Talk:Media Matters for America/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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)

Media Matters as a source

Since the Limbaugh and Fox News smears show that Media Matters will use misleading edits should it be eliminated as a source?65.96.135.42 18:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

No. Croctotheface 18:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Constructive as always, but since Juan williams backed up O'rielly and he has far more creible tham Media Matters as a correspondent for Fox and NPR they are have no basis as a source.Winterflyer 09:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

That's your opinion, nothing more. --Loonymonkey 19:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Correct. Juan Williams works for Fox, as Winterflyer kindly noted. Thus, he has a vested interest in supporting his friend O'Reilly. Besides that, he didn't dispute MMfA on the facts of what O'Reilly said (which are, of course, well documented). He only disagreed with their interpretation. His interpretation of what O'Reilly said and meant has no greater "creible" than MMfA's interpretation.

• I have always been opposed to using Media Matters as a reliable source in article space. It has been argued that they "just republish what others have published", but it is quite clear that they do a bit more than that, adding partisan POV commentary, and even sometimes cherrypicking comments out of context. I have found only one or two cases where Media Matters quoted a news article that was not readily available in its original form. When I see Media Matters being cited, I look to see what Media Matters itself is citing, find the original source, and change the citation to point to that rather than Media Matters. Done in this manner, I don't see how even the most partisan MM groupie could have anything to complain about. - Crockspot 18:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that, if the source is a broadcast that MM does an item on, it's better to cite the broadcast than cite MM. MM, however, can be a source for things like its own opinion or, as you suggest, for a broadcast that is difficult to find or source in its original form. Croctotheface 19:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I was wary of using them as a source myself, but if they are simply quoting other available publications, I'll opt to directly cite those sources here instead of referring to their website. --70.143.46.96 15:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

"...MM, however, can be a source for things like its own opinion ..." That's grand...assuming, of course, that their own opinion is kept on their own Wiki page. But such is not the case. Their opinions infest many Wiki pages.

And as far as "a broadcast that is difficult to find or source in its original form," I assure you if MM is commenting on something, they have the audio/video to go along with it. They may choose not to present it (if so, you should be suspicious). If they don't provide the audio/video, they cannot be validly sourced. I recommend only sourcing Media Matters if, 1) the actual audio/video is not available from either the original source or a more-or-less neutral and respected source (newspaper, television news program)...and 2) the actual audio/video is included in their report.

Too many people are elevating Media Matters to have the same level of respectability and accountability as trusted news sources like major newspapers or network/cable news. If you want Wikipedia to be an enyclopedia, then Media Matters' footprint on this site should be minimized. However, if you simply want Wikipedia to become a left-wing blog, let MM continue to delete facts negative about them (Hillary's video claims to helping start MM) and post their opinions on other pages (like interpretting what John Gibson meant when he said "have more babies"). Media Matters already has its own website...they don't need to be making a mirror of it here, for crying out loud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.58.248.33 (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of MM as a source is subject to the same guidelines and scrutiny as all reliable sourcing. If it is deemed for a particular article that MM's content is an acceptable RS that contributes to further the article, wikipedia does not suddenly convert into a left-wing blog, as you say. cheers, --guyzero | talk 18:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

But when Media Matters' opinion and analysis is treated as fact...yet Hillary Clinton's claims on tape to helping start MM is considered suspect (not the claim itself, but the fact that she said it)...well, that is indeed turning Wikipedia into a version of a left-wing opinion blog. It's a blatant double-standard that clearly favors liberal/Democrat politicians.

What gives Media Matters the authority to decide what's controversial and what isn't, as they often do on Wiki pages of conservative pundits? David Brock might find it "controversial" that John Gibson pointed out that a recent Osama bin Laden tape contained a lot of typical Democratic talking points...but Brock is clearly in the camp of the Democrats.

To be blunt, Media Matters will attack anyone that puts Democrats in a poor light, or anyone who doesn't adequately attack Republicans. Do Wiki-users really care about each and every complaint from a Democrat founded and Democrat funded organization? Should every single pro-conservative or anti-liberal utterance be treated as if it were "nappy headed ho's" or "John Edwards is a fag" or "Study hard in school or you'll get stuck in Iraq?"

I agree. The fact that Media Matters lacks any sense of humor whatsoever and will attempt to turn any comment it doesn't agree with into a "controversy" disqualifies it as an arbitor of what is controversial. - Cg-realms | talk 10:36, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Shouldn't a "controversial" statement ruffle someone else's feathers aside from those whose very job is that of a partisan political operative? Media Matters is a freakin' blog that is treated (at least on Wikipedia) like the New York Times, Washington Post, CBS Evening News, Fox News Channel, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.58.248.33 (talk) 19:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be suggesting that each and every article MM has written has been referenced on WP. That is hardly the case. Croctotheface (talk) 20:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Where to start?

* Hillary Clinton did not claim to have started Media Matters. She mentioned MMfA in a sentence which had complex phrasing, and right-wingers jumped on it in a misinterpretation, perhaps intentionally.

* MMfA does not "decide what's controversial," nor does it "attack anyone that puts Democrats in a poor light." It seeks out and highlights conservative misinformation. The interpretation, of what is controversial, is left to others.

* Finally, if the NY Times can't be bothered to do the legwork to ferret out the facts—to determine whether or not a politician or reporter is telling the truth or not—then somebody should. Sometimes that "somebody" is Media Matters for America.--HughGRex (talk) 11:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[Outdent] I have raised this issue in perhaps a better forum: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#MMFA_-_Media_Matters_for_America Perhaps you all care to contribute there as well. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Per NPOV, when the MM item is one side of a two-sided controversy, that's reasonable to include. MilesAgain (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Then why does that not apply to MEMRI, as discussed on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard page? And it still does not address the issue of notability, etc. And sometimes there is no two sides, indeed no controversy, except to MMfA only -- so anyone can complain, then that becomes a two sided controversy? If anyone could create controversy so easily, what would Wikipedia become? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware of whether MEMRI is, for instance, notoriously unreliable. While MM is certainly opinionated, I don't think there is much to the idea that they deal in untruths, despite the occasional "out of context" knee-jerk replies from people like O'Reilly. So MEMRI may be a similar case or it may not. As far as "notability", I don't really know how you're using the word. It is certainly not the case that WP:N is a factor here. Some of the things MM publishes are worthy of note in the encyclopedia, and some are not. You seem to be asserting that EVERYTHING Media Matters publishes receives attention on Wikipedia, and considering that they publish hundreds or thousands of items, I strongly doubt that even 5% are quoted or referenced here. Croctotheface (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, Croctotheface, I'm no wiki expert. I will defer to whatever is decided on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard page that discusses MMfA. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

In IMHO, MMfA's credibility is enhanced every time Bill O'Reilly criticizes it. He either indulges in name-calling ("far-left smear merchants" is a favorite) or accuses it of quoting him out of context. In the latter case, he never explains the context of his quoted speech. If he wanted to discredit MMfA, it should be fairly easy—if it is guilty as he charges.--HughGRex (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"Alleged" vs "said"

I'm not going to get involved in this edit war, but I have to say that while both terms are neutral, it's hard to get more neutral than "said" for when someone says something. MM's response comes shortly afterward, so I'm not concerned that "said" will somehow misinform the readers. Croctotheface (talk) 18:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that "said" seems pretty beneighn(sp) I would refer readers/editors to WP:WTA for further clarification. As you point out, the statement/claim/alegation/augument/ect is countered in the next following sentences and isn't just left out there. It also appears the the sources back up the funding claim. I don't know enough about this, but i am sure I will be enlightened :) Cheers, --Tom 19:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the recent edit to "According to Bill O'Reilly and others..." is a satisfactory compromise.-Hal Raglan (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton and Media Matters

I realize this is a hot button issue for Media Matters, but she clearly said what she said and it has been reported, for [[2]] for example. Arzel (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

We've been over this multiple times in the past. Croctotheface (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

And your point is what? It is still a point of discussion, and going through the history there doesn't appeat to be any type of concensus at this point. This biggest argument against inclusion is the lack of RS. Previously the debate has been if RS exist then it could be included. May I ask exactly what is your problem with inclusion? Arzel (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

That had not been my argument: my argument had been that we had no way to know what she meant by "helped start". The Washington Times article seems to just accept as a given that MM is "Clinton formed", but it doesn't actually provide evidence to that effect. The notion that people who donated to her campaign also donated funds that were used to start MM proves nothing. Your edit did not address the nature of the dispute, and it made a POV/OR determination that their expression of not being linked to a political party or candidate constituted a "passive denial", when in fact I suspect that they had that language on their site well before this business erupted. Regarding the Washington Times article, though, I'm OK with material in WP that discusses the notion that groups like MM are doing work that could be considered political. That's a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact in dispute. Croctotheface (talk) 18:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Clinton unambiguously says she HELPED START Media Matters in a speech and you say it depends on what "helped start" means? Unbelievable. This is reminiscent of Bill Clinton's dancing on the head of a pin about what the definition of the word "is" is. It is not Wikipedia's job to interpret what she meant. The simple fact is that SHE SAID IT. It is a notable claim that is independently verifiable and very pertinent to include here.70.58.66.127 (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The previous consensus regarding the comment was that the quote was too vague to include in the article, and that if it ever was to be added it should be when any follow-up information was provided by Clinton or Media Matters as to the actual meaning. No such further details seem to have been released. The quote certainly shouldn't be included in the way that Clinton/Media Matters-haters interpret it to mean, as "proof" that the Clintons are mastermind controllers behind MM. Its hilarious that the anonymous editor claims it isn't up to Wikipedia to "interpret" her comments when placing the comment in the "Funding sources" section is strictly interpretive.-Hal Raglan (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, putting it in the "Funding Sources" section is interpretive... So I suggest that we start a new section titled "Controversies" like many other entries have, and it would fit right in. 70.58.66.127 (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Kind of like this from FNC Controversies[[3]]. Fox News host Bill O'Reilly has stated that "Fox does tilt right," but that the network does not "actively campaign or try to help Bush-Cheney."[[4]]. The hypocritical nature surrounding MMfA on Wikipedia is quite astounding to say the least. They use video and audio clips to promote their point of view which gets linked here in vast amounts, yet when video or audio clips of something which might be viewed negatively against MMfA is added here the will to hide this information is unending, even when that information is backed up by RS. I have read through the history, there is no concensus to not include this well-documented statement. The primary reason for exclusion appears to be "I don't like it". The only question that we really have is in what way should it be incorporated to be presented in a neutral tone. Arzel (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Your "I don't like it" theory is a grotesquely simplistic misinterpretation of all previous commentary. If you've actually read thru the history, specifically Archive 2, you will see that there does indeed seem to be consensus not to include the quote. One of the numerous reasons was that it involved a possible BLP issue, as revealed by one of the more gleeful Clinton-haters who repeatedly claimed he wanted the quote in the article because he wanted it on record that Clinton "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..." While I still have some concerns regarding this, since the Clinton comment is undeniably real, if it can be added here in a completely neutral tone as you suggest, w/out the POV/OR problems of your recent attempt to insert the quote into the article, I would not argue against its inclusion.-Hal Raglan (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I read that section. I don't believe that that is a good reason to include. What I find most interesting, is that she said it. It is documented. It has been commented on by sources other than blogs. And that MMfA has not denied the quote, and in essense by lack of denial admits that it is true (not my OR, it is what is discussed in the WP). This is especially poignent given that MMfA vigorously denies any connection to Soros whenever BOR or others make that connection. And they vigorously defend Clinton for the most minor and mundane topics like NY Times' Healy, USA Today advanced myth that Clinton switched baseball allegiances [[5]]. Yet there is absolutely no mention of this subject, no mention of falsely attributing HRC to starting or helping to start CAP and MMfA. That said I think a simple sentence in the history or funding be stated that HRC stated at the Daily Kos convention that she helped start MMfA. It is reliabely sourced, it is verifiable, it is extremely notable, and it has not been denied by either HRC or MMfA. Arzel (talk) 04:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that it is "extremely notable"; it seems that conservatives love it for all the reasons the editor Hal quotes above did. I basically agree with Hal--if there is something neutral and relevant that we can say about this, then OK, but I don't really see what that would be. If we don't actually understand what she means by "helped start", it's not really informative to throw it out there without any kind of context. The context you suggest is relevant is basically all OR and POV. Croctotheface (talk) 08:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The leading Democratic presidential candidate says she helped start MM and you say that is not notable? I already stated what could be said in a neutral tone. The additional context I mentioned is not mine, it is what was reported in the WP so it is not OR. What is so hard to understand about "helping to start"? Arzel (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

What's "hard to understand" is that there is no way of knowing, simply based on the quote itself, what Clinton meant. Also, I probably missed something but what do you mean by "reported in the WP"? Has the Washington Post done an article on Clinton's comment and her alleged affiliation with MM? The only reference I noted before was to the Moonies rag, The Washington Times. -Hal Raglan (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops meant the WT, but I see you have already dissmissed this source. But it is a reliable source, if MMfA america can be used for a source then I don't see why the WT cannot be used. Arzel (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

If the Washington Times published a story that demonstrated that Clinton "formed" MM, I would be OK with putting information to that effect in the article. Merely saying that the group is "Clinton-formed" does not establish anything, especially when the evidence supporting that assertion is just that there exist people who have donated to both MM and Clinton's campaign. Again, that doesn't prove anything. Croctotheface (talk) 18:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this completely. When and if actual facts emerge, they can be placed in the article, but until then this encyclopedia article shouldn't be a conduit for extreme interpretations of out of context quotes. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 18:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This is the exact same consensus reasoning represented in the previous lengthy discussion regarding this issue. As noted by MrMurph101 in Archive Two, "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." Until that happens, simply dropping the quote into the article sans context seems a little absurd.-Hal Raglan (talk) 19:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Then I hope all involved here will back me in similar situations where MM is used as the primary source for their POV. Arzel (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You're not proposing to add material that references some opinion that originates in the Washington Times. The issue is whether, as the WT states, MMfA is "Clinton-formed". That's not a matter of opinion; it's a matter of fact. Considering that there is no convincing support for the idea, it would be irresponsible to include it here. When MM is "used as the primary source for its POV", it's a matter of opinion, not fact. Croctotheface (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Lose indent - I made no such assertation. Simply that HRC stated that she "helped start" MM and CAP. It is well referenced, and it is true. The only question is what the context is. Similarly BOR stated that "..Fox does tilt right.." to which MMfA used as evidence that BOR admits FOX is biased and subsequently is used within the FNC Controversies article as evidence that FOC is biased. However what is lost is the context. MMfA fails to note that what BOR is referring is that his statement was directly related to the war in Iraq, in that FNC supports president Bush in that area. BOR does not explicitly state that BOR says FNC is biased to the right, but that is how it is presented their and here in WP. I only bring this up here because my recent removal of that information their was reverted by Gamaliel when they are in effect the same thing. A biased group taking one persons word and giving their own interpretation which is then used against them in some way. The biggest difference is that one is viewed acceptable while one is not, I'll let you guess which is which. This is not the only instance of Hypocracy involving MMfA in WP.

Now if we can all get off our high horses on this perhaps we can make WP a better place, less a place for MMfA and other similar groups to promote their personal agenda. So what say all of you? Arzel (talk) 01:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Omitting the quote entirely seems POV to me. It has created quite a stir. Look at all the mundane minutiae documenting every tiny little controversy on Michael Savage's entry in the section entitled "Controversies." The solution seems obvious to me, we start a "Controversies" section like many other entries have and detail both sides of the issue there. Short and sweet, like this; document the quote, and then document how MMfA denies any ties to any candidate. Simple, and represented for what it is, controversial. 70.58.66.127 (talk) 03:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It may be the case that there is too much "minutiae" about criticism of Savage. It may also be the case that most coverage of him in reliable sources deals with criticism. In either case, we are not bound by any kind of "what would the editors of Michael Savage do" standard. This article already has a criticism standard--if there were some foundation to a criticism based on the Hillary bit, then we could include it. As it is, and I realize that I'm repeating myself at this point--we just don't know what Hillary meant when she said "helped start". Considering that this quote is basically the only foundation for the criticism/controversy, it is irresponsible to include it. To the extent that there have been accusations that there are violations of campaign finance law, there is also a [{WP:BLP]] concern as far as Clinton goes. Croctotheface (talk) 07:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

What on earth COULD "help start" mean but HELPED START?!70.58.66.127 (talk) 07:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak to that case, but if the scope of O'Reilly's comment is unclear (or if he clearly just means they tilt right regarding the war), then that should be clear in the text. If the quote is unremarkable with these changes, it should be omitted. Regarding the Hillary Clinton quote, my argument has nothing to do with references, truth, or context. I have said all along that we don't know what she means when she says "helped start", and we have no information that helps us understand what that means. To include something like this when we have no way of understanding what it actually means does not inform our readers whatsoever. Croctotheface (talk) 04:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this will clear things up. Words do still have definitions.
help (verb) 1. To give assistance to; aid. 2. To contribute to the furtherance of; promote.
start (verb) 1. To commence; begin. 2. To set into motion, operation, or activity. 3. To introduce; originate.
70.58.66.127 (talk) 07:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

She actually said "start and support" and "institutions...like", naming the Center for American Progress as well as MMfA. A more reasonable, non-conspiratorial interpretation would be that she merely supports the work of organizations like CAP and MMfA. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 14:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"Helped start" could mean dozens of different things. "Aid and assistance" could mean that she expresses her support for the work they do. It could mean she wants her people to return their calls. It could mean she donated money. Or, it could mean that she has some sort of illegal relationship like people have been crowing about. "Set in motion" could mean asking somebody to start the group. It could mean asking someone who wants to work for her staff to instead accept a job offer from MM instead. It could mean donating money. Or it could mean this illegal relationship that people have been crowing about. There are probably dozens of other combinations of ways to define the terms. Considering that there is this range of meaning and we have no insight into what it is, and considering that attempting to deduce that strictly from the comments and some ambiguous related facts would run afoul of WP:NPOV and WP:OR, there is no informative purpose to including this information. Croctotheface (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with your stance, but it is not a reason to exclude this controversy from the entry about MMfA. It should be included, and represented as controversial, with no interpretations of what Senator "meant." Her words can speak for themselves, and MMfA's policy of "no ties to any candidate" can speak for itself. It should be transparently reported and mentioned on the entry, as what it is, a controversy in a new section titled "Controversies." I suggest no interpretation or misrepresentation, ONLY information. 70.58.66.127 (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

My position, to reiterate, is that it is NOT informative to recount words when we have no insight into what they mean. Croctotheface (talk) 17:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Why would we, or anyone, consider Clinton's remark "controversial" if the exact meaning is unclear? Anonymous, your suggestion does interpret/represent the quote in the POV manner you want. By dumping the quotation by itself into a "Controversies" section you are inserting negative reporting of her comment. None of us here knows what Clinton meant, not even you. If/when further information is developed by reliable sources regarding this issue, the quote and all pertinent details can be added to the article.-Hal Raglan (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. This discussion has come full-circle a couple of times now, both in this round and in the previously archived one. We should consider it settled until any new credible information arises. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Lose Indent- Airbrushing it out completely is POV, and entirely interprets it by omission.
70.58.66.127 (talk) 23:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This is true only to the extent that casting any kind of editorial judgment about anything is "POV". Incidentally, though I'm guilty of this as well, I don't like using "POV" as an adjective. You mean to suggest that if we omit the quote, we are editing from a non-neutral POV. If you concede, as you appear to, that the quote's meaning is unclear and that we have no way of knowing what it is, I can't see why you feel that it can have any informative value at all. You have yet to respond to this argument that I've made. Croctotheface (talk) 00:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The quote's meaning is self evident, perfectly clear, and in context. Your argument that we can't possibly know what "helped started" means is merely a cop-out intended to stuff the words back into from whence they came. These words are definable, not vague, and your interpretations of what they COULD mean are laughable. I'm not surprised. The only reason NOT to include this information would be if it were a verifiable lie. 70.58.66.127 (talk) 01:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

If it's so obvious how Hillary Clinton "helped start" Media Matters, could you tell us what she did? Croctotheface (talk) 05:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm done repeating myself, we've gone through it all already. 70.58.66.127 (talk) 09:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you haven't addressed this point at all. You've simply asserted that it is the case and dismissed all other alternative interpretations without presenting any facts at all. If it is so obvious and clear, then you will have no problem answering the question. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 14:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Since the only dissenting voice here has noted that he/she has nothing else to add, we should bring this discussion to a close until more actual facts develop.-Hal Raglan (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a verifiable fact that Hillary Clinton made a statement that she helped start Media Matters. The audio and video is readily available. This FACT can, and should, be presented on this page. Feel free to include Media Matters denial of this as well. But don't leave out hard, verifiable facts (meaning, her statement, not the interpretation) just because Media Matters would rather Hillary didn't say such a thing.

It's funny that Media Matters drones post OPINIONS (not facts) all over Wikipedia and are treated as gospel...but the second a VERIFIABLE FACT appears that might hurt their image, it's suddenly not a reliable source. Media Matters has their own webpage. Don't make Wikipedia a mirror site! Ynot4tony (talk) 03:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

We are not obligated to include any and all verifiable information into the encyclopedia. How can a statement like "helped start and support", which has dozens of viable interpretations, be informative if we don't know what actually happened. Do you know what it is that she did? What does "helped start" mean in this case? Croctotheface (talk) 04:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)