discussion is combined somehow. I will point out what seems like a distinction though. AIM claims to be neutral politically (according to our article) where as FAIR does not claim neutrality - it openly identifies itself as "progressive" which in the current context of American politics denotes someone or something who is on the left end of the political spectrum. If FAIR claimed to be completely neutral I would support having a sentence saying "many commentators say they are liberal." They do not however, so all we are really discussing is whether to use one of two similar terms, the first of which is more accurate and used by the group itself and the second of which is less accurate and used by some third-party sources. I think it's obvious that the former option is the better one.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The political spectrum runs left to right. As described in left-right politics the left is referred to as "liberal" and the right "conservative." While the term "progressive" may be an indication of the degree of liberalism (just as Libertarian might incidate the degree of conservativism), the two are not mutually exclusive. One can be both Liberal and Progressive. Also, for casual readers not intimately familiar with the political implications of the term "progressive," the political leanings of FAIR might be unclear. Including the term "liberal" as well as "progressive" would clarify without distorting the article.

As described in left-right politics the switch (in the United States) from "liberal" to "progressive" in the '80s was in part due to the poor public perception of the term "liberal." Wikipedia should not be in the position of modifying terms to suit one political ideology.

Consider also the Cato Institute - which self-describes as a "Jeffersonian philosophy" or "libertarian," but their Wikipedia article labels them "a standard-bearer of the U.S. conservative political movement." While Cato tends towards conservative, it is also libertarian.

Finally, this article is in Category:Liberal organisations. Biccat (talk) 13:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You didn't engage with all of the points I made above but I'll try to engage with all of yours. I'm not impressed with the relevant section of the Wiki article on left-right politics and don't really see it as the arbiter of anything. I'm sure there were "liberal" groups who at some point changed their self-description to "progressive" as a way of avoiding the "l-word" (though this is partially a conservative canard). However this is not accurate when it comes to FAIR. That organization is significantly to the left of American liberalism - much of their work contains overt or subtle criticisms of capitalism that are simply not found in contemporary American liberalism. In short, FAIR is basically a radical organization. To give an example, they are heavily critical of NPR and PBS as being too conservative, which many on the right (and even many liberals) would find unthinkable. I'm arguing that to label them liberal is simply inaccurate, and it is only one way which third-party sources label them so there is no particular reason to label them that over labeling them a) nothing or b) progressive. Note that I'm not trying to cover up the fact that FAIR has a political agenda - they do, but to call it a "liberal" one is simply not correct. The term "progressive" is incredibly problematic (though less so than "liberal," which has a far longer pedigree), however it is fairly accurate when it comes to FAIR and it is how the group describes itself so it seems obvious that's what we should go with in the intro.

I did not even know that FAIR was in the "Liberal orgs" category, but anyone can have put that there at any time and it means nothing either way (I don't really mind it staying in there since we don't seem to have a more refined category that I can find offhand). With respect to the Cato Institute you are simply not being accurate about what the article says. It is described in the first sentence of the article as "a libertarian think tank" which is how the group describes itself. Later the article says (and you quote this totally out of context), "In the years immediately following the Republican Revolution, the Cato Institute was often seen [emphasis added] as a standard-bearer of the U.S. conservative political movement." This is describing how some viewed Cato, however the intro does not categorically label it as conservative. Similarly in the second section of the FAIR article we have a criticism which says "that FAIR's 'target invariably is bias on the right'" but in the intro we use the group's own description of itself. I think the two articles are actually quite similar in these respects and both accurate. Many might call Cato "conservative" but this is not really correct and is not how the group describes itself, and the same is true of FAIR and the term "liberal."

If you're concerned that readers might not understand the term "progressive," simply linking to the wiki-article on Progressivism might be helpful since FAIR operates within that tradition to a fairly significant degree. I still remain completely unconvinced that they should be described as liberal, but I can assure you that this is not an attempt to whitewash anything - it's just that they are not much more "liberal" than Noam Chomsky or Karl Marx and if we describe them that way we are being fundamentally inaccurate.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue with the CATO Institute is that secondary sources are cited to label the group conservative, if only in the body of the article. Secondary sources have done the same for FAIR, and the information is not presented (even in the body of the article). My main complaint about the lack of the term "liberal" is in terms of Wikipedia internal consistancy. "Progressive" is a position along the conservative-liberal axis. The word liberal has two meanings, one being a specific philosophy (Liberalism), and one being an indicator (liberal-conservative). I agree that a link to another wiki article would be helpful, but I would suggest Progressivism in the United States instead of Progressivism (FAIR's focus is the United States).

Would you object to the term "leftist" instead of Liberal? (the article Left-wing politics encompasses Progressivism) Biccat (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed reply, I forgot about this for awhile. Some Google searching suggests that FAIR is rarely described by third-party sources as "leftist." It's a more accurate description than liberal in my view, but it simply is not used that often, so if we described them that way we wouldn't be basing it on what the sources say but rather engaging in original research. Every time this issue is brought up the problem seems to be a concern that people won't understand what "progressive" means, so some kind of wikilinking is probably the solution. If you don't want to link to Progressivism we could link to Progressivism in the United States, but rather than to the article as a whole (which largely deals with Progressivism in the early 20th century, very much not FAIR's type of progressivism) I think we should just link to the section contemporary progressivism, which provides a reasonably fair description of groups and individuals with a similar political view to FAIR. I originally opposed linking to this section in an above section of the talk page, but if this can put this question to rest than let's do it. Would that work for you?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

So the descriptor "leftist" is inappropriate because it is not sufficiently sourced. But the descriptor "liberal," despite being sufficiently sourced, should not be included because you don't think it is an accurate descriptor? If the sources say that FAIR is liberal, then we should bow to their label. Otherwise, you're suggesting POV. Wikipedia is based on reliable soures, not editor's personal opinions. As I pointed out, consistency would require us to include the "left wing" descriptor because the left wing article also incompasses "progressive." Accurate descriptors and cross referencing are the ideal goals.

I also think that contemporary progressivism is a good link to add, because it is sufficiently descriptive of the group. Other links to potentially add to the lead would be media conglomerates, public broadcasting and non-profit. Biccat (talk) 15:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Liberal intro with details below

How about doing as in other articles and include the word "liberal" in the intro, but omit umpteen footnotes on the word? After the statement that the group calls itself "progressive", add sourced explanation about the organization's classification. That word "liberal" does generally classify the group, and is likely to be changed in future decades as the terminology changes. The details further down in the article will both provide details for current readers and help build a history for future readers/editors. If the details grow they can be rearranged, and even if they get moved further from the start the single word in the intro helps classify the group for readers. Add an HTML comment next to "liberal" telling editors the details on the description are further down in the article -- SEWilco (talk) 04:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I'm confused about what you're actually saying, but I also don't think that this responds to any of what I've said above. To say that "liberal" is necessary assumes that the group's self-description is inaccurate, which it is not. Croctotheface (talk) 04:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I do not understand SEWilco's point either--the comment is a bit opaque. I really do not think the term liberal belongs in the opening sentence (still no convincing rationale presented as far as I'm concerned) and will probably remove it in the next day or two. I'm not sure if Evil Spartan has dropped out of the discussion as he noted in his last edit summary that it was "not worth arguing."--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Others have pointed out that "progressive" (Progressivism in the United States?) is group's description while several others have used the currently popular term "liberal" (Modern liberalism in the United States?) or suggested "left-wing" (Left-wing politics). "Liberal" or "left-wing" are common terms. More detailed discussion belongs further down in the article than in the intro, so just put a single word in the intro with the supporting description further in the article. -- SEWilco (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the attempt by one editor to insert "liberal" as the defining descriptor for the group into the opening sentence. Other articles on media watchdog groups, such as Accuracy in Media and Media Matters for America, have no such labelling. The issue of FAIR's perceived bias is adequately discussed in the article. FAIR self-describes itself as progressive and that is adequately mentioned and sourced later in the article. From the above comments, as well as previous discussions of this issue, the consensus seems to be against sloppily inserting any descriptor into the lead.-Hal Raglan (talk) 03:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The discussion has pointed out liberal and conservative labels on MoveOn.org, Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh. If you want more examples, follow the links and look backward: Special:Whatlinkshere/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States, Special:Whatlinkshere/Conservatism (not all links are used in describing the subject). -- SEWilco (talk) 04:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. But the discussion also has pointed out that there are no such labels on the subjects of other articles, including the two media watchdog organizations I pointed out above. In addition, the Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann articles don't slap labels on them. The consensus seems to be to leave the article as it was prior to The Evil Spartan's edit a few days ago. In other words, sans labeling.-Hal Raglan (talk) 05:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It might not be appropriate to label MoveOn, but Malkin and Limbaugh, as far as I know, both identify as conservative. Croctotheface (talk) 08:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The Evil Spartan has provided multiple sources which identify it as liberal. That should be sufficient for the info to be in the article, just as we don't wait for lions to self-identify whether they are dogs or not. The only source provided for "progressive" has been the organization itself. The issue is whether "liberal" is descriptive enough to be in the intro, and there do seem to be more descriptions of it being liberal than progressive. At least until the political language changes again. -- SEWilco (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

So we're counting votes? It's actually not the case that "progressive" is only used by FAIR itself. Here's a Google news search modified from the one that Spartan used. The fact that there are reliable sources that choose a label that the group does not is really only relevant if we agree that the one the group prefers is somehow misleading. For me, that the mainstream chooses "liberal" by default when they mean "not conservative" says more about the mainstream media than it does about FAIR. As others have said, FAIR's politics really don't come out of a New Deal liberalism so much as from Chomsky or Ralph Nader. When the group decides to describe itself accurately, there is no need for us to artificially impose a different, less accurate label because some of our sources prefer it. It would be akin to saying that Bill O'Reilly is a first and foremost a conservative and then, later, discussing the terms he prefers to use to describe himself. Croctotheface (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The "multiple sources" to which I referred were those in the article. Maybe we should start a new discussion about the "liberal" label in the sources; this subtopic is about placing it in the intro with the details further in the article. -- SEWilco (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, I don't see why that's necessary or what good that does. Your argument seems to be that because there exists sources that use the liberal label, we must necessarily use it as well. There also exist sources that use different labels, so if we accept your argument, then the intro has to say something like "FAIR is a liberal progressive left-wing left-leaning media criticism group." I repeat my argument, as you are choosing not to address it: it is better to use somebody's own terminology when describing their politics, provided that terminology is accurate. "Progressive" is not only accurate for describing FAIR, it is more accurate than "liberal" would be. So, there is no need to decide, artificially, that it is better to use some other label. Croctotheface (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

How the group is described

Shall we collect the kinds of descriptions of FAIR and consider what kinds should be mentioned? -- SEWilco (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, I don't see the point of this, unless we're counting "votes" from various media outlets. I'm sure that media outlets have used, at the very least, all four of the terms I mention in my recent post in the above section. Does that mean that we necessarily must use all of them? Considering that they all exist in the sources, I don't see a compelling reason NOT to give deference to the way the group chooses to describe itself. Again, "progressive" is not only facially accurate, it's more accurate than "liberal" for this group's politics. Croctotheface (talk) 17:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)