Talk:Media Matters for America/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Indirect funding by Soros

I don't see what the big fuss is about whether MMFA received indirect funding from George Soros. This article already states that the Center for American Progress funded MMFA, and a reliable source in the CFAP article describes its funding by Soros. So how is this an extraordinary claim and anyway where does WP policy state that "an extraordinary claim requires an extraordinary source"? The use of an opinion piece from a news organization is allowed in WP:RS, so long as you state that it is the opinion of that person--which I do ("according to ..").--Drrll (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the issues is your use of a source that in it's own title is clearly biased. I agree that if the facts are there, you can find more neutral sources. Once you do, it should go into the article. Bytebear (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree the source is biased. But my understanding of WP:RS is that opinion pieces from news organizations can be used, so long as the opinion involved is qualified as being the opinion of that person.--Drrll (talk) 02:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It depends on noteworthiness of the source. Does the source present a view worth covering? If you are digging up facts, find a more neutral source to present those facts. If it's an opinion, the opinion must be one that warrants coverage. We simply don't have room to cover all opinions so we must choose the most important and noteworthy ones. This one doesn't seem to do it, unless verified by additional opinions, but even then, we must avoid original research and synth. Bytebear (talk) 02:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I honestly don't know why George Soros is the subject of so many conspiracy theories, but Wikipedia doesn't need to push them. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

third paragraph of "criticism" section seems misplaced

The last paragraph of the "criticism" is based on the implied logic that association with NYT or "democratic staffers" or "Hillary" is followed by an eye roll gesture and therefore is criticism. While I agree that in some circles this is implied criticism but that doesn't seem appropriate here.

Also after viewing video of the August 4th 2007 speech on Youtube it isn't entirely clear whether her statement about her taking credit for "helping start and support" is meant to be literal or figurative. The context of that statement is that MMfA is part of a burgeoning movement in the media where progressive media infrastructure is catching up with conservative media infrastructure, and she is describing her role in encouraging the growth of counterbalance in the political message of the progressive media infrastructure specifically with MMfA and as part of a whole. Indeed, that is the important point being made in her 8/5/07 talk, that she is proud of the MMfA because it is a part of a greater burgeoning of the progressive infrastructure in the partisanship and Balkanization of the media, it makes sense when viewed in context of her complaint about the "vast right-wing conspiracy". Her whole message is more figurative than a simple literal claim of "helping start and support".

In overview, I think the article is suffering from being a battlefront between partisanship between Wiki-editors, some of whom believe that being labeled with the Hillary badge is a smear and therefore belongs under the article category section as being criticized. When weeks of argument ensue on the talk page over insertion of just one sentence in the article, the entirety of the article suffers. We see that here, the overall cohesiveness of the article suffers by insertion of dis-joined political zinger sentences. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree generally with what you said. However, as to me, I am just following Wiki policy. I do not understand the political issues involved (neither have I read that entire huge blob above) and I am not editing in the manner you have described. I see no way that Clinton's saying she helped start MMfA in any way hurts MMfA or should be considered a political issue. A simple sentence is harmless, let alone encyclopedic. Really, I'm confused why people are trying so hard to keep out encyclopedic material that was published by Clinton herself.

And thanks for creating a new section heading. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

What does "helped start and support" mean? That's been the issue all along--there's no context to explain that. Why is it so important to quote Clinton out of context here? (Also, I want to be clear--it's possible that no context for the quote exists, so I'm not impugning other editors here.) Furthermore, the sources referenced for this sentence are the Wall Street Journal editorial page, which is quite conservative, and a blog from the Buffalo News. Even if the context issues were cleared up, if that's the extent of coverage in mainstream sources, how is it that we're sure this deserves weight in the article? Croctotheface (talk) 22:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the entire context could be included, but I think that would be unwieldy. Besides the reliable sources WSJ and Buffalo News (WP:RS specifically allows newspaper blogs under the editorial control of the paper, and even ones that aren't under its control if attributed), there is the Washington Times. If the WSJ and TWT are disallowed because they are ideological, then the NYT, the WaPo, USAT, CNN, CBS, NPR as so on would have to be disallowed because of their ideological bent. WP:RS doesn't allow that.--Drrll (talk) 23:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You're missing my point. First, regarding context, would the context explain what "helped start and support" means? Would we know what she did specifically? If not, it isn't really the kind of context I'm talking about. Second, there is not a question as to whether Hillary said the quote. I've seen the video. The question is whether the quote deserves weight in the article. If the best we have is a blog from the Buffalo News and stuff from conservative outlets, even if the information coming from those conservative outlets is reliable, then I don't think we've demonstrated that this tidbit is important. Editors here are at best divided about it, and it's not like there's overwhelming sourcing that renders its importance indisputable. Third, we need to be clear about some things here. The reporting side of the Wall Street Journal is basically interested in reporting what is true. The editorial page, by contrast, is quite conservative. The source cited here was from the editorial page. The same logic would indeed apply to opinion pieces from the New York Times. Finally, I'm not sure if you're saying this or not, but is it your argument that the Washington Post, CNN, and USA Today are all "liberal"? Croctotheface (talk) 23:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The context is illuminated by the 5 sources in showing exactly how she "helped start and support" by such things as advising Brock, encouraging her allies to contribute to it, and having one of her closest friends "advise on all aspects of its launch". How often in WP do you get more than 3 sources confirming one detail (her quote), especially in a non-BLP article? While the WSJ reference is an opinion source (allowed by WP:RS), it confirms the two news sources in the Buffalo News and TWT. Yes, I am saying that those other sources are all liberal in their reporting. The reference to TWT is a news piece, not an opinion piece, so are you saying that TWT is ideological in its reporting, but the other sources are merely neutral? --Drrll (talk) 00:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, OK, if that's the case, then isn't it redundant to quote her? Putting the quote AFTER all that information, as it was in the article, seems designed to inspire readers to imagine a greater degree of connection. Croctotheface (talk) 07:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe it's designed to inspire a belief in a greater degree of connection; I think it both confirms and sums up the other information. The quote doesn't have to appear AFTER the other information.--Drrll (talk) 08:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this comes close to an adequate reason to include the quote. First, it doesn't "confirm" anything, and if the other information is factual and properly sourced, it should not need confirmation anyway. This also raises the age-old issue of how to interpret such a vague statement--if the article said that Hillary in fact ran media matters through a series of tubes connected to her head à la the supervillain Braniac, then I suppose we could read her quote as "confirming" that as well. Second, why would we need to "sum up" the information? It should stand on its own. I fail to see what this adds to the article. Croctotheface (talk) 09:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You've got a point about "if the other information is factual and properly sourced, it should not need confirmation anyway." Thanks for inserting a little humor (the Braniac bit) into this otherwise serious conversation!--Drrll (talk) 09:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

In the two and a half years I've been editing Wikipedia this is the single most egregious example of what I would call not so much liberal bias but rather anti-conservative or anti-right-wing bias. DON'T GIVE THE BASTARDS ANY SATISFACTION is the driving spirit of the irreconciliables here. I haven't the slightest doubt, none whatsoever, that opposition to the inclusion of the Hillary quote is entirely a matter of whose ox is being quoted. Hillary Clinton's statement was clear, adequately, if not overwhelmingly publicized (news about Media Matters is generally not national headline material), and made before an audience that, if anything, might have been slightly hostile to it since the Daily Kos and Media Matters were at odds during the run-up to Presidential primaries. The point is not that it establishes the precise degree of support she gave to Media Matters. The point is that it helps to show a significant connection between the two. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

First, it seems that you acknowledge in this comment that only conservatives want to add this material to the article. In itself, that should tell you something about how important it is. Second, how does it show a significant connection? What significant connection? Finally, User:Tom Reedy, a disinterested editor at the NPOV noticeboard, summed up my opinion nicely when he said that Clinton and MM are both left-of-center, so why is it a big deal that Clinton would be involved with MM? Croctotheface (talk) 23:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll address your "points" in reverse order. No, it isn't a big deal that Hillary Clinton would be involved with MMFA (you seem to be acknowledging here that she was), but it is worth noting. It is certainly worth noting as, I believe, numerous sources have, that Media Matters was quite supportive of Hillary during her 2008 primary bid, and supportive of her not only against criticism from the right but also against criticism from the left (most of the staunch "progressives" within the Democratic party tended to support Barack Obama and criticized Hillary from the left, not the right). Verifiable information that helps to give the reader an insight into possible reasons for MMFA's loyalty to Clinton, such as Hillary's specific assertion that she helped to "start and support" the organization in question is eminently worth including in the article. That is why I did so. You deleted it. As for your first two sentences what is your point here exactly?...that if people on the right side of the political spectrum are eager to include a specific fact then the fact shouldn't be included? In the case at hand, if most liberals don't want the fact include then it shouldn't be included? Do conservatives get a such a veto too? As John McEnroe would say, YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS. Badmintonhist (talk) 06:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to put scare quotes around "points" and otherwise attempt to sarcastically dismiss what I say, then I'm going to stop engaging you in discussion here. It's clear that there's no consensus to include this material, so if you want to include it, you're going to need to swing consensus over to your side. Alienating people who are engaging with your arguments seems like an odd way to do that. You've made a lot of unsupported assertions in this comment. I'm not sure that most progressives (again, why did you put scare quotes around "progressive"?) supported Obama over Clinton, but even if they did, it's certainly your personal analysis to say that there is some kind of illicit relationship between Clinton herself and MM. It seems that your goal is to include these details to have the article imply something that you can't have it say outright--that MM is somehow a Clinton organization. That is a blatant violation of our core policies. This is precisely the concern that I have articulated all throughout this discussion on including the "Clinton" material, and you continually dismissed it. It now appears clear why--because it described what your goal had been all along. Croctotheface (talk) 07:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I called them "points" because they were insubstantial and unserious, and I don't worry much about alienating editors who have already alienated me by their politicization of the editing process and who blatantly misstate my edits. I never said or implied that there was anything "illicit" about Hillary Clinton's relationship with Media Matters. Regarding your first point, lame is too kind a description. Need anyone have to say that we shouldn't be excluding relevant and verifiable facts because we don't like the politics of those who are pushing for them. As for the second, a direct quote from Hillary Clinton that she "helped to start and support" Media Matters most certainly does give evidence of a strong link between the woman and the organization. No, it doesn't absolutely prove such a link; she might have been lying (though why would she?), she might have been exaggerating...politicians often do, but, if so, she has not admitted to either. As for Media Matters, while understandably coy about giving details, it has never denied Hillary's assertion. To draw a parallel between facts that tend to have further implications, the fact that long time Republican operative Roger Ailes heads Fox News doesn't absolutely prove that Fox has any affinity for Republican politics, but that doesn't mean we refuse to divulge his Republican pedigree because this would have the article imply something that we can't have it say outright. I will agree with you on one point, the link between Hillary and MMFA is neither surprising nor a "big deal". It is dog-bites-man rather than man-bites-dog. Of course, most political information in Wikipedia is very much of the dog-bites-man variety, which invites the question of why you are working so inordinately hard to try to keep it out. Badmintonhist (talk) 10:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I have to respond to this in two places. You had said your version "helps to give the reader an insight into possible reasons for MMFA's loyalty to Clinton." That Media Matters has loyalty to Clinton (and to Clinton over Obama, as your comment suggested) is clearly opinion. Clinton's quote says nothing at all to that point, yet you want it in the article because you believe it bolsters this opinion of yours. What you are doing here is a textbook example of writing to support your personal POV. Croctotheface (talk) 11:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

And what you've just done here is a textbook example of mischaracterizing the edit that you deleted. The quotation from Hillary Clinton's speech at the Aug. 2007 Yearly Kos convention wasn't included to bolster my personal opinion regarding MMFA and Hillary, it was included because it was relevant to the sourced information immediately preceding it (which, at last look, you haven't yet removed; but I'll give you time) which says "Media matters has given aggressive coverage to what it identifies as misinformation about Hillary Clinton in the media." Badmintonhist (talk) 17:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You had written that your version "helps to give the reader an insight into possible reasons for MMFA's loyalty to Clinton." You did not describe information that it provided, just that it lends credence to your opinion that Media Matters is "loyal" to Clinton. That opinion was never given in the article. Your boldface quote says something quite different. Croctotheface (talk) 18:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's go back to your deletion of the Hillary quote. The copy that I put in bold text here immediately preceded that quote. That copy certainly implies a Media Matters loyalty to Hillary Clinton (especially when one considers that much of that media criticism of Hillary was then coming from other liberals). The Hillary quote is relevant to Media Matters' giving "aggressive coverage to what it identifies as misinformation about Hillary" regardless of what one wants to make of it but, yes, (though this is merely my talk page characterization of it) I think that it "helps to give the reader an insight into possible reasons for MMFA's loyalty to Clinton."

Major issues with this text

Right now, we are in a tough spot. Possibly because this was initially meant to be criticism, this text cites a lot of opinion pieces (Byron York in the National Review, Jeff Gerth, WSJ editorial page) despite appearing structurally to be part of the main body of the article. It's nowhere near a neutral treatment of the "background" of Media Matters. It is very clearly written so as to imply something unseemly is going on because Hillary Clinton is involved. As SaltyBoatr said, within some circles that kind of association might mean a lot, but that does not seem to be what a wide range of sources would say. Croctotheface (talk) 23:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Jeff Gerth's work definitely is not an opinion piece. It's not clear that Byron York's National Review reporting is an opinion piece, even though National Review is generally a journal of opinion.--Drrll (talk) 01:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Your contention is that Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton contains no opinion? The NYT's review said, "The book is almost uniformly negative and overly focused on what they consider the Clintons’ scandalous past and the darker aspects of Mrs. Clinton’s personality."[1] Croctotheface (talk) 08:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not my contention that "Her Way" contains no opinion. But it has no more opinion than news analysis pieces and many straight news pieces. A book review is an opinion piece, so what that review says about "Her Way" is not fact, but opinion.--Drrll (talk) 09:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

discussion at NPOV noticeboard

Drrll has opened a topic over at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Media_Matters_for_America_article. I think it prudent to mention that topic here because some people here might be interested. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

section break

There are currently several discussions going on about this article. Drrll, myself, and others are on one side the debate, and Blax and Croc and others are on the other. Let's get these issues resolved on those talk pages rather than argue about them here. Not much sense in creating the discussion sections and then not use them. Rapier (talk) 20:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Page Protection

Note that Blaxthos has requested full page protection at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection. Also note that he started a discussion that references the MMfA article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Memes_become_fact .—Preceding unsigned comment added by Drrll (talk • contribs) 17:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Media Matters and the Hannity/tea party brouhaha

You know, all this talk about what constitutes adequate sourcing and weight has me thinking. If we're comfortable with three sources (let alone these three sources), then what about all the coverage that MM gets for their actual media monitoring? The most recent example I can think of is the rigamarole where Sean Hannity had to pull out of his appearance at a Cincinnati tea party event. There are many more than three sources citing Media Matters in connection to this episode. Should this go into the article? How much more weight should it receive than the Hillary Clinton stuff? Croctotheface (talk) 11:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're asking whether that material should go into this article or Hannity's article. I don't mind if it goes into either article, as long as it's reliably sourced and neutrally stated. I'm not going to get into whether it "seems written solely to give the reader a negative impression of" Hannity as you said when removing the well-sourced and neutrally stated "highly partisan organization" line. The whole point is what ends up in the article and whether it meets WP policy.--Drrll (talk) 12:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Is it your argument that a sentence that is written entirely to give the reader a certain impression that bolsters a certain opinion does not violate WP policy? Croctotheface (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

What matters is that the sentence is neutrally written and reliably sourced (sourced to an ideologically sympathetic source at that). Unflattering material abounds in all sorts of WP articles, but that doesn't mean that it's an automatic violation of WP policy.--Drrll (talk) 19:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

If you could, could you answer my original question with a yes or no? Croctotheface (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think that it violates WP policy, regardless of the intent of the editor who put items in. Don't you think that, for example, that the Media Research Center article having "[FAIR] likened a defunct MRC newsletter TV etc., which tracked the off-screen political comments of actors, to Red Channels, the McCarthy Era blacklisting journal" was "written entirely to give the reader a certain impression that bolsters a certain opinion"?--Drrll (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

So, OK, you're totally fine with writing that is designed to support a particular point of view? How is that writing from a neutral point of view? Croctotheface (talk) 01:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Just for the fun of it I'll take a crack at that one, Croc. Your entire premise is invalid because the belief that a sentence is entirely "designed" to support a particular point of view is just that...a subjective belief that can't be proven. No one, and certainly not you, can definitively prove what the "design" of the writer is. Oh, by the way, you might be interested in this [2], I just happened to run across it while doing some recreational reading. Badmintonhist (talk) 06:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that editors need to pretend that it's impossible to determine whether text implies anything without directly saying it. Apparently, being able to read and comprehend is "subjective", which is somehow bad. That's news to me, since it would mean that we can never interpret or apply any of our core policies, as they all involve making subjective determinations. This line of argument, honestly, is one of the most ridiculous pretensions that certain editors have.

Regarding Clinton, there might be some merit to including attributed criticism of MM relating to Hillary Clinton. It would depend on how rich the sourcing is and whether it deserves weight in the article. However, what you have been trying to do--imply a criticism of MM by presenting information in a certain way--is a flagrant NPOV violation. Croctotheface (talk) 07:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

This is inside baseball, but trying to determine the "design" of an author is at another level of abstraction from what we're supposed to be doing here. Hence, Drrll's wise unwillingness to respond to your baited question with a simple yes or no. "Design" speaks to purpose and purpose to motive. A poet, for example, typically "designs" his words to do several different things but good luck in determining what those things are. Even in Wikipedia the idea that we can determine if a sentence is designed entirely to give the reader a negative impression of something or someone (aside from certain cases outright vandalism, I suppose) is presumptuous. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Totally wrong, sorry. Re-read WP:NPOV, we have a duty to be neutral, and even though it is difficult, we must be paying attention to the implication of words and context. In this case, there is a clear history of implication related to "Hillary bashing" in the right wing media, and we must do our duty to choose careful wording in our neutral encyclopedia. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

No, you miss my point, I think, Salty. Of course we have a duty to try to be neutral, and yes, that means assessing the implications of the words in an article. However, that is not the same as presuming what the design (intention) of the writer is. How many time have you written something, as I have, then realized, perhaps quite a while later, that it says something rather different than what you intended to say? We then change it because the words don't have the exact denotations or connotations or implications that we intended. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I get what you are saying, but I disagree that our obligation stops with "implications that we intended". My point isn't about the editor's intention. Rather, it is about the intention of our sources. When I look at the sources I see entirely sources that are reasonably described as being in the context of political advocacy journalism or political advocacy blogging. Because of that fact, I conclude that making a Hillary=>MMfA connection requires special attention to achieve NPOV. Here at Wikipedia regarding NPOV we have a higher policy standard than the advocacy journalists and bloggers. All three of Drrll's sources, Jeff Gerth, Newsday and The Washington times are fairly described as tending towards "Hillary bashing" advocacy politics. Because of that fact, we are obligated to tread very carefully when using them as sources here. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, Newsday is a mainstream source that has both criticized and praised Clinton. However--and this is quite telling--the Newsday article does not source the "conclusion" that readers are led to reach by that section. The Newsday article describes how people from the Clinton administration were involved with MM, which is hardly surprising. And this brings us back to my original point--it's not that we have tons of mainstream sources talking about this Hillary stuff. Instead, it seems pretty clear that we have editors who want the article to say certain things about Clinton, so they go back and find articles that can then bolster their argument. My entire point in creating this section is that there IS mainstream coverage of MM's role in the Hannity-tea party brouhaha, but less so for this Hillary stuff. Our articles should follow secondary sources, not attempt to cobble them together with opinion sources and advocacy journalism to promote a point of view. Yet the latter is what we have going on with this Hillary stuff. Croctotheface (talk) 21:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe what you're referring to is the epitome of WP:CHERRY. If you start with all the sources and evaluate the weight of the Clinton stuff contained therein, it is impossible to say that it has enough weight to justify the mention; only by seeking out sourcing to support the premise does this appear significant. Let's also not forget that the main assertions is being taken out of context to support the premise. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

This cherry picking by Wiki-political-advocacy editors is especially obvious when they discuss it on talk page space speaking of ...they can't fess up to being lefties? which sheds light on an improper use of Wikipedia for their personal politics through this cherry picking sources to push a personal point of view. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 22:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I said "so many on the left" "can't fess up to being lefties". There are some editors on the left who are straight up about being liberal. For some reason, it seems that far fewer editors on the left can't/won't acknowledge their politics than those on the right (the same phenomenon is true for many liberal journalists) . But in the end, what matters is the reliably-sourced neutral text that goes into an article and whether it meets WP policies, rather than the point of view of the editor. It's not cherry-picking sources when no reliable sources exist that contradict the assertion that Hillary Clinton and associates had a significant role in MMfA's beginnings. Zero reliable sources vs. SIX reliable sources that indicate they did.--Drrll (talk) 07:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's see, observers from the Wall Street Journal, MSNBC, Newsday, the Washington Times, and the Buffalo News all suggest a strong connection between Hillary Clinton and Media Matters. To be sure, not an avalanche of news major sources, but then, as I'm sure Croc would agree, Media Matters is hardly the biggest dog on the block. Hillary Clinton is but then she would be even if MMFA didn't exist and she had many other newsworthy activities going on at the time. The assertions by the news sources named have basically not been contested, yet those assertions are not newsworthy here? Not as newsworthy as ...say the great debate over whether Bill O'Reilly grew up in Levittown or a neighboring village? Badmintonhist (talk) 00:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Your characterization that "observers" from all those news organizations share your opinion is false. The Newsday article is a straight news piece that details people who have worked for both the Clintons and MM. Again, this is hardly a bombshell. The Buffalo News blog basically cites the Newsday article and concludes with, "[T]here still is no direct answer as to whether she 'helped start' it." The WSJ blog mentions the "helped start" quote but otherwise does not address the issue and does not espouse your opinion here. Your characterization here leads me to question whether you actually read those sources, or whether your goal is just to list a bunch of sources for the sake of claiming that the POV you want the article to reflect is prevalent in sources. Croctotheface (talk) 00:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say they shared my opinion, Croc, I said that they all suggest (not proved absolutely) a strong link between Hillary and Media Matters, which they do. Reread them with some political sophistication, Croc. Maybe you can figure out the designs of the authors. As for cherry picking sources, Salt, that might make some sense if there were any bona fide sources which contradict the ones that have been mentioned, but if there are no one has been producing them. As for Some users, but certainly not all, with left-leaning views are even-handed editors Drrll and I would probably prefer to characterize our discussions as a progression toward political neutrality in Wikipedia. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think I see how this works. Progressive organizations start to spring up. Progressive politicians and political professionals are involved with them. Some of these political professionals had worked in the previous Democratic administration, but now they're doing different things since the Republicans are in power. At one point, apparently Hillary Clinton had said that it would be useful to to have an organization to watch out for, to quote MM, conservative misinformation in the media. Later on, she makes a vague statement about supporting such organizations. Nearly all mainstream news organizations treat this as a non-story. By contrast, the conservative blogs, which hate Media Matters, go nuts. A couple of blogs (MSNBC and Buffalo News) and a couple of ideologically sympathetic outlets (WSJ editorial page, Washington Times) mention or allude to the story. The rest of the media continues to treat it as a non-story. However, you say, since those other sources did not "contradict" this non-story, we must put it into the article. Is that about right? Croctotheface (talk) 03:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually no, that's not about right. That "vague statement" was not vague at all ("general", yes, but not vague) and was part of a (presumably) prepared speech. You also skip the part about Media Matters, whose express mission is to combat "conservative misinformation," doing something quite different during the campaign; combatting "liberal misinformation", or, at least, "misinformation" coming from liberals, which they deemed hostile to Hillary Clinton. As for the supposed thinness of the sourcing, take a look at the article, Croc, how much of it covers what is or was major headline news? How rich is the sourcing for most of the factoids in the article?

Now at this point, I think I will follow Rapier's Mensa quality advice and take a break from the fray. Maybe do some exercise and prepare a karaoke number or two. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, after personally watching the speech on YouTube I got the impression that it was not a prepared speech judging from the run-on sentences and the parenthetical asides. I don't know what to take from it. It was definitely vague in my opinion. Certainly, I see a lot of political advocates grabbing on to the snippet quote where she said the words "helping to start and support". These words occurred in context of a number of statements where she was proud of a greater burgeoning of a progressive wing in the media infrastructure. Exactly what does "helping to start and support" mean? The advocacy bloggers and journalists see it literal, but we need to be careful when using political advocacy sourcing. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 17:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

And here I thought it was the masculine Clinton that was into parsing semantics ("That depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is..."). I realise that Hillary isn't exactly dodging sniper bullets here, but it's hard to argue with an exact quote, isn't it? Rapier (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Snarky comments like that betray your intent here, Rapier. It seems pretty easy to argue with an "exact quote" when you take it out of context and attempt to interpret it to fit your personal agenda. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, those of us who have dealt Blaxthos over the years know that he almost never makes snarky comments such as accusing non-compliant fellow editors of pushing their personal agendas or using ad hominem while lecturing others for using it. Back to substance: Just what was the peculiar context of Hillary's remarks? Had she been rhetorically ambushed by a contentious questioner? Challenged on the spot to defend her progressive credentials? Taken to a local pub for a pop or two before her remarks? Isn't it pretty clear that she meant what she said? True, she did not delineate exactly what she did, or thought she did, to help "start and support" Media Matters, but can there be any real doubt that as far as Hillary was concerned she had substantially helped the organization? Now had Media Matters publicly contradicted her remarks... well, come to think that would be pretty newsworthy too. Badmintonhist (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Salt did a pretty good job of pointing out what the apparent intent of the quote really is. To quote directly, since you've been ignoring it: "she is describing her role in encouraging the growth of counterbalance in the political message of the progressive media infrastructure ", and is using MMFA and others as examples of the fruits of that effort. What you're hell bent on doing (along with Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, and the associated right wing machines) is to turn that into some claim of direct relationship with MMFA. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc -- while that might be appropriate for rabid right wing blogs and radio shows intent on pushing an ideology, it's absolutely inappropriate in an Encyclopedia. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll give you credit for getting a lot out there in a relatively small a mount of space, now to counter what you've said. First, as you should well know by now, I'm not the "Limbaugh, Beck, and Hannity" sort of fellow. Check the record, and there is a lot of it on this thread, have I ever suggested that Hillary Clinton was doing anything in connection with Media Matters that she didn't have every right to do, or what one might reasonably have expected her to do? I do think , along with MSNBC's Chuck Todd, that there is reason to believe that Media Matters may have acted with some duplicity (ostensibly functioning as a watchdog against right-leaning media while also protecting Hillary from liberal criticism) but even there I don't see anything peculiarly nefarious. I do see it, however, as interesting and noteworthy to the extent that it can be demonstrated. As for Salt "pointing out what the apparent intent of the quote really is" that is merely his and your convenient theory, a cynical one, I think, because I'm pretty sure you don't really believe it. Your beloved Latin phrase doesn't apply because no editor here (except maybe young Drrll and I'm not even sure of that) is contending that Hillary was the primary force in the creation of MMFA. There are sufficient sources, however, to strongly suggest that this relationship was direct. I just came across another one this morning. In Game Change, the best-selling book on the 2008 campaign Heilemann and Halperin say (p.42) that Hillary , not associates of Hillary or Hillary through intermediaries, "advised the liberal watchdog group Media Matters for America." It goes on to say that she did so while "thinking ahead --to another Clinton presidential campaign and administration, when those reinforcements could ease her path and abet her power." Badmintonhist (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think that Hillary Clinton was the primary force in the creation of MMfA. I'm not even sure that she was a primary force in its creation, but there is no question that both she and her close associates played a major role in its creation and early years--based upon the 7 sources now available (but of course we know how "thin" 7 sources are). One of these sources bears out Game Change that she herself advised MMfA directly, but the sources also bear out that a close friend advised MMfA "on all aspects of its launch" and that her close friends played a major role in bringing funds to MMfA.--Drrll (talk) 17:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay everybody, I think we all need to take a deep breath, step away from our keyboards, come back and review WP:AGF, and then try this again. Any arguments? Rapier (talk) 01:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

We should be giving emphasis to 2010, not 2007.

Is it fair to say that we all agree that MMfA is a "liberal leaning media watchdog group" or some similar wording. The disagreement comes up in whether the MMfA is a Hillary leaning watchdog group. Perhaps the problem comes from the time frame being discussed. I see nothing inconsistent in the fall of 2007, during the heat of the Democratic primary, that this progressive watchdog group happened to be spinning things to help the front runner and to help consolidate the fractionation of the party. Where things get inappropriate in the editing here is to point to the favoritism of a party front runner in 2007, and to create an improper impression with undue weight on that state of affairs in 2007 that in the present date, 2010, that the MMfA is still favoring Hillary. SaltyBoatr (talk) 13:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The article on MSNBC has an "Accusations of pro-Obama bias" subsection in its "Criticism and controversy" section. Rather an awkward sounding title and I don't particularly like "accusations" since some of its sources aren't so much "accusing" as simply noting. However, we could follow the same basic concept here. Have a section or subsection that deals with the assertions that Media Matters has strong ties to Hillary and, at least in her presidential bid, tended to favor Hillary. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

If there is enough sourcing in reliable sources to back up the opinion that MM "favored HIllary", then it might be worth including in the article. However, coupling that together with facts about Hillary's connection to MM is, again, the definition of non-neutral writing. It's an attempt to structure the article and lay out facts in a way that bolsters an opinion. In comment after comment, you detail precisely how you want to have the article violate WP:NPOV. Croctotheface (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Lack of Non-Positive Content

Except for the Bill O'Reilly criticism of MMfA and a few challenges to Media Matters' conclusions here and there, much of the article as currently consistuted looks like it could have been approved by David Brock himself. Reliably-sourced substantive material that MMfA would not like to be included is practically absent. Almost all of this material, no matter how mild, has been removed, usually not because the material is non-neutral, but because the material is deemed to have been placed there by editors with a point of view (as if there are editors who have no point of view). Analogous "highly partisan" conservative organizations would die for such positive spin in their articles.--Drrll (talk) 14:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this is an "in the eye of the beholder" thing, seeing a leftist plot everywhere. By my count the Criticism section is 350 words out of the 1542 total words in the article. Criticism is also included in the body of the article in the paragraphs starting with the words "John Diaz..." and "Limbaugh...", for another 250 words. As of this moment, 40% of the article at present is devoted to criticism, not an unreasonable balance at all. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Almost all those 600 words (I'm assuming that number is correct) are used for three paragraphs, each with similar number of words: Limbaugh, Cliff Kincaid, and O'Reilly. Half of the words in the Limbaugh paragraph are devoted to Media Matters' side, while two-thirds of the words in the Kincaid paragraph is devoted to Media Matters' side (the O'Reilly paragraph is mostly O'Reilly's side). The large Kincaid paragraph is about a trivial dispute between MMfA and a small conservative media watchdog organization. The Limbaugh and O'Reilly paragraphs are disputes between MMfA and opinion hosts. There is very little substantive material from journalistic sources that MMfA wouldn't mind seeing in their article (the John Diaz material is about it).--Drrll (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

At this point it may be worthwhile to create a Criticism of Media Matters for America page, much like the Fox News Channel controversies (nearly 79k all by itself) where this information can be stated without concern of WP:UNDUE? I don't have time to start it right now, but I'd likely be a contributor later. Rapier (talk) 15:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that adding such an article is a good idea. However, if you look at the main Fox News Channel article, you'll see that it also includes a huge criticism section and criticism in the lede, neither of which can be said about the MMfA article (and it doesn't even have a a separate criticism article yet like Fox News does).--Drrll (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms of ___________ pages are generally deprecated. If created, it will likely be taken to AfD and deleted as a POV folk. Yilloslime ^T_C 18:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

While I don't argue with either of your comments, perhaps we should take those two facts and then look again at the argument here at Media Matters. 1.) Large criticism sections are not unprecedented on Wikipedia (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS aside) 2. There is no argument that there are criticisms of Media Matters for America 3. There appears to be a concerted effort to keep any kind of criticism off of this article based on WP:POV issues, yet that standard is not being universally applied - hence the large criticism section on FNC's article, and even an entire article based on criticism of FNC, despite the fact that these articles are "generally deprecated". While I admit I have a conservative bias, it appears to me that there is a flagrant double-standard being applied here. FNC claims to be "fair and balanced", and has a large criticism section stating opinion why it isn't. MMfA states it is "a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media." yet any time someone attempts to point out obvious bias it is decried as a "Point -of-view conflict of interest " and therefore not valid. I believe that might be the basis for much of the frustration felt by editors here. Rapier (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Reality check: 40% of the article presently contains criticism of MMfA. That is already a large ratio devoted to criticism. Then you claim there is a "concerted effort to keep any kind of criticism off of the article", in light of the 40% ratio of criticism presently in the article. Wow, really? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 19:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the Fox News Channel controversies article needs to go to AfD.--Drrll (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Drrll seems unaware of summary style. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I was unaware of it, but it makes sense. That so much criticism exists in the main Fox News Channel article and the separate article and so little criticism exists in the MMfA article speaks volumes.--Drrll (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Presently 40% of the MMfA article is devoted to criticism, and you call that "so little". Wow. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 19:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

See above for my response to the 40% figure.--Drrll (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

By all means, please deliniate this 40% figure, because what I see is a small section with two incidents mentioned, and more space dedicated to MMfA's response to the criticism than the criticism itself. Rapier (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

See the discussion above for SB's explanation of his 40% figure.--Drrll (talk) 20:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

While Drrll and I have been getting along famously lately, I'm not too enthusiastic over Rapier's and his idea to have a separate criticism article. Media Matters is very much small potatoes compared to Fox News. Significant criticisms, such as the assertion that it was helping Hillary against the other Democratic presidential hopefuls, should be found in the article itself, either in a separate section or distributed in appropriate sections of the article. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of whether there is a separate Criticism article, I agree that there needs to be a lot more criticism in the main article, such as the case with the Fox News Channel article and many conservative organizations articles.--Drrll (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Badmintonhist writes: "Significant criticisms, such as the assertion that it was helping Hillary against the other Democratic presidential hopefuls,... ". Why is that a criticism? Calling it such reveals significant and improper editor bias. It seem perfectly normal for a political advocacy group like MMfA to be wanting to help consolidate a fractionated party primary field through favoritism for a front runner. Calling a spade spade here, I see certain editors wanting to Hillary bash. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 20:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You have a point, Salty, though not a particularly riveting one. It depends, in part, on how those assertions are framed as to whether one would classify them as "criticisms", but even if they are not, the idea that they were helping Hillary could, certainly, be notable. You also

seem to be underplaying the fact that it was not the stated mission of MM to help the Democratic presidential primary frontrunner. It was their stated mission to combat "conservative misinformation". Not the same thing at all, is it?. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Where are the mainstream sources that make that criticism? One line in an MSNBC blog? The rest of what you say is, as I've been saying all along, your interpretation of the situation. That you want to rewrite the article to support your interpretation speaks to your lack of concern for our neutrality policies.

The notion that there isn't enough criticism in this article is laughable, as others have pointed out. If anything, the article fails to report positive stories that are sourced better than some of the criticism here. The whole "Afghani letter" criticism has NO secondary sourcing. I haven't deleted it because I think it's a valid criticism and there are sources that establish that it happened. But based on what I've seen here, there isn't a ton of criticism out there in mainstream sources. Croctotheface (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, it's important to note that the volume of criticism is determined by the volume and weight of criticism that exists about the group, not by comparing it to an ideological foil. It's clear by editors' statements above that they believe Wikipedia is a ideological battlefield, and their intent is to try and tit-for-tat articles. This is absolutely not supported by policy, and betrays POV-based agendas (very telling). To imply that the weight and volume of criticism of MMFA is analogous to that of FNC is completely and demonstrably false -- there are published papers in academic journals that detail FNC's bias; I'm unaware of the same volume and rigor regarding MMFA. It's absurd to even attempt to make an argument about criticism here based on what you find in the FNC article. Comments like this should remove any doubt that Drrll is here for one purpose alone, and it's not to improve Wikipedia articles. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Blaxthos in saying that some of have "POV-based agendas", of course implies that he has no POV-based agenda. It doesn't matter that he regularly uses such sources as MMfA, FAIR, and MSNBC opinion shows as reliable sources for derogatory material in BLPs of conservatives, while saying that news articles in newspapers and a book by a Pulitzer Prize-winning NYT journalist are not good enough sources for a non-BLP article of a liberal organization. No, what matters is that he says others (read: those in ideological opposition to him) have an agenda and that he is able to float above those mere mortals in being agenda-less. As far as the presence of academic journal references in the FNC article, are you referring to such respected scholarly sources as the DNC, an MSNBC opinion show transcript, the Huffington Post, talkingpointsmemo.com, and of course 3 MMfA references?--Drrll (talk) 00:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Drrll, this might be difficult, but the point that Blaxthos is making is editors must not WP:BATTLE. Let's truce. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Should we delete the Cliff Kincaid bit?

For all the goings on about sourcing (a laundry list of sources that so much as mention Hillary Clinton and Media Matters in the same sentence somehow proves something?), I am surprised by the lack of attention that some people here have paid to the Cliff Kincaid criticism. That paragraph does not cite a single secondary source. Up until now, I had not deleted it because I think it puts forth a reasonable criticism (that MM did not obtain his side of the story before publishing an item), so I haven't deleted it myself. By the same token, I think that one of several reasons to exclude this whole Hillary Clinton rigamarole is that it's NOT a strong criticism; it relies on speculation, it requires a large degree of interpretation of a quote that could mean many different things, and it came up in the context of a three-year-old political campaign, and we don't tend to report on all the ins and outs of political campaigns because they don't merit weight in an encyclopedia article.

Now, I'm going to continue to edit from this philosophy, so I don't plan on removing the Kincaid bit. However, why is it that editors who say that a handful of sources demand that we include certain material have no such issue with the complete lack of sources for another item? Croctotheface (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I could hardly care less about Cliff Kincaid's complaint about Media Matters. It's all small potatoes. But I would suggest that if you do bring it up, don't mix it in with the Hillary Clinton matter. Discuss the Kincaid matter here if you want; discuss the Hillary matter in an appropriate section of the talk page. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Assistance in startup by Hillary Clinton & associates

This fact is clear in two ways. A book by Jeff Gerth (a NYT reporter) details her & her associates involvement in the startup of MMFA. Secondly, Hillary Clinton herself bragged to a Daily Kos convention that she was involved in this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drrll (talk • contribs) 01:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Your edit said that the organization was founded by Clinton along with David Brock, which is not only false, but different from what you've said here. That Clinton supports MM is manifest from what she said, but that's about all. There's certainly nothing to suggest that she "founded" it. Croctotheface (talk) 03:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

My most recent edit, after I consulted the book source read as follows: "assisted by Hillary Clinton and her associates". See the book for how she and associates assisting in starting it.--Drrll (talk) 03:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

A few things: first, I'm not sure that, even if we accept that formulation as true, there's any "there there," in other words, I'm not seeing why "assistance" is important enough to mention in the article. As far as I know, this kind of thing is really only a story in conservative circles, as some kind of an attempt to cast aspersions on MM. On the merits, there are a handful of issues. For instance, "assistance" could mean a lot of things, some of which might be interesting enough to write about, but many of which would not be. Also, the Gerth biography of Clinton was heavily criticized, so it would probably be necessary to do an in-line attribution, which further draws the material into question. Croctotheface (talk) 04:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

This claim was previously discussed and that discussion is in Archive 2. I'm not sure the Gerth book has anything new to add to our previous discussion. Gamaliel (talk) 05:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It does add to the discussion:

"Hillary, though not a close friend of Brock's, advised him and "quietly nurtured" his nonprofit empire.

"Media Matters had among its earliest supporters and advisers long-standing allies of Hillary and the Democratic Party. One of them, Kelly Craighead...advised Media Matters "on all aspects" of its launch.--Drrll (talk) 09:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Assuming this is true (and Gerth's reporting on the Clinton's has been disputed for years) this certainly isn't intro-worthy or the smoking gun it appears to be. I think we should take a closer look at what Gerth has to say and what his sources are before we include his conclusions in the article. Gamaliel (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I added the following to a "History" section:

Media Matters started up in early 2004, housed at first at the liberal Center for American Progress. Hillary Clinton advised Brock and "quietly nurtured" Media Matters, while allies of Hillary Clinton also supported the organization. One of Clinton's allies who worked for her when she was First Lady, Kelly Craighead, even "advised Media Matters 'on all aspects' of its launch."

Even though there is video of Hillary Clinton saying she "helped to start, support...Media Matters", I was careful to not go beyond what the book claimed about her and her allies' role in starting MMfA. Here are the excerpts from the book from which I took the material:

"Although it was independent, Media Matters had among its earliest supporters and advisers long-standing allies of Hillary and the Democratic Party. One of them, Kelly Craighead, who planned Hillary's trips for eight years when she was First Lady, advised Media Matters 'on all aspects' of its launch. And the new group wasted no time becoming an aggressive protector of Hillary's reputation and boasting about its role as truth police, forcefully going after journalists for what the group deems to be leaving out key information or cherry-picking material...Hillary, though not a close friend of Brock's, advised him and 'quietly nurtured' his nonprofit empire" (p. 268).

Does anyone have a suggestion as to better wording or to better placement away from "History"? The lede did not seem an appropriate place to put the material. A "History" section certainly could benefit from additional material.--Drrll (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any alternatives to suggest, but the wording and placement of this material in own section called "History" coming right after the LEDE both strongly suggests that Clinton played some critical, central role in starting MMfA, even if it stops short of explicitly saying it. For all the reasons enumerated above, this idea--whether implied or explicitly expressed--has no place in the article. Yilloslime ^T_C 05:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how the wording suggests that Clinton played a crticial role in starting MMfA. It does suggest that a close associate of hers played a critical role. Clinton, though probably just one of many people who "advised" and "nurtured" MMfA, is noteworthy because of her prominence, unlike the others. The placement in a "History" section is done because it doesn't seem to fit any existing section. The reason Clinton & associates takes up so much of the "History" section is twofold: I wanted to be precise about her role and the section can use additional material that I didn't find. The reason this material comes right after the lede is because that's where a "History" section would make the most sense in placement. --Drrll (talk) 06:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

If Clinton didn't play some integral role in the founding or history of the organization (consensus since at least Archive 3 has been that she did not), shoving it in as a primary part of the history both gives that viewpoint undue weight and feels like a little bit of ideological advocacy. I personally don't see any compelling reason to single Clinton out. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Clinton saw fit to single herself out with her "I helped to start, support...Media Matters" comment. If it doesn't belong in "History" what existing or new section would be better?--Drrll (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think it's this important to include? What makes it so weighty? Is that weight verifiable and supported by reliable sources? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't understand your position and upon what it's based. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Blax, let's be real. If the former First Lady, former New York Senator, and current Secretary of State isn't important enough to note as a person who assisted in the forming of a group, then I don't know who is. This is an article about a notable organization. A notable person like Mrs. Clinton that was involved in its creation is certainly "weighty" enough to merit inclusion. I can understand why some people may want to keep this fact from being mentioned because it may make the organization appear less than unbiased, but that is not the point of Wikipedia. Rapier (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Weighty? You (Blax) belittle Clinton's accomplishments by implying what she herself said in this particular matter is not weighty. When someone with Clinton's stature claims to have helped start a certain organization such as MMfA, that is notable regarding the issue of the history of that organization. I actually do not understand the POV reluctance to add what Clinton herself has already said. She's an encyclopedic figure, her comments regarding MMfA are noteworthy for the matter which they assert, and the history of MMfA is appropriate for a section on the history of MMfA. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is so weighty for two reasons: the involvement in this organization by someone so prominent (besides being First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State, she almost became President), and because MMfA claims to be nonpartisan (which is a requirement for their tax-exempt status). There is enough weight given to Clinton and MMfA in a reliable source book about Clinton to warrant discussion on 3 pages and in back material. There is also discussion of this relationship in a non-reliable source, the Media Research Center. While I don't advocate using that source here, keep in mind that the WP article on the MRC uses MMfA as a source.--Drrll (talk) 01:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Drrll, MMfA should never be used as a source unless it is about the MMfA itself. The MMfA stories are inherently biased and written by people having only second-hand knowledge. However, the articles may reference reliable sources, and it is those reliable sources that should be used, not what MMfA says about them or how MMfA interprets them. So if you see an MMfA source that is not about the MMfA itself, consider removing the reference and, where appropriate, replacing with an underlying link. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that MMfA shouldn't be used as a source in other articles (if you do a search, you'll see that it is used in a lot of articles). That's a good idea about using the underlying source in the MMfA reference if it's there. BTW, there was an extensive discussion about consistent use of MMfA, the MRC, & FAIR on the Reliable sources noticeboard. As is often the case, nothing was formally resolved, but the consensus was to be consistent in the use or non-use of those sources.--Drrll (talk) 02:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Squawking aside, per the governing policy the fundamental question is the demonstration of weight in reliable sources, not how important you particular editors believe it is. Can you demonstrate some sourcing to establish the weight you believe it to carry? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Clinton saying it in her own book is not sufficiently weighty? Not sufficiently reliable?--LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, the reliable source book mentions Clinton/associates & MMfA on 3-plus pages. I don't believe that one or two sentences in this article over-represents its presence and weight in reliable sources.--Drrll (talk) 02:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand WP:WEIGHT -- specifically, one single source doesn't establish much weight. What needs to be demonstrated is that the issue, as alleged by the single source, is generally accepted as a notable part of MMFA's history by a preponderance of sources. The more support the idea has, the more weigh it deserves in the article. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree there's a WP:WEIGHT issue here. I'm not categorically opposed to a brief mention of this factoid, but I do think the proposed text/section gives it way too much attention and implies that Clinton played a bigger role than she did. The sourcing could also be better. I'm not saying the book can't be used, but if there really is a there there than surely we can dig up some references to it from reputable newspapers or other such sources that are likely to be online and easily accessible. Again, if this is really such a big important deal, than it shouldn't be hard to get more robust sourcing. Yilloslime ^T_C 05:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I have found at least two other sources for this information: a 2006 article in Newsday, and a 2007 article in The Washington Times. It looks like there may be other articles as well.

Newsday article excerpts:

David Brock, the reformed right-wing reporter who once took aim at Hillary Rodham Clinton, has cultivated surprisingly deep ties to the senator -- paying $200,000 to a Clinton confidant for working at his watchdog group, Media Matters. The ideological chameleon [Brock] has emerged as a reliable defender, while she's quietly nurtured his $8.5-million-a-year nonprofit empire. "David is immensely valuable to Hillary," says a wealthy Democrat with ties to Brock, speaking anonymously. Still, it's been particularly kind to Clinton. For her part, Clinton's extended family of contributors, consultants and friends has played a pivotal role in helping Media Matters grow from a $3.5 million start-up in 2004 to its current $8.5 million budget. Two years ago, she advised Brock on creating the group, encouraging the creation of a liberal equivalent of the Media Research Center, a conservative group that has aggravated Democrats for decades. And while Clinton and Brock aren't exactly chums, she chats with him occasionally and thinks he provides a valuable service, according to people familiar with the relationship. Kelly Craighead, one of the Clinton's closest friends, served as one of Brock's top advisers during Media Matters' formation in 2004. She was paid as part of a $202,781 contract with her husband, Erick Mullen's, consulting company, tax records obtained by Newsday show. Craighead -- whose 2001 marriage ceremony in California was performed by Sen. Clinton, acting as a justice of the peace -- now serves as a top adviser to the Democracy Alliance. That group, which advises Democratic donors on where to spend their political contributions, has steered more than $6 million to Brock's group in the past two years, say alliance members. There are other Clinton connections. Media Matters' special projects director, C. Neel Lattimore, was Clinton's press secretary when she was first lady. And Brock is close to Bill Clinton's former chief of staff John Podesta, founder of the powerhouse Democratic think tank Center for American Progress. Podesta, one of Hillary Clinton's top policy advisers, made room for Media Matters in the center's offices before Brock found permanent digs for the group.

Washington Times excerpts:

Mrs. Clinton claims credit for helping create these groups when she was preparing to run for president by encouraging her campaign contributors to pour tens of millions of dollars into their activities. In a campaign appearance before the Yearly Kos convention of liberal bloggers institutions that I helped to start and support like Media Matters and Center for American Progress," she said. Mrs. Clinton, who became friendly with its founder, David Brock, a former critic, urged him to establish the rapid-response political Web site (www.mediamatters.org) and helped him obtain the money to pay its bills.

--Drrll (talk) 07:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

After reviewing the two new sources, I see now that Clinton's involvement in the creation of Media Matters was more extensive than I originally thought. I suggest changing the text to something like:

David Brock started Media Matters in early 2004, housed at first at John Podesta's Center for American Progress. Hillary Clinton, who credits herself with helping to create Media Matters ("institutions that I helped to start and support like Media Matters"), advised Brock on creating the group,"quietly nurtured" it, and encouraged her campaign contributors to give millions of dollars to the organization. Kelly Craighead, one of Clinton's closest friends and a senior aide to her when she was First Lady, "advised Media Matters 'on all aspects' of its launch" and then steered at least $6 million to them as a top adviser at Democracy Alliance.

--Drrll (talk) 13:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that the subsection on "Funding" be made part of a separate section called something like "Creation and Funding" and that properly sourced material about Hillary Clinton's and/or any other national level politician's role in creating or fostering the organization be placed in it. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. I'm not sure which way I prefer it (History or Creation and Funding), but I could live with either one. Perhaps John Podesta's role could be put in that section.--Drrll (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, it really seems to me like there isn't any "there there." Might it be informative to mention that MM employed some of the Clintonistas? I suppose, since it might shed some light on the organization's political style and where it comes from. That's what the Newsday source seems to be talking about. The Washington Times pushes an agenda, so we should be careful about how we use it as a source. But the main thrust of this still strikes me as some sort of conspiracy theory, and that was the context within this whole "HILLARY FOUNDED MEDIA MATTERS" meme came to prominence. I'm leery of making the article a sort of magnet for that. Furthermore, that the only Google hit for that Newsday article is a Free Republic post makes me a little leery about why some editors think this is so important to put into the article. Croctotheface (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

There is plenty of "there there." Did Clinton "found Media Matters"? No. Was she and her close allies instrumental in helping to give birth to and to providing a healthy first few years of life? Absolutely. The article shouldn't be a platform for conspiracy theories, whether they are ones that say she secretly founded MMfA, or ones that say that she really shouldn't be believed at face value when she said that she helped to start MMfA. The article should be a platform for presenting the solid facts found in articles and books like these. As far as search hits on the Newsday article, there are many, many hits on the article in Google (search for [Thrush "Media Matters" Newsday Clinton] instead of a full-text search), as well as some hits in Lexis-Nexis, not to mention obvious use as a source in the Gerth book.--Drrll (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't get Croc's "conspiracy theory" objection. There isn't any particularly secret or devious action being claimed here. Either Hillary Clinton played a significant and thus, certainly, a WP:Notable role in the forming of Media Matters , something that she had every right to do, or she didn't. If reliable sources tell us that she did then of course it should be included. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The reason that I brought up the Newsday article was not to suggest that it is somehow phony, but rather to say that searching for that text on Google only produces a Free Republic forum post, which does kind of cause me to doubt the ancestry of what's going on here. This whole obsession with George Soros, frankly, baffles me. It seems that the correct response when someone says that such-and-such received money from Soros should be to say, "And...?" I really don't see what about this is so interesting and what about this deserves weight in the article. It seems to me that, for some reason, the whole Soros/Hillary Clinton/whoever else meme seems to be the domain of right wingers who somehow feel that association with those individuals serves to lessen an organization's credibility. Giving weight to such uninteresting, dog-bites-man content as "left-leaning individuals involved with left-leaning media monitoring organization"--simply because some right wingers think it's an effective political attack--strikes me as poor practice. If anything, we can add a phrase or a clause about the former Clinton officials involved with the MM launch to the "Affiliations" section, perhaps after renaming the section to "History." Incidentally, "affiliations" seems like an odd way to describe funding practices. We don't call McDonald's an "affiliate" of CNN because CNN runs their television commercials. Croctotheface (talk) 04:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The importance of associations with people like Soros and Hillary Clinton besides their obvious prominence is that MMfA claims to be a nonpartisan organization, yet has close ties to some of the most partisan individuals around. I agree that "affiliations" is an odd way to describe funding. I'll change that.--Drrll (talk) 09:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Media Matters may claim to be nonpartisan in the sense that it not formally affiliated with the Democratic party, but it certainly does not claim to be ideologically neutral. Its express purpose is to combat conservative or right-leaning "misinformation". I don't think it portrays itself as any more neutral than do.. say Soros or Hillary Clinton, but this really doesn't matter. As a very prominent political figure who at the time was contemplating what many thought would be successful run for the White House, any significant, verifiable role that Hillary Clinton played in the formation of Media Matters should of course be in the article. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

As I said, there might be some merit to including a phrase or a clause in some sort of "History" section that discussed other individuals involved with founding the organization. I think that we should wait to see what some other editors think about that before we go ahead and make a change, but I think that there's probably some small amount of informative power there. However, I have real doubts about the motivation behind some of what Drrll is saying here. His edits and propsed changes tend to read like some sort of magazine expose--this isn't, you know, the place for Glenn Beck and his chalkboard. They're also way, way too long relative to how interesting and informative this material is with respect to the topic of Media Matters as a whole. If we are discussing adding half a sentence to the history of the page, then OK. That's about the weight that this seems to merit in the article. Croctotheface (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Croc, your comments betray a conflict with WP:NPOV that I find personally disturbing. It is obvious that there is a verifiable fact (from several sources) that has been included in this article. Your "Glenn Beck" comment -which has no place here, it is merely a strawman that can be put up to deflect attention away from the issue- aside, there are several editors that have already stepped up and argued successfully that this information meets all Wiki standards for inclusion, and at this point there is no reason it should not be included. If you don't like how it's worded, then by all means feel free to edit it and put your wording up for general debate, but the information shouldn't be left out because someone doesn't like the verbiage. Rapier (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

In fact the information should be left out if the verbiage is bad. We have a responsibility to present facts in context and the current proposed wording lacks context. The burden is on the editor(s) seeking to include this information to write it up with the appropriate context. Yilloslime ^T_C 21:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

What current proposed wording? Badmintonhist (talk) 21:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This is what we've been talking about. Yilloslime ^T_C 22:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the one I smoothed out a bit. Check the edit history. The "even" is contentious, kinda like one is trying to build a case, so I removed it, and "started up," on second thought, is rather informal, probably should be changed. I think my edit was pretty good assuming the basic information is supported by a reliable source. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

YS, how about addressing the wording above (13:13, 23 April 2010) in light of the material in the two new sources. Don't you agree that the new sources makes the case that Clinton's involvement in MMfA was more extensive than described by the Gerth book and that the issues of weight and sourcing are now reduced? What kind of context is the wording lacking? --Drrll (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Taking the word "even" out is a step in the right direction, but a small, insufficient one. The presentation--a full paragraph, in it's own section, right of the lead--still gives this too much WP:weight. Yilloslime ^T_C 23:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

YS, the material could be put into an existing section. Badmintonhist suggested renaming the Funding section to 'Creation and funding' and putting it in there. It may also fit into the Criticism section's paragraph on partisanship, since it relates to partisan involvement with Clinton and that paragraph already speaks about Clinton. How about suggesting wording changes or your own proposed wording?--Drrll (talk) 23:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

My suggested formatting would be to rename the "chapters" section "history," remove the bit about Colorado Media Matters, which I think no longer exists, and add a sentence or perhaps two about Brock's founding the organization. That sentence could then include something like "Persons A and B did X and Y during Media Matters' first year." Again, Drrll, this whole "partisan involvement" business is not a valid criticism of an organization that is avowedly progressive. That progressive political professionals would work with a progressive media monitoring group is not big news, and at risk of "disturbing" anyone, these attempts to suggest otherwise within the article seem designed to inspire some kind of Glenn-Beck-at-the-chalkboard "A HA! WE GOT EM!" moment. That's not supported by our evidence, and that's not the purpose of this article. Croctotheface (talk) 03:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Replacing the Chapters section would work too, as the Colorado chapter went away over a year ago. The partisanship issue is a valid criticism since the avowedly progressive MMfA still claims to be nonpartisan and is legally required to be so for their tax-exempt status. It is supported by the Jim Geraghty NR article which prints one of their statements that they are nonpartisan and then points out that they used a partisan mailing list for fundraising.--Drrll (talk) 05:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

See, it's statements like this that make me suspect that your goal here is something other than creating the most informative possible article on Media Matters. First, the general consensus is that criticisms do not deserve weight unless they have received nontrivial coverage in mainstream news sources. The National Review, a right wing magazine, obviously does not qualify. Croctotheface (talk) 05:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that we stop bickering and first handle the issue of if and how Hillary Clinton's association with the organization should be presented in the article. Any issue of Media Matters' legal nonpartisanship and whether or not it has gamed the system to achieve a tax-exempt status can be saved for later. Badmintonhist (talk) 06:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Additional material from the book "Her Way":

"One of Hillary's closest friends, Susie Tompkings Buell, held a fund-raiser for Brock's cause, and almost half of the Susie Tompkins Buell Foundation's grants in 2004 and 2005 went to Media Matters...Form 990 Annual Reports of the Susie Tompkins Buell Foundation for 2004 and 2005 show grants of $300,000 out of total grants of $636,000" (p.401).--Drrll (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Getting the discussion back on track (thanks, badmintonhist), I am requesting a simple bullet list below of the sources (not commentary or editorial opinion) that buttress the claims that this is a significant and weighty matter. Easiest way to get things incorporated is to list the reliable sources that support your positions and assertions of weight. I saw a mention or two of a few candidate sources above; can we please have those in citation templates below? Thanks. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Gerth, Jeff (2008-04-07). Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Back Bay Books. ISBN 978-0316017435.
• Thrush, Glenn (2006-09-07). "Switching allegiances". Newsday. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
• Lambro, Donald (2007-12-03). "'Nonpartisan' groups help Hillary's bid; Tax exemption raises queries". The Washington Times. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
• Smith, Ben (2007-05-27). "How to kill a book, in 3 easy steps". Politico. Retrieved 2010-05-13.
• Todd, Chuck (2007-11-15). "Calling Out Media Matters' Bias". MSNBC. Retrieved 2010-05-13.
• Heilemann, John (2010-01-11). Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime. Harper. ISBN 978-0061733635.
• Turner, Douglas (2007-10-04). "Who "helped start" Mediamatters.org?". The Buffalo News. Retrieved 2010-05-13.
• Henninger, Daniel (2007-10-11). "Hillary Talks About 'It'". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2010-05-13.
• Crowley, Michael (2007-11-12). "Bunker Hillary". The New Republic. Retrieved 2010-05-13.
• Rothstein, Betsy (2008-11-03). "Fighting ire with fire". The Hill. Retrieved 2010-05-17.

--Drrll (talk) 17:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a URL for The Washington Times story? I'm having trouble locating it. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This URL has over half of the article, including what I excerpted above, with the rest available only with payment. For some reason, it doesn't show up in the WT archive search, even as a paid article. I could email you the full article if you want.--Drrll (talk) 02:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that an editorial by a well known conservative commentator in the heat of a political campaign published by a church[3] well known for political advocacy should be considered "reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". What is does show is that editors seeking to score points for a political agenda are drawn to this article for their personal political purposes. SaltyBoatr (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr, it's obviously a news article by a political correspondent, not an editorial. If you think that TWT isn't a reliable source, take this to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and see what happens. The source is one of three, including an article from the liberal Newsday and a book by a reporter from the liberal NYT. So I guess you using in the SPLC article the liberal NPR as a sole source, "well known for political advocacy" must be an example of an editor "seeking to score points for a political agenda drawn to this [source] for their personal political purposes." Or does that not count since you were using a liberal source instead of an conservative one?--Drrll (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

This bigger issue I am raising is that it is presently obvious that editors are drawn to this article attempting to advance their personal political purposes. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't agree with the notion that we need to be completely slavish to our sources, at least as far as weight. We don't need to do some kind of mathematical analysis of the topics covered in all secondary sources and apportion our coverage here in the same percentage. If something highly illuminating is mentioned only in one source, it still might deserve weight in the article. That said, I'm troubled by the fact that Gerth is more or less avowedly anti-Clinton, and the Washington Times is a conservative newspaper. But this kind of returns to my original issue, which I don't really think can be dismissed as a side issue. We need to look to what this says about the organization. Drrll's edits have tended to be focused on George Soros and HIllary Clinton. We need to ask why, and I'm having a hard time seeing how it's not about the right wing meme that anything connected with Soros or Clinton is somehow tainted and evil. Croctotheface (talk) 06:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Relatively speaking, those sources are weak any way you slice it -- the entire body of Gerth's works seems dedicated to an agenda opposing Clinton (and thus using his works as a reliable source is questionable); and Newsday has a quite obvious agenda. TWT is the closest thing to an acceptable source, even if they are an institutionally conservative paper. I too am having trouble believing this is a good faith effort to improve this article -- it seems like a concerted effort to give validity to the Clinton/Soros/MMFA meme popular on the right-wing blogs; it does not seem like a widely accepted fact supported by diverse and reliable sources. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

What reliable sources do you have that questions Gerth's credibility or asserts that he's motivated by an agenda? I know that some people don't like the fact that he had the temerity to do investigative reporting on a Democratic president, but he was a long-term reporter for the NYT who has won a Pulitzer prize for reporting. On what basis do you say that Newsday has an obvious agenda? If anything, Newsday's bias is toward Democrats and liberal organizations. Despite your questioning my good faith and motivations, the facts from reliable sources speak for themself--Clinton's and her associates' involvement in MMfA was extensive. Soros has exactly one short and parenthetical mention in this article, as his involvement with MMfA is marginal compared with Clinton & company. I don't know how you get much more diverse in reliable sourcing than an article in the conservative TWT, an article in the liberal Newsday, and a book by a top-flight reporter. Show me (with quotes) the WP policy and the actual practice in other articles the need for more diverse and more reliable sources. BTW, have you taken a look recently at the Media Research Center article? It has for sources FAIR, ConWebWatch, SourceWatch, and until recently MMfA--a far cry from the sources I'm advocating.--Drrll (talk) 14:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

All of this back and forth seems like much ado about something which ought to be fairly routine. Either Hillary Clinton directly or indirectly gave Media Matters significant support and encouragement or she didn't. Since she, herself, has basically said that she did, and since sources that are generally considered to be factually reliable regardless of their motivations have said that she did then where's the issue? I am certainly not proposing that Wikipedia's Media Matters article should revolve around this fact or that it should be treated as some deep, dark revealed secret but of course it should at least be mentioned. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The issue is more one of emphasis than of sourcing.Yilloslime ^T_C 16:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that Jeff Gerth's entire body of work is dedicated to an agenda of opposing Clinton, but certainly his biggest fame on which much of his career was built is breaking the Whitewater controversy, in a way that amounts to "an agenda". I also cannot help but noticing that Special:Contributions/Drrll shows a clear pattern of editing with a political agenda and I suggest reading why we are here. We should be building an encyclopedia and setting aside any personal agendas. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

As Badmintonhist suggested, there are very few people who don't consciously or subconsciously let their politics influence their editing, whether or not an editor admits to it. You may not like that fact, but it is unavoidable. I would like for professional journalists to report without letting their personal politics influence their reporting, but that's not happening anytime soon. What matters is whether material is true, neutral, verifiable, and meets other WP policies. Having editors with competing political views helps those goals to be achieved.--Drrll (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it is avoidable if you try. One technique is to read a full spectrum of reliable sourcing on topic, including the sources you don't personally agree with. Then, you phrase your edits to reflect the point of view seen in the sourcing as opposed to the point of view in your head. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has suggested that either Gerth or Drrll or the two of them in exclusive collaboration should write the entire Wikipedia article on Media Matters. If you don't like the way a particular fact is entered then edit it. Are you suggesting that no one with a political agenda should be allowed to edit a politically sensitive article? If so we would we would be losing about 80% of our editors. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I am saying that the encyclopedia would be a better encyclopedia if editors set aside their personal political agendas when editing, as required by WP:NPOV policy. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this will be more constructive than my last comment. To Yilloslime, Since you feel this is more a debate about emphasis than about sourcing, perhaps you could propose a wording to express Hillary Clinton's support of Media Matters that would be satisfactory to you. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the point is that Clinton's (alleged) involvement isn't really significant to anyone except the Soros/Clinton conspiracy folks? This has been brought up several times in the past, and consensus has always been that it's a non-issue. If Newsday and a single quip in TWT is the best sourcing you've got, it's not really worth megabytes of discussion. Nothing new has been presented here, only a couple of editors who seem willing to protract endless conversation to try and insert this one inconsequential theory... add that to a fairly clear editorial history and it starts to look like WP:ADVOCACY and WP:TEND. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Blaxthos, to paraphrase an old adage, if you can't argue the facts, argue the WP policy or the sourcing. If you can't argue the facts, the WP policy, or the sourcing, assign nefarious motives or kookiness to your opponents. That two reliably sourced articles and a reliably sourced book are insufficient sources and a First Lady/Senator/almost President/Sec of State is insufficiently notable shows that your standards for sourcing and notability could never be met. BTW, I noticed you didn't respond to my response to you above about sourcing.--Drrll (talk) 19:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

No we're going backwards here. The protractors of endless discussion are the editors who don't want any inclusion of Hillary Clinton's role in Media Matters whatsoever. Conspiracy theories here are a complete red herring. We are basically talking about a one sentence inclusion of an adequately sourced fact that probably the most important Democratic politician of the time played a significant role in the startup of the organization. Nothing conspiratorial implied. She had every right to do so. If that shouldn't be included then, frankly, the article shouldn't exist. The nullifiers here are are starting to exhibit WP:BF. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I have two objections to this characterization. First, when you say "nothing conspiratorial implied," that really isn't true of the text that was added to the article, with it's "she EVEN bought him a cup of coffee!!!" sentiments. Second, the connection as described by Newsday, which out of the whopping three sources we have is the only one that doesn't have an agenda, says that Hillary Clinton "chats with him [David Brock] occasionally and thinks he provides a valuable service." That's the extent of her personal connection to MM. The rest of the stuff talks about how former Clinton STAFFERS and DONORS are involved with the organization. Why, then, is it so important to talk about Hillary Clinton rather than the people who were actually involved with Media Matters? Again, this seems to be about pushing the right wing obsession with Clinton and Soros into the article. Setting aside hyperbole about how "the article shouldn't exist" if we don't all go along with what you want to do, the notion that this is about adding a sentence mentioning John Podesta and the other individuals like him, which I already said I'd be OK with depending on how it's written, seems to miss the point. Croctotheface (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

"She even bought him a cup of coffee" was definitely not part of the text when the most recent mention of Hillary Clinton's association with Media Matters was deleted. Annoyance with what was once briefly in the article shouldn't distract us. Let's see if we can put this in perspective: A Pulitzer prize-winning reporter, a major New York newspaper, and Dick Cheney, himself, all assert that Dick Cheney "helped to start and support" a right-leaning media outlet headed by a Cheney biographer and financially supported by Cheney backers, but nowhere in Wikipedia's article on this media outlet should Cheney's connection to it be mentioned. Do we have it about right? Badmintonhist (talk) 00:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

As I've said, it's not a "distraction" if the reason that editors want to spotlight the information is in support of a political agenda. You said that nobody here had any kind of agenda that meant to imply some kind of illicit relationship, and then I pointed out a clear example to the contrary. There's a sort of kabuki dance going on where Drrll says "but it's about partisanship! partisanship! AarrggggHILLARYCLINTOn," and then you kind of say, "be cool, don't show your agenda." It's pretty clear what's going on here.

Still, these comments saying or suggesting that I'm opposed to any mention are just false; I've said over and over that a brief mention of the Clinton staffers who worked for or donate to MM might be appropriate. Generally, though, it's not a big deal, and I would feel the same way if it were Dick Cheney or anyone on the right supporting a right-leaning organization in a similar capacity. All of the proposals I've seen so far place far too much weight on a minor story, and they are written to imply something unseemly is going on. Croctotheface (talk) 02:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I never said or implied that "nobody here has a political agenda." Are you kidding, Croc? A few minutes working on politically sensitive articles in this joint will tell you that MOST editors working on them have a political agenda. I said that in the case at hand conspiracy theories were a red herring because the most recent deleted edit of Hillary's connection to MMFA didn't say or imply any conspiracy. In the end it's all about what goes into the article, not what the political motives of the editors are. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

This comment so completely misstates what I said and what previously occurred in the conversation that I'm left to conclude that you either are not reading what I said or that you don't care to listen to it. But I'll try one more time. I'm attempting to answer the question of "why are we discussing this old story?" Now, it might be because someone wants to improve the article with neutrally-written text that helps inform readers about Media Matters. It also might be because someone reads right-wing media and wants to insert right wing memes into the article. I then looked to see what evidence I had to support one side or the other. I found that an editor has only made edits to this article that discuss Hillary Clinton or George Soros. I found that very, very few mainstream sources mention either Clinton or Soros in connection to Media Matters. I found that the text this editor had added to the article spoke of the relationship between Clinton and MM in scandalous tones ("she EVEN did X and Y"). I found that this editor made several talk page comments about how involvement of Clinton was indeed an indictment of Media Matters because it somehow spoke to their being bad because of "partisanship." I noticed that none of the sources cited here made that claim, but right-wing media outlets have.

Then, after all that, I say that I have reason to suspect that this might not be about helping the article, and cite evidence to that effect. You, then, tell me in effect to STFU, pretend that none of that stuff happened, and assume that despite what my eyes tell me, this is in fact just about an editor trying to improve the article with neutrally written text that helps inform the readers about Media Matters.

Since there is clearly no consensus to include this, particularly in its current form, I'm going to take a break for a little while. I don't want my participation here to prevent other editors (particularly those who may agree with me) from sharing their views. Croctotheface (talk) 22:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Croc, everything mentioned in the proposed wording above is supported by the three sources, does not go beyond the sources, and is written in a neutral manner. The actual proposed wording is the real issue here. What changes in the wording do you suggest that would not "imply something unseemly is going on"?--Drrll (talk) 06:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems plain that some editors are determined to keep this well-sourced material out of the article entirely regardless of the sourcing and regardless of the wording. It wouldn't matter if there were 100 left-leaning reliable sources and if David Brock himself wrote every word of the proposed wording. Perhaps dispute resolution is in order.--Drrll (talk) 06:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Your text is needlessly focused--nay, obsessed--with Hillary Clinton. Despite the fact that the best you've got for what she herself did is a quote from the Kos convention (has that quote received ANY attention from mainstream sources?) and some stuff about behind-the-scenes influence. The people who actually did things relating to MM are treated as secondary players, with Hillary Clinton herself as the focus of sentences describing the relationship of other people to Media Matters. Beyond that, it's way too long. As I've been saying, it might be a good move to briefly mention of someone like Craighead, and that mention could include that she was an adviser to Clinton.

But remember, this would be a section called "History." From reading that section, readers would receive the impression that Hillary Clinton is the single most important figure within the history of the organization. They'd get this impression largely on the basis of what people other than Clinton did. They'd have this impression based on what happened in a period of months, or perhaps weeks, in 2004. The history of the years since then are apparently not worth mentioning. This is a textbook example of improper weight. And, I have to say, it's also a textbook example of writing skewed toward supporting a certain point of view--in this case, that the all-powerful boogeyman Hillary Clinton somehow runs or exerts a lot of influence on Media Matters. So, yes, it reads much like a conspiracy tract, and it is designed to give a misleading impression that Media Matters is a Hillary organization.

Now, as far as sourcing, this is all on the basis of a single article from the Washington Times, a conservative paper, material from Jeff Gerth, who is unarguably anti-Clinton, and then a single article from Newsday which does not support the main thrust of your text. Croctotheface (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Croc, just so we're talking about the same text, here is my current proposal from above:

David Brock started Media Matters in early 2004, housed at first at John Podesta's Center for American Progress. Hillary Clinton, who credits herself with helping to create Media Matters ("institutions that I helped to start and support like Media Matters"), advised Brock on creating the group,"quietly nurtured" it, and encouraged her campaign contributors to give millions of dollars to the organization. Kelly Craighead, one of Clinton's closest friends and a senior aide to her when she was First Lady, "advised Media Matters 'on all aspects' of its launch" and then steered at least $6 million to them as a top adviser at Democracy Alliance.

All 3 sources are reliable sources whether you like them or not. If TWT could be excluded because it leans right, a enormous amount of other sources in WP could be excluded because they lean left--NYT, WaPo, USA Today, Newsweek, NPR, etc. etc. I admit Gerth stands out as one of the few reporters who charged as hard at the Clintons as most reporters charge against Republican presidents, but what does that say about most reporters. The Newsday article actually supports quite a bit of what's in the text. Here are the related excerpts from Newsday:

"...she's [Clinton] quietly nurtured his $8.5-million-a-year nonprofit empire...Clinton's extended family of contributors, consultants and friends has played a pivotal role in helping Media Matters grow...she [Clinton] advised Brock on creating the group...Kelly Craighead, one of the Clinton's closest friends, served as one of Brock's top advisers during Media Matters' formation in 2004...now serves as a top adviser to the Democracy Alliance...steered more than $6 million to Brock's group in the past two years...Brock is close to Bill Clinton's former chief of staff John Podesta...made room for Media Matters in the center's offices before Brock found permanent digs..."

I will grant you the point that Hillary Clinton takes up too much space proportionally in a History section. One reason is that no one else involved with MMfA rises even close to the prominence level of Clinton. The other reason is that is was never intended to be the complete History section. A while back I asked that someone else add to this section other history material.--Drrll (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I have been passively observing this discussion, but now that it seems to have reached it's ultimate climax (to which I am not suprised), the real agenda is painfully clear. The goal of some editors is to keep any and all mention of Clinton or Soros out of this article. Ironically, the logic being used predominately this time is the agenda of the sources, when if the same logic were applied to the use of MMFA's use within other articles, you would not see a single mention of MMFA as a source. Hillary Clinton has stated that she was involved with the origin of MMFA, this is a fact. This certainly falls within the historical aspect of MMFA, and the only WP policy being violated is "I don't like it."

SaltyBoar, your assertation regarding the agenda of Drrll could equally be applied to everyon editing this page, no one hear can claim to be objective. Arzel (talk) 01:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

There is really no valid argument for not including this. It is notable, it is verifiable, and one sentance certainly isn't putting undue weight on the issue with word count. At this point, according to every Wiki policy, it appears obvious to me (although I am a conservative, my opinion does actually have merit, some implications to the contrary) that there is simply no reason that the fact should not be included Rapier (talk) 04:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that it is WP:Verifiable, the two sources, Gerth and Lambro, both obviously with political agendas during the heat of an election campaign, raise WP:REDFLAG issues requiring us to walk cautiously. A second issue of demanding our caution is that a check of the contribution history of Special:Contributions/Drrll we see an unabashed history of editing to advance a personal political agenda, flouting WP:NPOV policy which requires article content to be neutral per reliable sourcing rather than (by) their popularity among Wikipedians". Drlll has explained that he/she feels otherwise, and instead believes that NPOV is advanced by "Having editors with competing political views helps those goals to be achieved." No, that leads to a neutrality balance point being set by the neutral point between the energy level of the involved editors, and leads to systemic bias. No, editing based on competition of editor's personal political view is not allowed here. SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr, are you talking about my recently adding back a liberal critic to the Mark Levin article or are you talking about my recent striking of a slur against David Brock? Do you have examples in your edit history of adding/adding back conservative critics to articles about liberals or removing nasty material from articles about conservatives? As far as reporters with agendas go, there are far more examples of anti-conservative/Republican reporters than anti-liberal/Democrat reporters both in the news business and in WP article references, but I imagine that doesn't matter to you. The problem with political reporters is that even though they are expected to be professionally neutral, truly neutral reporters are rare, while advocacy journalists are the rule. And the rule is that most reporters' editors don't remove the non-neutral point-of-view because they see eye-to-eye politically with the reporters. WP on the other hand allows the non-neutral wording to be removed. How exactly is my proposed wording above non-neutral? Or would you rather talk about my politics (as if your politics don't influence your editing at least subconsciously).--Drrll (talk) 02:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

My concern is that deliberate editor bias for political purposes is a problem here. You should explain your stated goal of advancing your conservative politics which appears to be improper editing policy. You said "Having editors with competing political views helps those goals to be achieved." Well, your goals appear at odds with the goals of making this encyclopedia. See especially WP:WEIGHT. We are not allowed to self-select just the sources that advance our personal political agenda. SaltyBoatr (talk) 13:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr, again, as I said and Badmintonhist has said, what matters in the end is what wording goes into the article and whether it meets WP policies. I see that you passed on pointing out exactly what is non-neutral in the current proposed text. I'll take your lack of response as to whether you ever add/add back conservative critics to articles about liberal/liberal groups and remove negative material from conservatives/conservative groups as a "no", compared to what I do. Just like most liberal journalists pretend that their politics don't influence their reporting, I guess you wish to believe that unlike those evil conservatives, you're somehow above being influenced by politics in your editing. If "we are not allowed to self-select just the sources that advance our personal political agenda" why then did you self-select a sole liberal source in putting in negative material about conservatives in the SPLC article??--Drrll (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Move On. Obviously there's no consensus for including this in the article. ~50K of talkpage comments has proven this beyond a doubt. Time to drop it. Or time to take a different approach, like maybe an RfC or thread on WP:NPOV/N. Further discussion general discussion on this talkpage is pointless, and frankly, disruptive. Move on or change tack. Yilloslime ^T_C 15:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that it is time to take a different approach. Perhaps retitling and rewriting the subtopic which includes a brief mention of Hillary Clinton's role in fostering Media Matters. Frankly, I find the idea that a few editors would block try to block the merest mention of this fact, a fact which is adequately sourced, which Hillary, herself, has proudly acknowledged, and which the editors themselves basically know to be true, OUTRAGEOUS. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I find it OUTRAGEOUS that you would continue to misstate what other editors have said. As far as I know, both Yilloslime and myself have expressed that something could go into the article that mentions Clinton's connection to people who work at Media Matters. I myself also think that the article will go on just fine without it. The problem is that the only versions we've seen under consideration for the article are not neutrally written. The text above mentions Clinton by name more times than anyone else, including the founder of the organization. That grossly overstates her role in the organization, and it grossly overrepresents Clinton relative to the weight secondary sources give her. Croctotheface (talk) 20:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up the issue of WP:WEIGHT, I agree we must evaluate the "Hillary vis a vis MMFA" weight as seen in reliable sourcing and have the article match the balance found in the sourcing. (As opposed to the popularity among Wikipedians.) To that I would add WP:REDFLAG. We must tread carefully about insertion of content that is obviously a political hot potato. In this case, there is a history of the opponents of MMFA and Hillary Clinton trying to make a false connection, or at least trying to create a false impression of the degree of connection. Quoting from Groenhagen ISBN 9781435734364 pg 112" "Limbaugh again falsely described Media Matters as part of clinton inc." This is condition REDFLAG and greater scrutiny is required by policy. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

SB, that quote is actually directly quoting the title of a MMfA article on their website. Groenhagen isn't asserting that himself.--Drrll (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Croc, as I have said several times, the material on Hillary Clinton was never intended to be the complete history of MMfA, just Clinton's involvement in their history. Other material needs to be added if the Clinton stuff goes into a History section.--Drrll (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• This is done. Per Ylloslime's objective observations and suggestion, I have tried to end the discussion, as there is obviously no consensus to include and the discussion is at an impasse; unfortunately, Drrl is apparently unwilling to let this die. Given the editorial history Croc and others have pointed out, I strongly suggest that his actions are disruptive. While I'm unwilling to edit war with the chap to end this, it's painfully clear that (1) this discussion has run its course; (2) there's no more consensus for inclusion then there has been in the past; and (3) agenda-driven editors want to try and protract the conversation ad infinitum until they wear everyone else down. My suggestion to the group is to (1) collapse the discussion; (2) ignore the screeching; and (3) implement WP:RBI for edits made without consensus. If they want further discussion, they should seek an RFC or other method to include a wider audience; in any case, this circular bullshit that's currently taking place has to end. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

"Given the editorial history"--that's rich coming from "an agenda-driven editor" who objected to the use of Fox News as a source in the liberal John Edwards article, but argued that MMfA was a reliable source for criticism in the conservative John Gibson (political commentator) BLP. I guess that inconsistency makes sense in Blaxthos' world. WP:RBI is for vandalism, not edit disputes, but I guess you view any non-flattering well-sourced addition to a noble liberal organization's article as vandalism.--Drrll (talk) 13:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice try; those circumstances are completely different. The Edwards objection was due to a premature inclusion of negative information in a BLP when only from a singular source (and became moot once there were multiple reliable sources). MMFA is accepted across Wikipedia as a reliable source for its own opinions and issued criticisms. While it might be easier for you believe that it's due to ideology, by misrepresenting my position and the historical facts you have (again) showed that your primary purpose here is to do ideological battle -- precisely why editors above have brought up your editorial history, which is clearly focused on right wing advocacy. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, so the "inclusion of negative information in a BLP when only from a singular source" was not OK when the subject was John Edwards and the source was Fox News, but it is OK when the subject is John Gibson and the source is MMfA. Where did you get the idea that MMfA is "accepted across Wikipedia as a reliable source for" negative information in a BLP? It may be widely used as a reliable source for negative information in BLPs, but what's your source for saying it is accepted? So me adding back liberal critics to the Mark Levin article and removing a slur against David Brock is "right wing advocacy"? Can you point to such examples of you adding/adding back conservative critics to articles of liberals?--Drrll (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Careful what you (Blaxthos) say. Some may see it as you say, others may see it that the other side is at fault. It is clearly noteworthy and encyclopedic, and there are clearly reliable sources, including Clinton herself, and as long as various Wiki policies are observed, the matter should be included. I do not understand this huge effort to keep it out of Wikipedia. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 13:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Given there are only three sources, and there are serious problems with two of them (and a seemingly trivial mention in the third), the real question is why is there such a huge effort to include it? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Where in WP policy is "only" three sources addressed as a problem? "Serious problems with two of them" because you say so?--Drrll (talk) 17:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you even been reading the responses above? I haven't been a part of the discussion in several days, so I fail to understand how you could be under the impression I'm the only one pointing out the deficiencies. I'm also having trouble understanding how you think that misrepresenting my positions elsewhere as ideological (when I can demonstrate they are not) will somehow improve this article -- all you're doing is showing that you view everything as a partisan battle. Here's the deal -- you've not brought up anything new that hasn't been discussed in the archives; if anything you've demonstrated that consensus hasn't changed towards inclusion of this information, and there's no productive value to continuing this conversation. See Salty's comments in the next section if you're still confused. Feel free to take the last word; I'm done feeding you. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You're "having trouble understanding" why I asking about your impartiality after you wrote "Given the editorial history Croc and others have pointed out, I strongly suggest that his actions are disruptive" and "agenda-driven editors" about me? I don't appreciate your accusation of trolling just because I dare disagree with you.--Drrll (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Gerth's heavy bias

...is documented in plenty of sources. See Gene Lyons' book "Fools for Scandal: How the Media Invented Whitewater" in which Gerth and Van Natta are the primary antagonists -- discussed in-depth at pbs:frontline. Also The Nation's regular media critic Eric Alterman and others there, even mediamatters.org itself. PrBeacon (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Even though both Gene Lyons ("a Southerner with a liberal viewpoint") and Eric Alterman (most recent book: Why We're Liberals) are self-described liberals (with their own bias), I have to agree that the sources in which their work appears are reliable sources. So the question seems to be: do reliable sources with a bias qualify for inclusion in a WP article? I think that WP:V supports their use in WP articles, so Gerth's book could be used, Lyons' book and articles could be used, and Alterman's articles (and books) could be used.--Drrll (talk) 02:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Alterman and Lyons are much more respected in the media community. Do you really expect a Clinton-hater like Gerth to be criticized by anyone on the right? Anyway, we're not talking about the others as sources here, we're talking about Gerth. He is too biased to be a source on what Hillary Clinton did or didn't do. PrBeacon (talk) 08:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't expect Gerth to be criticized by those on the right, but criticism of him would be more forceful if it came from someone more neutral than Lyons and Alterman. I found an exact quote from WP policy: "All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view)—what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article". Since the Gerth book is a reliable source, that policy quote indicates that Gerth can be used as a source, as long as what is referenced from him is written neutrally.--Drrll (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Beacon, PLEASE! Eric Alterman is a very intelligent fellow, but he is also a professional liberal WHO WAS BASICALLY WORKING FOR MEDIA MATTERS AT THE TIME WHEN GERTH AND VAN NATTA'S BOOK CAME OUT. Gene Lyons is another highly literate guy but one who has been a Clinton apologist for the past fifteen years. There is nothing wrong with that except we don't treat such views as coming from an unbiased source. Gerth and Van Natta are (or were in the case of Gerth ) Pulitzer Prize winning reporters for the New York Yimes. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Gerth makes up facts to support his case, ignoring other evidence which doesn't -- see [4] for the "5000-word correction" the NYT had to print for a major story he co-wrote. Lyons is no apologist, did you actually read any of his books? Or are you just regurgitating what others say. Probably the latter, since using the term 'professional liberal' for Alterman says more about your own bias. ALLCAPS and official quotes don't improve either argument. Selective interpretation of WP policy is evident here and from past discussions. There's more to the NPOV#Bias policy than the one line you quoted, especially this: "Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be removed or repaired." PrBeacon (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The point isn't whether using capital letters improves my argument, the point is whether the argument is accurate. In fact, from the a period between 2006 and the end of 2008 Alterman was a senior fellow and regular blogger for Media Matters. As for Lyons, the very titles of his books pertaining to the Clintons should be a caution against treating them as even-handed looks at the issues that he is covering. As for Gerth and Van Natta they are far from being the only "non-professional conservatives" who have asserted a significant link between Hillary Clinton and Media Matters.Badmintonhist (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

So far you haven't cast any reasonable doubt on Alterman and Lyons and, more importantly, there are many other critics of Gerth & Van Natta. Your argument is specious and superficial -- Alterman's work for MMfA is beside the point. And are you seriously judging Lyons's criticism of Gerth by his book titles? No wonder you defend sloppy journalism. I see that you apply the same double-standard for sources as Drll -- notably here with your use of "non-professional conservative" for people you like, "professional liberal" for people you don't. Show us some sources for your claims. PrBeacon (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to mince words here. Your arguments are a joke. The point of this endeavor is to determine whether there is enough information from reliable sources (plural) to determine whether there was a significant connection between Hillary and Media Matters. Alterman's working for Media Matters at the time in question ipso facto destroys his usefulness as an encyclopedic source for facts pertaining to Media Matters and Hillary. We could openly cite his opinion, as such, in the article (as long as we reveal that he was an employee of Media Matters) but we cannot use his assertions as a reliable source for facts. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Badmintonhist, what policy language do you believe supports your assertion that subjects with direct knowledge or experience with a subject "ipso facto destroys" said source as valid? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

He doesn't have a leg to stand on, so he resorts to a weak attack. I'm pointing out the problems with using Gerth & Van Natta as a source (they are neither primary nor reliable secondary). Alterman, Lyons, and others are used to show Gerth's lack of objectivity, not as sources in the article themselves. PrBeacon (talk) 23:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

See WP:Third-party sources. First sentence and much of what follows which directs reader to various statements about core Wikipedia policies. However, your question is not premised accurately. I did not say that folks with a direct knowledge or experience with a subject could never be a valid source. For example I have much direct knowledge and experience with the sport of badminton and might write a monograph on the subject that would be a wonderfully reliable source. However if players I coached were accused of cheating in a badminton competition -- say using steroids to enhance performance, then I am not the the neutral third-party source that a Wikipedia article on the incident demands. Neither is Alterman who, to put it bluntly, was a paid flak for Media Matters at the time. Badmintonhist (talk) 03:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Have they also written about the lack of reliability of of MSNBC's Chuck Todd, Game Change's John Heilemann and Mark Halperin, Politico's Ben Smith, and Newsday's Glenn Thrush? Badmintonhist (talk) 04:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Try rereading this subsection to see where you went wrong, including the Frontline/Harper's piece on how Gerth's writings are "not particularly fair or balanced stories that combine a prosecutorial bias and the art of tactical omission.." And no one is arguing for Alterman as a source for MM & Hillary, so stop deflecting. Btw, you calling him a "flak" is ridiculous. He is another rebuttal to using Gerth & VN -- they are not a "neutral third-party source" and thus can't be used, as you yourself make the case. Thanks. PrBeacon (talk) 06:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, an article by Lyons. In politics, especially, it is not that difficult to find writers and reviewers who call reporters' work into question. For example this review of The Hunting of the President ...[5] (whoops looks like you have to be a member of NYTimes online for the link to go through...but I found it originally using Google without being a member ...it's by Neil A. Lewis), though hardly a hit piece, calls into question both the objectivity and accuracy of Lyons and Joe Conason. Ironically, the review mentions a kudo that those authors gave to Don Van Natta's reporting. Speaking of deflection, what about Heilemann and Halperin, Chuck Todd, Ben Smith, and Glenn Thrush, all of whom have either asserted or illustrated close ties between Hillary Clinton and Media Matters? Badmintonhist (talk) 08:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

You still don't get it (?!) I'm not arguing about other sources for ties between Hillary & MMfA. Gerth is demonstrably unreliable. And the first and only reference you've provided in this subthread is to a link we can't access? Ha, your summary is untrustworthy at this point, so you could at least provide a quote. Anyway, it's no surprise that the NYT doesn't like Lyons, they invested so much money & effort into supporting Gerth's prolonged attacks on the Clintons. I'm guessing you didn't read the Lyons article because his name was on it. How about this from the Village Voice [6] by another respected journalist, Cynthia Cotts:

"...The Hunting of the President, by Joe Conason and Gene Lyons, just got trashed in The New York Times Book Review, on the heels of a dismissive review in The Washington Post. The book, which chronicles how the anti-Clinton camp fed allegations to the mainstream press, may not be perfect, but it is carefully documented. One has to wonder if the poor reception stems partly from the fact that the book skewers both the Times and the Post. The Times is especially heavy-handed. Using a standard rhetorical device, Times Washington reporter Neil Lewis overstates the book's premise, then faults the authors for not proving it. What follows is a sneering catalog of flaws, apparently designed to cover up flaws in the Times own reporting. You'd never know it from Lewis's review, but the book blasts the Whitewater reporting of Timesman Jeff Gerth. ...In a tit for tat, Lewis calls Conason and Lyons's account of Massey's testimony "misleading," even though the book comports with the Times own correction. "

(with my emphasis in bold) PrBeacon (talk) 19:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Newsday's Thrush is another Hillary-basher

Like Gerth, Glenn Thrush is less of an actual journalist than a reporter/blogger with anti-Clinton agendas. He now writes for Politico. [7] He too is therefore not a reliable source for facts. (Odd how the anti-MMfA crowd argues against them as a source for criticism of FNC, but here argues for inclusion of biased sources on the same grounds. Hypocritical? Double standards?) -PrBeacon (talk) 06:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)