Jump to content

Talk:Media Matters for America/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Media Matters is reliable (RS/N, outside editors)

Also posted the following at Talk:FoxNews (which generated the discussion and ensuing RSN).

Consensus by outside editors at RSN # Media matters (25th time asked) seems to be that MMfA can be used as a reliable source and that it is not self-published.

Blueboar - "As an uninvolved editor, my opinion is that MMfA is a reliable source"
Yilloslime - "Media Matters is notable as a media watchdog, and therefore their analysis of and commentary on the media can be included" (stricken, not outside editor)
KillerChihuahua - "Media Matters is a watchdog site, and as such is particularly valuable to offer counterpoint, criticism, and corrections to right-leaning sources"
Squidfryerchef - "Policy and precedent are pretty clear on this. Advocacy groups can be RS"
Dlabtot - "when sources are in dispute, we present all of the significant conflicting viewpoints according to our NPOV policy. ... Almost daily we have folks here at RSN arguing that this or that source can't be used because it is 'biased'. It gets tiresome because it flows from a misunderstanding of our NPOV policy"

Other outside editors discussed it at the previous RSN which was whether to treat several partisan groups consistently : FAIR, MRC, Media Matters for America, Newsbusters. There was much support for that but also some compelling opposition. Please read those admin threads before replying here. Thanks. PrBeacon (talk) 01:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

WOW! Since when did you become the arbiter of what is or what is not a reliable source? Selectively using positions to which you agree does not equate to unquestionable policy. Arzel (talk) 02:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Apparently you're unhappy with the results. But where did I claim to be the arbiter? And who said anything about 'unquestionable policy'? You're engaging in the same faulty debate tactics that others use by putting words in my mouth -- or phrasing your argument like it seems so. Any reasonable editor can see what I've posted is a summary. And it's not 'selective' -- there were was no opposition. Even others at Talk:FNC agree. PrBeacon (talk) 04:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
The general acceptability of MMfA has been repeatedly upheld at WP:RSN. To keep bringing it up is simply tendentious. Put down the stick, and move away from the horse carcass. Yilloslime TC 04:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Yilloslime, other examples of where it has been repeatedly upheld? The only time an RfC was used to elicit the widest response ([1]), the consensus was to exclude use by such sources in BLPs. Do you support the use of the Media Research Center / Newsbusters as a reliable source?--Drrll (talk) 08:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Hold on there, Drrll. That RfC reached no such conclusion, there were sufficient & compelling arguments on both sides. And the RSN I summarized above had ample time to get different opinions, even after some indirect promotion by the pro-FNC/anti-MMfA crowd. -PrBeacon (talk) 04:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
The problem with this discussion is that it is phrased in the form of a false dichotomy using the assumption that a source is either always reliable or always unreliable. MMfA is an openly partisan source. As such there are some situations where it is considered reliable (even preferable to other available sources) and other situations where its bias makes it a completely unreliable source. The question that should be asked is "When is it appropriate to consider MMfA a reliable source?" --Allen3 talk 13:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
No need to make this overly dramatic, we all should agree that this question isn't about "always reliable". Per WP:Policy here this is a question of "standards that all users should normally follow". Calling a spade a spade, here we are seeing certain editors aligned according to their personal political agenda. Excluding MMfA as a source, or smearing MMfA with a Hillary badge, followed by an eye-roll[2], advances this POV pushing agenda. SaltyBoatr get wet 14:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
There is no doubt that POV pushers, both pro- and anti-, have been active in the debate. I believe my comments are equally applicable to both sides of the debate. --Allen3 talk 17:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
It is tempting to dismiss this as simple moral equivalence. Having watched this for a few weeks now, I don't agree. There is tendentious editing here which stands out as disruptive. SaltyBoatr get wet 17:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It is now long overdue . . .

to concisely present basic information in our Wikipedia article concerning Hillary Rodham Clinton's association with Media Matters for America. Let us summarize at least some of what we know at this point.

A. Several reliable sources ( including Her Way, Game Change, and Newsday) have asserted that Hillary Clinton gave advice to David Brock (and/or to others) on the establishment of Media Matters. No neutral, third party, reliable sources seem to contradict this.
B. At least two non-rightward-leaning reliable sources, MSNBC's Chuck Todd and The Hill's Betsy Rothstein, have published Hillary Clinton's "I helped to start and support" quotation (with Todd including the video). Neither they nor any other neutral, reliable, third party source that we have yet discovered have asserted that Senator Clinton misspoke, or that her words have been generally misinterpreted, or that her "help" was merely atmospheric.
C. At least three non-rightward-leaning sources (Politico, MSNBC, and The New Republic) have strongly suggested that Media Matters tilted toward Hillary Clinton in her competition with fellow Democrats for the party's 2008 Presidential nomination. Media Matters has vigorously denied any pro-Clinton favoritism, but neutral, third party, reliable sources backing MMfA on this point appear to be lacking. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
It would be just wrong to give priority attention to minor 2008 trivia like "helped start and support" when this article fails to paint a picture of the "elephant in this 2010 room" which is the role of MMfA in the Netroots juggernaut and a major player in shaping modern USA politics. Repeating the Hillary Bashing talking point trivia instead of focusing on the big picture does this article a disservice. SaltyBoatr get wet 22:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Salty, you are as welcome as any editor to include as much reliably sourced information about Media Matters' role in the Netroots movement as you want to within the bounds of WP:DUE; in fact, I wish you would do so and quickly. However, it is utter pretense to call the information that connects Hillary Clinton and Media Matters "trivia". I haven't the slightest doubt that if reliable sources told us that say . . . Mitt Romney had advised L Brent Bozell III on the organization of the Media Research Center, and that he had publicly claimed credit for "helping to start and support" the MRC, and that it was quite likely that the MRC was helping Romney against other Republican candidates in Presidential primaries; you would not find such information too trivial to put in a Wikipedia article on the Media Research Center. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
PS: "Just wrong" kinda means WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
PSS: I think you meant to say "donkey in the 2010 room," Salt. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, yes, draw from that well all you like. Let me re-iterate the point for you, Badmintonhist: It is inherently biased and dishonest to give priority attention to minor 2008 trivia like "helped start and support" when this article fails to paint a picture of the "elephant in this 2010 room" which is the role of MMfA in the Netroots juggernaut and a major player in shaping modern USA politics. Repeating the Hillary Bashing talking point trivia instead of focusing on the big picture does this article a disservice. Reposting SB's comments almost verbatim, as they're precisely on point. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like Netroots is the new soup de jour, quite new, actually, since its only in the last week or so that either of you have mentioned it in relation to this discussion. Glad you've both learned the new menu, but it is ABSOLUTELY irrelevant to the issue at hand and a distraction from it. Start another section if you want to talk about Netroots. Nothing prevents us from creating an article that includes pertinent information about Media Matters association with both the Netroots movement and with Hillary Clinton. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
PS Since when does pertinent, uncontested, factual information about a major political figure's relationship to an organization become "bashing"? Badmintonhist (talk) 04:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
You are absolutely obsessed with Hillary Clinton... you remind me of a Rush Limbaugh fan circa 1994. You are bending the Clintoon quote to fit your agenda, and it's not significant to this article when weighed against the actual history of MMFA and the other persons involved. You've now spent weeks trying to insert a trivial fact about Hillary Clinton, but have done absolutely nothing to develop sections of much more importance (netroots movement, for instance). That sort of tendentious editing is transparent and does nothing to improve the article. If you spent a tenth of the effort on improving the article as you do obsessing over the "Hillary connection" this article would be feature ready in no time. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 09:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Salty, no one is opposing you adding the Netroots movement information as it relates to MMfA. It is not just the Hillary Clinton quote that is relevant to this article. More importantly is the information about HC (and close friends and advisors) advising MMfA and having a huge rule in the financial support of MMfA in its early years. That information is reliably sourced far more than any other fact in this article. Or do we need 100 reliable sources instead of just 10?? Blaxthos, besides David Brock himself, who exactly are the players in the history of MMfA more important than HC or HC advisor John Podesta? If they exist, then by all means put them in the article.--Drrll (talk) 14:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
And he should do that based on which official Wikipedia policy? The right of of left-wing editors to censor articles? Badmintonhist (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Check out WP:CONSENSUS for the controlling policy, WP:HEAR for the relevant guideline, WP:TEND, WP:ADVOCACY, and WP:HORSEMEAT for perfect descriptions of your behavior. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Check out complete dick for yours., but then, I'm sure you have since you've been called that enough times by fellow editors. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like you're a little emotionally involved, Badmintonhist... you may want to consider stepping away for a while to get a more balanced perspective. At any rate, there's no point in continuing to discuss this ad infinitum -- there is clearly not a consensus to add this material, and once you descend to namecalling I don't think there's much value in the discussion. Cheers. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Since I haven't contributed here in awhile I'll say it. Blax, get off it. You're the one constantly typing things like "Bullshit" when addressing other's concerns, so you're hardly a good advocate of staying emotionally detached. A notable individuall has claimed credit for helping start a notable and influential organization, and this is backed up by reliable sources. Like it or not, this fact belongs in the article regarding that organization. Frankly, given what we have, I don't see how this fact could not be included given Wiki policy. If you have reliably sourced information that you want to put in as well, please feel free, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't fly. Here are some suggestions for you: Start by assuming good faith, rather than assuming a bias. Look at the facts presented. Counter with facts, not opinion. Repeat as necessary Rapier (talk) 20:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Bullshit.  :) For one, several of us have referenced multiple policies; bypassing them and trying to summarize it as an "IDONTLIKEIT" argument is transparently false. For two, you're misinterpreting the quote (which actually just mentions MMFA en passent as one of many examples) to fit your agenda. At any rate, your diatribe is for naught -- I'm no longer interested in participating in what I like to call the "Wikipedia meme-validator". You win. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
It probably a good time for all of us to re-read WP:FIVEPILLARS and to examine why we are here. SaltyBoatr get wet 15:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that this Hillary meme hasn't become some kind of right wing cause celebre that we're going to need to relitigate every month despite the fact that nothing (not consensus, not sourcing, not facts) has changed. The stuff doesn't deserve weight in the article. Croctotheface (talk) 07:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

An utter and disingenuous distortion of reality a la Blaxthos. No two ordinary, self-respecting progressives could move this much in lockstep without either a strong emotional connection to either Media Matters, and/or Hillary Clinton, and/or to each other. The fact that Hillary Clinton's association with Media Matters is not simply a right-wing meme could not be more obvious. Equally obvious is that this connection was significant in MMfA's history. Abundant sourcing comes from thoroughly non-rightward sources. A good number progressives who supported Obama or Edwards complained about the connection. What you are doing here, and you should be ashamed of it, could not be a more flagrant example of WP:BATTLE, and WP:CENSOR, and WP:OWNER, and (adding my own) WP:SHILL. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
PS: Though I studiously try to avoid such things, this needs to be resolved administratively. Perhaps someone better informed about it than I {in other words, almost anyone) could inform us about the steps leading to arbitration. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree that we're at the point of needing to escalate this impasse. When well-sourced links between MMfA and a very prominent politician are deemed unimportant by protectors of MMfA, then outsiders need to take a look.--Drrll (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Hillary Clinton's involvement with Media Matters and their biased support of her are both poorly supported and do not belong in the article. If you want to include it you need good sources, not tangential mention of the subject. TFD (talk) 04:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh they are pretty well supported, Four Deuces, particularly, HRC's involvement with Media Matters. Have you been staying current on the available sourcing? You are a very peripatetic and prolific editor and may have missed something despite your obvious conscientiousness. On the Beck book, as I remember, you seemed somewhat eager to assume there were no bona fide reviewers other than Media Matters and Keith Olbermann but that turned out not to be the case. No, I think that if you take a good look at the available sourcing (some of it "unearthed" in the last couple of weeks) you will find that it more than adequately establishes that Clinton helped the organization. I will admit that the precise nature of that help is left rather murky, but that is to be expected when both HRC and MMfA have good reasons to leave it murky. By the way, much of the article as it now exists is much more poorly sourced than the "Hillary connection." It relies heavily on primary "self-sourcing." For example the whole "Misinformer of the year" is self-sourced which means nothing in it has been made WP:NOTABLE. Badmintonhist (talk) 06:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
P.S. A mediation process has been started. See [[3]] Badmintonhist (talk) 12:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I do not see what the Beck article has to do with this. You are right that this article is poorly sourced. Most of the the sources are MM itself. Then there are editorials from The Spectator and National Review! Articles should be based on serious third party sources. As a reader, all I see is what MM says about itself balanced with a few attacks from highly partisan writers. Can't you find any serious articles that have been written about MM? TFD (talk) 12:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
This article in the New York Times while cited in the article in hardly used although it provides a good description of MM. Ironically it mentions that the people running MM supported Obama not Clinton. TFD (talk) 13:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
The NY Times article appeared shortly before the general election in which MMfA, as a progressive advocacy group, was, naturally, supporting Obama over McCain. However, the article also mentions contributions that its founder David Brock gave to Hillary C. during the Democratic primaries. Badmintonhist (talk) 13:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
The first source mentioned above, the book Her Way by Gerth and VN, is not reliable. We've already hashed this out in an earlier thread. User:BH does indeed seem stuck in the mud. PrBeacon (talk) 01:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
It was certainly well established that YOU didn't think it was reliable, Beacon, but, of course, we now have numerous other sources, anyway. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Not just me. Other WP editors as well as respected journalists. You conveniently ignore what you cannot understand or agree with. And you don't have "numerous other sources" since everything else you've linked above is far from clear on any supposed connection. Your OR and synthesis won't stand up to peer review, as we'll see. PrBeacon (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton and Media Matters – "new" sources

Several "new" sources either asserting or strongly suggesting a close link between Hillary Clinton and Media Matters since the organization's early days have been found since our last discussion of the topic. Some these sources strongly suggest that MMFA favored Clinton over her rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination and a couple also suggest a coordinated effort between MMFA and Clinton's campaign apparatus.
Though I've said this before, I think it bears repeating. Like Saltyboar, I don't find the idea of Media Matters trying to help Hillary to become President either riveting news or an appalling breach of their "duty" (though helping particular candidates win election is not part of their stated mission). Perhaps unlike Salty, however, I find it eminently worth including in Wikipedia with proper sourcing. The "new" sources are as follows:
  • John Heilemann and Mark Halperin in Game Change, p.42, state that Hillary Clinton "advised the liberal watchdog group Media Matters for America" while "thinking ahead – to another Clinton presidential campaign and administration, when those reinforcements would ease her path and abet her power."
  • Politico's Ben Smith, as a preface to noting that Media Matters had Launched a 2,713 word "attack" on Jeff Gerth's and David Van Natta's Her Way, described Media Matters as a "Democratic-leaning group whose founders are close to the New York senator's presidential campaign. Smith also notes a delay in MMfA"s response to the question of whether MMfA had coordinated with the Clinton campaign. [4]
  • The New Republic's Michael Crowley in noting Media Matters' "attack" on Tim Russert (who moderated an early Dem. debate) described the organization as a "liberal press watching website founded by former Clinton-hater turned Clinton ally David Brock" and goes on to say that "many in Washington believe the [Clinton] campaign feeds material to Brock's site." He goes on to note that MMfA articles defending Hillary Clinton in October of 2007 outnumbered those defending John Edwards and Barack Obama combined by more than two to one. [5]
  • MSNBC's Chuck Todd called on Media Matters to fully disclose their relationship with Hillary Clinton in the context of an online column in which he noted that Media Matters' advice to the moderators of an upcoming Democratic presidential debate "read more like facetious attacks on Edwards and Obama", saying that they were something that the Republicans could have hatched. Todd also notes Hillary Clinton's address to the YearlKos in which she claims credit for helping to "start and support" Media Matters and includes the familiar you-tube video clip. [6]
  • The Hill's Betsy Rothstein, in an article on Media Matters titled "Fighting ire with fire," included the "helped to start and support" quote from Hillary as well as Media Matters's explanation of then Senator Clinton's association with the organization. [7]
  • comment: Reading this entire 2,300 word article in _The Hill_ we see that the thesis being presented is that "Conservatives like Tucker Carlson..." (argue that) "“(MMfA) is an arm of the political party started in part by Hillary Clinton." If we are going to give coverage to this conservative argument, NPOV requires us to phrase it as a conservative argument. We cannot simply present it as a statement of fact when the sourcing like this describes it as a conservative argument. Indeed, the 'big picture' being presented in the Rothstein article is that "Meanwhile, like a beanstalk, the organization grows." No wonder that conservative opponents of the MMfA would use a strategy to diminish the reality of the growth by labeling it with a Hillary meme. The 'big picture story' here is that MMfA is part of a new and powerful liberal Netroots phenomena, and one chapter of this story is that conservative commentators like Tucker Carlson are fixated on the Hillary connection. SaltyBoatr get wet 15:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Reply to comment Nor quite sure what your major point is here, Saltyboatr. No one is proposing that "Hillary Clinton founded MMfA be presented as a fact. Previous formulations have been that she advised Brock on the establishment of the organization; that she claimed credit for helping to start it and support it in a talk before a group, that some have either asserted or suggested that MMfA tilted her way during the run-up to the Democratic presidential primaries, and that MMfA has denied that Hillary played a major role in the organization's founding, and denied that it tilted toward Hillary during the election cycle. You have done a couple things in your comment, however, that I find objectionable. There is no thesis in Rothstein's article that "conservatives" argue that MMfA is part of a "political party started in part by Hillary Clinton." That is argued by Tucker Carlson alone here. You have cobbled together(synthesized) two separate and largely unrelated quotes to make it appear to be a collective conservative meme in your comment. The first quote said that "Conservatives like Tucker Carlson" find David Corn's endorsement of MMfA "ridiculous." The second quote said that Carlson (alone), not "conservatives like Carlson," sees Media Matters as arm of a "political party started in part by Hillary Clinton." Badmintonhist (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I could have been more clear. The Rothstein article looks to be one of the better reliable sources we have available to use for a basis of this encyclopedia article! My point is that we should read the whole "The Hill" article and rewrite our encyclopedia article to match it. The Hillary "helped start and support" quote is described in "The Hill" article as existing in context of the Conservative meme being used to counterattack MMfA. If we were to mirror the way Betsy Rothstein handles it by phrasing it from that NPOV perspective, I could support inclusion. Let's start by reading and being true to the whole article. Not by cherry picking out the "helped start and support" sentence. SaltyBoatr get wet 22:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the Rothstein article is a good source and could be used for other information about Media Matters in addition to the "Hillary material." However I would advise against seeking to "match" any one source in our article on Media Matters per WP:UNDUE. I also think that you are reading a conservative "meme theme" into the Rothstein article that really isn't there. Yes, the Hillary quote is brought up in the context of right-leaning criticism of Media Matters, but so what? The author is not saying, or even suggesting, that only right-wingers believe that this quote reflects a substantial Hillary influence on Media Matters. Indeed, we know that other definitely non-right-wing sources (Game Change, Politico, The New Republic, MSNBC, etc.) have either asserted or strongly suggested the same. To illustrate, I don't happen to feel that Chuck Todd's bringing this alleged connection up in his column for progressive MSNBC's website means that it's all a left-wing meme. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Now, is any of this earthshaking stuff? Not really, but I would suggest the issue of Hillary's relationship with Media Matters is more encyclopedically valuable than say . . . the great debate over whether Bill O'Reilly grew up in the "real" Levittown.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Badmintonhist (talk • contribs)
Please explain your fixation on Hillary Clinton. This article is about Media Matters for America. SaltyBoatr get wet 13:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
SaltyBoatr, if anyone is beset with fixations, it is you. Your edit history shows an obsession with extremist right-wing groups (for some reason I could find no interest in extremist left-wing groups) and gun rights. If your primary-sourced (from a single liberal source) addition to the SPLC article is any indication, you are also interested in tarring conservatives with the brush of extremism.--Drrll (talk) 16:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Among many interests at Wikipedia, I admit that I pay attention to the project to counter systemic editor bias, and that leads me to watchlist and monitor the 'gun rights' related topics because they are highly susceptible to this problem of systemic editor bias. SaltyBoatr get wet 16:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Let's not get into a spitting match, Salty. If a very prominent national-level politician plays a significant role in nurturing such an organization, and that organization plays a significant role in defending that politician, then, OBVIOUSLY, that is noteworthy information for an article on said organization. No "fixation" necessary, and for my part I can vouch that I have none. Check my edit history to what I've done (virtually nothing prior to this) regarding the Clintons. Badmintonhist (talk) 14:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
No. This has clear appearance of improper WP:TEND editing. You start with a Hillary fixation/hypothesis, then you do vigorous Google searches[8] to prove your hypothesis. I ask a fair question about your editing, what is the source of your Hillary fixation here? SaltyBoatr get wet 15:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
The tendentious editing, or perhaps more precisely edit blocking, has been coming from folks on your side of the argument: claiming that the notion of a close connection between Media Matters and Hillary Clinton is merely a right-wing meme despite substantial evidence to the contrary. Given that argument, it is perfectly reasonable to find additional sources which further disprove it. And now, I would suggest that you WP:AGF and start fixating on the substance of the issue. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
The article presently gives a brief mention of a connection at the beginning of the MMfA in the #History section. This seems appropriate weight to give to this trivia. This Hillary fixation raises a question of WP:UNDUE. I would also like to ask editor Drrll, where does your Hillary fixation come from? It is persistent, out of proportion, and disruptive. SaltyBoatr get wet 16:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Merely mentioning that some person who worked with Media Matters once also worked for Hillary Clinton hardly encapsulates the nature of the connection between Media Matters and Hillary which numerous WP:RS's speak to. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
P.S. The genuinely noteworthy information isn't that Kelly Craighead advised Media Matters, it's that Hillary Clinton advised Media Matters. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the more noteworthy information is that Hillary Clinton advised MMfA (and if those fixated with keeping HC's mention to a minimum win out, then that info needs to be there more than anything else), but the Kelly Craighead information is also important, as she not just worked for HC, but was a close friend who advised MMfA "on all aspects of its launch."--Drrll (talk) 17:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
In place of nothing at all about Hillary Clinton's association with Media Matters being in the article, I would agree that the "Craighead fact" should stay in. However, assuming that a more complete and accurate picture of that association is finally agreed to, then the more salient and well sourced information about it should be selected, and whether the "Craighead fact" would stay in or not would be a matter of choice. We have to keep WP:Due in mind. This is an article about "Media Matters" not an article about the "Connection between Media Matters and Hillary Clinton" so information about the latter needs to be rather limited. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
A zillion people have advised MMfA, why is the extra attention on Hillary? I see from your talk page history that you two seem to have an axe to grind fighting liberals, is that it? SaltyBoatr get wet 18:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
As a matter of fact a zillion people have not advised Media Matters. See if you find mention in reliable sources of any other major elected official advising them. An editor with an enormous past history of grinding axes (or is it gun barrels?) shouldn't be lecturing me about it. What this is a clear example of is certain editors of a politically progressive and very pro-Media Matters persuasion trying to keep out highly relevant and well sourced information they find even slightly embarrassing to MMfA. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I take it from your response that you admit that you are here fighting liberals (as you say, progressives). SaltyBoatr get wet 18:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Badminton, you realize that we're supposed to indent posts so as to preserve the thread, not do what you're doing, right? Otherwise, I find it odd that you suggest that editors who disagree with you want to remove anything unflattering to Media Matters, and I find it odd that you suggest that editors who agree with you are the only ones who care about sourcing. If that's the case, then I take it that your next edit will be to delete the criticism relating to Cliff Kincaid, since there is NO secondary sourcing that supports it. If those who disagree with you on this were so determined to remove unflattering material, why haven't we removed that? If you're so concerned with sourcing, why don't you remove it? Croctotheface (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Not my intention. My intention is to be a responsible editor, in the course of which I may find myself "fighting liberals". I'm sure that you would say that you are just trying to be a responsible editor during the course of which you very, very, frequently find yourself fighting conservatives, Badmintonhist (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


As Salty has said, this is a clear example of deciding that you want the article to say something--despite not having sources to back it up--and then going out to try to find sources that support what you want the article to say. That's not the way we do things here. Croctotheface (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Also, this goes back to something I said before. The only line quoted above that has any bearing on what Badmintonhist wants the article to say is "many in Washington believe the [Clinton] campaign feeds material to Brock's site," which is a weasely-worded sentence that wouldn't pass muster as a sentence in a WP article. The other material above is total weak sauce--someone "called on MM to disclose" or someone "noted a delay in responding." Delay in responding? Seriously? That's the evidence? What's happening here doesn't make sense in the context of reading sources and then writing an article on the basis of them. What does explain it, though, is if an editor begins with a point of view, seeks out sources that might mention anything remotely connected with that point of view, and then throws them all up against the wall to create the appearance of support for that opinion. This kind of editing is a flagrant violation of our NPOV policy. Croctotheface (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

No, Croc, my above summations were included to provide context to what each author was saying. I was not proposing that each tidbit, some of them subjective and weaselly worded, be included in the article. However, when Heilemann and Halperin back up Gerth and Van Natta by plainly saying that Hillary Clinton advised Media Matters early in its formation, then I think we have enough to state that in the article (especially if an inline citation is included). When MSNBC's Chuck Todd along with other RS's quotes Hillary's "helped to start and support" line then I think the quote is eminently eligible to be included in the article. When several well known political commentators who are not right-wingers raise the question of whether MMfA was actively helping Hillary (against her Democratic rivals) in the run-up to the presidential primaries, then I think we have enough information to raise the question in the article, Badmintonhist (talk) 19:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
First, your comment here demonstrates precisely what I'm saying--if you begin with the proposition that Gerth is right, then it's easy to read as "confirmation" anything that sounds remotely like what they say, even if it's the total weak sauce "delay in responding" stuff that you quote above. However, we should NOT begin with the proposition that Gerth is right. Second, do you think that every attack or back-and-forth from a political campaign should be included? If we did that, then just about every article related to politics would include extensive reporting on attacks from political opponents. Croctotheface (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Croc is right. See this talk page exchange[9]. It is clear evidence of deciding what you want to say first, then digging and digging to find your sourcing second. SaltyBoatr get wet 18:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
As the British prime minister would say, "I will you refer you to my previous answer." To wit: The tendentious editing, or perhaps more precisely edit blocking, has been coming from folks on your side of the argument: claiming that the notion of a close connection between Media Matters and Hillary Clinton is merely a right-wing meme despite substantial evidence to the contrary. Given that argument, it is perfectly reasonable to find additional sources which further disprove it. And now, I would suggest that you WP:AGF and start fixating on the substance of the issue. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
The bottom line is that MANY reliable sources relay clear facts about the connection between Hillary Clinton and MMfA. You may wish that wasn't the case and come up with unrelated rationale to exclude those facts, but what's in reliable sources is all that matters.--Drrll (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Bullshit. As Croc and Salt have pointed out, you guys are starting with your fixation (Hillary) and then actively seeking sources that confirm your worldview, and what you want to try and weasel into the article. There are thousands of people who have worked for, supported, or influenced this organization; not one of you has given any reason Clinton is most significant, other than "it's Hillary". This is no different than Drrll's idea that simply mentioning Clinton must be criticism. The only way you reach a conclusion that "Hillary was important to MMFA" is to start with the "Hillary is important" part. Get over it. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
My fixation on Hillary? Look at my prior edit history, Blax? How much of it involves the Clintons? Hiilary, in fact, is important, and the effort that she puts into helping an organization such as Media Matters is, in all likelihood, going to be much more important to it than an equal amount of effort put in by say Badmintonhist or Blaxthos. I will admit that the precise nature of her efforts on behalf of Media Matters has not been clearly delineated by the sources, but that is eminently understandable since it is quite to be expected that the folks at Media Matters would be quite tight lipped about such efforts. That being the case it is quite impressive that the then Senator Clinton publicly complimented herself on helping to start and sustain Media Matters. You know, you might help your case if you could produce some WP:RS's stating that other major elected political figures, especially ones not tightly allied to the Clintons, also helped out Media Matters. You could check, but I haven't come across them. Perhaps you could also track down major employees, advisers, and financial contributors to MMfA who were allied to major politicians other than Hillary Clinton or her husband. Happy hunting. And one other thing; advice coming from you about "seeking sources that confirm your worldview" is, like much of your Wikipedia advice to editors you find noncompliant, simply jaw-dropping. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Badmintonhist, the article already mentions a connection between Clinton and MM--Kelly Craighead. Honestly, I don't really see what the big deal is, Clinton's involvement seemed pretty minor, I didn't even know who Craighead was...but my attitude when I put that in was that it might be an acceptable compromise that would let us put this issue behind us. Clearly, I was mistaken about that. It leads me to wonder if this is ever going to stop for you. If we put something else about Clinton in, will this end or will you persist? Will it just be "more! more!" until half the text talks about Clinton? Croctotheface (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I can't speak for other editors, Croc, but from my standpoint it definitely would not be more! more! more! [Isn't that what she said?] . As I stated earlier in this discussion the article is on Media Matters not on Hillary Clinton's Association with Media Matters. I would suggest something like this:
  • David Brock was advised on the establishment of Media Matters by, among others, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. [sources] As a candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination Senator Clinton made reference to "institutions that I helped to start and support, like Media Matters" in an address to the Yearlykos in August 2007. [sources] Some commentators alleged that Media Matters indulged a pro-Clinton bias during the run-up to the 2008 presidential primaries. [sources]Media Matters has vigorously denied this charge. [source]
Badmintonhist (talk) 06:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely not -- you're attempting to take that quote out of context to make it seem like she's claiming that she directly "helped found Media Matters". Yet more evidence of what we've been saying all along -- you're attempting to find and (mis)interpret information to fit a predrawn conclusion. No. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Ironic that "you're attempting to take that quote out of context" would be used as a defense against a source used in the MMfA article....since MMfA is known for taking sources out of context to attack those they dislike. Arzel (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Arzel writes "MMfA is known for taking sources out of context". What is your source? Can I read allegation this somewhere? [10][11][12][13]Thanks. SaltyBoatr get wet 15:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Don't even bother, SaltyBoatr. Arzel is a known POV warrior/troll who often does "drive-by"s like what you just witnessed -- a generic, incendiary statement that has no value other than to try and incite more battles. I've found it's best to ignore him when he does stuff like that. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Ignore Blaxthos, his normal retort to any one questioning him is to level a personal attack. Here is one issue of taking things out of context. The point is that MMfA is a partisan organization which puts it's own spin on an event, and it rank hypocrisy to attack a source, claiming it to be doing the very same thing that MMfA does on a regular basis. Blaxthos, just doesn't like getting called on it. Arzel (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
If that's the case, Blax, then you are absolutely welcome to include more of the quote to better provide context. Or is there no way to do this in a manner that fits YOUR pre-drawn conclusions? I actually framed the quote to try to soften the notion that she was claiming direct responsibility. Badmintonhist (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


The only way you can possibly justify inclusion in this encyclopedic article is if the meaning is lifted out of context. Why are you unable to realize that perhaps the quote just isn't fit for inclusion at all? Clinton wasn't speaking directly about MMFA, but rather about creating an atmosphere conducive to more diverse viewpoints in space previously dominated by right wing media. If you actually put the quote in that context, then it ceases to have any direct relationship to an article about MMFA. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Blaxthos, my idea was not "that simply mentioning Clinton must be criticism." I'm the one who initially put the Clinton information into a "History" section--hardly a "Criticism" section.--Drrll (talk) 23:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
What you are saying, Sir Blax, is that Senator Clinton's quote cannot possibly be framed to mean what YOU would like it to mean. Given carte blanche to frame it "properly" you still, apparently, cannot do so. Thus you resort to the essence of authoritarian censorship. RESIGN SIR!! Resign your censorship-addled persona from our noble project!! Badmintonhist (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Badmintonhist, what value does this comment add to the discussion? Croctotheface (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
While I said it in a jocular fashion, and I certainly don't expect Blaxthos to resign (this is almost certainly too big a part of his life for him to consider that) there is a serious meaning to it. The project would be better off without him. The only rationales for his interpretation of Hillary's very straightforward comments are either utter idiocy or pathologically solipsistic partisanship. Just as one would think from either hearing the comments in full or reading them in full, Hillary meant that she had given practical help to Media Matters. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, so, I want to be clear here: the purpose of your comment was to attack another editor by way of expressing that "the project would be better off without him." Yes? Croctotheface (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that was the only thing he was trying to accomplish, Croc -- don't sell him short.  :) Badmintonhist has been particularly aggressive since he's now prevented from making SSP accusations. I recently tried to enlist some help from WP:ANI with regards to his attacks on me and others, but the cadre of right-wingers make enough noise to give the appearance that it's just a partisan slap-fight. Since then, he seems to act without worry of sanction or rebuke. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Or it might just be that it IS a partisan slap fight... Soxwon (talk) 21:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Right on cue. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Soxwon, just to be clear, you think it is appropriate for editors to attack each other with statements like "The project would be better off without you"? Croctotheface (talk) 22:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't call you an idiot, Blax, I said that the only rationales for your "interpretation" of Hillary's remarks would be utter idiocy or pathologically solipsistic partisanship. Between the two I'm about 99% sure that it's the latter. To get back to the substance of the matter, however, to Blax and to any other user who thinks that Hillary didn't actually mean what most people would think that she meant by listening to or reading her comments, WHERE'S YOUR NEUTRAL THIRD PARTY RELIABLE SOURCE WHICH BACKS YOUR "INTERPRETATION" OF HER REMARKS? Badmintonhist (talk) 22:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Blaxthos was the first to say that WP would be better off without Badmintonhist (at the same ANI item to which he referred): "Editors who continually fall into the pattern of sarcasm and attacks shouldn't be allowed to continue poisoning our project."--Drrll (talk) 23:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
That's not the same, though, is it? 97.89.157.40 (talk) 03:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how you get more neutral than the way Badmintonhist has framed Clinton's quote. The full context of the quote could be put into a footnote of the source for the reader to evaluate. Rejecting the use of a well-sourced, neutrally-worded sentence with Clinton's direct quote can only be seen as a clear example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Drrll (talk) 00:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Can we all agree that this circular conversation isn't working? Let's try something else. SaltyBoatr get wet 14:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

How about this regarding the Hillary Clinton quote:
As a candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination Senator Clinton made reference to "institutions that I helped to start and support, like Media Matters" in an address to the Yearlykos in August 2007. [sources, including a much larger quote in a source footnote that gives the context before and after the short quote] Jioni Palmer with Media Matters explained the Clinton quote: "David Brock started Media Matters. Sen. Clinton, like Sens. [Tom] Daschle [D-S.D.] and [Harry] Reid [D-Nev.], Vice President Al Gore and others, have been encouraging and supportive of Media Matters from the very beginning, because they know how important the work we do every day is.” [source]
--Drrll (talk) 17:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I think that wording is still too narrowly focused on Hillary. This article is about MMfA, and not about Hillary. The big picture here is that immediately following the Koz presidential debate of 8.4.07, (at which Hillary was booed), the candidates each gave impromptu speeches to a splinter group of netroot insiders. (This is the speech Drrll is quoting from above.) The candidates were attempting to court the support of these influential netroots blogger/journalists. (MMfA, was one participant in that room.) I suggest we approach this issue by including coverage in the article about the political influence of the Netroots movement, and how MMfA is a key player in the netroots movement, and how the democratic presidential candidates relied upon and were courting of the support of the netroots (including MMfA). SaltyBoatr get wet 19:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
SaltyBoatr, why don't you propose a wording that encompasses all information concerning Hillary Clinton and Media Matters that you think appropriately belongs in the article and we'll work on that. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I will give it a shot. Give me a little time, I am still researching this, reading the book _Bloggers on the Bus_, etc.. I hope you understand what the 'big picture' I am seeking to understand here. This article is about MMfA. The MMfA was (is) a major player in the Netroots movement, and that netroots was a major factor in politics including the 2008 presidential nomination campaign. This could include some mention of how Obama and Clinton each associated with the Netroots differently. SaltyBoatr get wet 20:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

partisan sources, double standard

Why is it that the anti-MMfA/pro-FNC crowd argues for inclusion of conservative sources for criticism (Gerth, Thrush, Politico, New Republic) here at the MMfA article, and against liberal/progressive sources for criticism over at the Fox News article? -PrBeacon (talk) 06:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Based on this...could you give a list of sources you would not consider conservative? Newsday is not a conservative paper. The New Republic is certainly "establishment," but I'd have a hard time calling it conservative; our own article says just the opposite. Croctotheface (talk) 07:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
There are plenty of mainstream media sources without a conservative bent. But none can be found to substantiate the Hillary connection? I didn't say Newsday was conservative -- it seems more like a tabloid, whatever sells -- but Thrush is. And I was thinking of Free Republic, my mistake there. But I note how you didn't answer the question about double standards -- so, have you switched sides? It's more than a bit odd how the current RfM has unfolded, and how it seems as if you're dominating recent subthreads there. -PrBeacon (talk) 08:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
What about the article in the newspaper The Hill[14]? It is an article that gives coverage about MMfA, and gives coverage to the various aspects of the conservative counter-attack aimed at MMfA, and down at the bottom of the article describes the Tucker Carlson counter-attack and mentions how Tucker used the Hillary quote from the Koz convention in context of conservative counter attack. It seems to me the crux of this dispute is whether or not we frame the Hillary Koz quotation and a mere neutral statement of fact (ignoring the context of the conservative counter-attack), or as an issue that is seen within context of the conservative counter-attack. And per The Hill article, the emphasis given in that reliable source is to describe the quote in context of a conservative counter-attack. (the meme). WP:NPOV might suggest that we include more coverage in the article to the conservative counter-attack of MMfA. SaltyBoatr get wet 14:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I actually think that covering the quote _at all_ gives too much weight to a conservative meme. I'm not entirely sure why we're discussing this both here and at the mediation page (and I recognize that I am complicit in doing that), but I'm troubled by the notion that we're supposed to cover all political attacks that receive coverage as political attacks. I proposed the "advised" text because it's neutral and verifiable, and it avoids the problem of both drawing conclusions from ambiguous statements and appearing defensive about them. Neither of those would be neutral writing. Croctotheface (talk) 19:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
PrBeacon, I'm very troubled by all your talk of "sides" here. This is not a WP:Battleground, and if you approach it as one (suspicious of editors because they appear to be on a certain "side," then this project might not be the right place for you. If you look at my previous comments on this page, you'll see that I had long been open to including something about Clinton in the article. My position hasn't really changed. Croctotheface (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I know you have liberal sources that strongly criticize Gerth (which doesn't automatically make him a conservative), but what evidence do you have that Thrush and Politico are conservative? Drrll (talk) 17:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

sidetrack from orig. question

@ Salty: The Hill article only presents the Hillary quote, it doesn't substantiate it. I might be okay with framing the issue as a conservative criticism, though I'd still like to see more-neutral/moderate sourcing for Hillary "advising" MMfA. It bears repeating that politicians often stretch the truth (or outright lie), so her quote is not enough.
      @ Drrll: please see the talkpage for Politico including the bias section. I've already discussed Thrush at the RfM and above. But more importantly I think your question illustrates my point: you don't see these critics of MMfA as conservative, yet any critic of Fox News is liberal and therefore biased. That's a double standard.
      @ Croc: you're either overstating my question or overreacting to a loaded meaning of 'side' in this context. I happen to believe in the balance guidelines and policies more than some folks. It's become increasingly clear over my short time here who can civilly disagree and who can't. And there is an obvious split between editors who support (or are at least somewhat neutral to) MMfA's role as watchdog group, and its opposition -- this is confirmed by the same editors' contributions to the FNC article and related admin threads. For you to pretend otherwise is either naive or disingenuous. Too harsh? Then don't presume to lecture me about policy or my place in this project. . I notice you've dodged the 2nd question, but it's clear that your current advocacy for the Hillary connection is 180-turn from earlier comments like [15] and [16] -PrBeacon (talk) 20:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I actually agree with PrBeacon, in that I too am not satisfied that we have seen sufficient sourcing that would allow us to state as fact that the Koz "helped start and support" HRC statement was a literal statement because it also might have been a pandering figurative statement. (I say this was likely pandering figurative speech because I have read that this HRC statement was made in the splinter group just after people in that group had 'boo'ed' HRC in the Koz sponsored presidential nomination debate.) The article in "The Hill", when read in totality, doesn't give much weight to the HRC quote anyway. That is indication to us that we should not give it much weight either. The gist of the article in The Hill is that there is a push-pull between MMfA and Conservative media, and conservative media forces are counter-attacking. SaltyBoatr get wet 20:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I favor leaving out the "helped start and support" quote. (Salty, is there any reason you're spelling "Kos" with a z? Is there some distinction I'm missing there--the convention uses a Z or somesuch?)
PrBeacon, in that second diff there, I clearly said that there might be reason to mention this in the article. My concern all along has been weight, and it seems that most editors considered the weight matter solved by the version I proposed over at the mediation discussion. (Incidentally, why again are we discussing the same topic in two places?) As I've said elsewhere, my position has changed somewhat in light of reading new sources and rereading the old ones. I was especially impressed that many on what you might term the "other side" were open to a version that was neutrally written and didn't put much weight on the topic. Their cooperativeness did help sway my opinion, and your utter refusal to cooperate may have had the inverse effect, though I can't say that I made any kind of conscious decision on that basis. But again, I'm puzzled by your constant reference to "sides" and your apparent need for consistency on my part. It really feels like you're approaching this like a "gotcha" moment from a political campaign. And moreover, would you somehow suddenly dismiss my opinion outright if you found me on the "other side"? Again, I invite you in the friendliest way possible to reconsider how interested you are in collaborating with editors on the "other side," and if you find yourself generally incapable of doing that, I invite you in the friendliest way possible to consider whether your approach to Wikipedia is consistent with its collaborative nature. Croctotheface (talk) 03:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Please re-read my comments at the mediation. There is no such "utter refusal to cooperate" nor am I making "constant reference to 'sides'." I'm not sure why you keep questioning the parallel discussions yet you're actively contributing, arguably redirecting, or simply deflecting. I don't feel I have to justify or explain my editing philosophies to your satisfaction, especially when you willfully mischaracterize what I've already said. I also ask you nicely to ((a)) stop reading so much into talkpage banter and ((b)) resist the temptation to lecture me, in however friendly or gentle a manner, about this project. This much seems obvious to me, and somehow unclear to you: Despite the question's appearance of black &white extremes, I'm actually interested in the whole spectrum. I'm not seting up simple dichotomies, instead I see multiple angles or facets to the issues. Some editors are more biased than others, and some are better at remaining neutral on various topics. And I still think the issue of double standards is unsettled. Perhaps you can let others speak for themselves. -PrBeacon (talk) 10:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
You've dismissed sources because you apparently consider just about everything "conservative." You've said that you believe that HIllary Clinton should receive less than one sentence of weight in the article (again, apparently because you're comfortable dismissing just about every source that says something you don't like). You accused me on multiple occasions of "switching sides," which isn't somehow bad or wrong in the first place--and then you cited a comment I made that described a willingness to include some reference to Hillary Clinton as evidence that I had previously been unwilling to include such information. You dismiss other editors not based on the merit of what they say, but because you have declared them in your own mind to be POV pushers--never mind that they were and apparently are willing to go along with a brief and neutral version. Really, this whole "sides" thing troubles me, and it can't be cast aside as "banter" (whatever that means)--it really seems like you had put me on some kind of "good list" when you perceived me as "on your side," as opposed to a "bad list," which brings reflexive disagreement and dismissal of those editors on "the other side." How is all of this collaborative editing? In what way is it unfair to describe these kinds of actions as an utter refusal to cooperate? Croctotheface (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
None of that is true and you simply stating it or repeating it doesn't make it so. How many ways can I ask you to stop mischaracterizing EVERYTHING now? I answered the weight question asking for more context and conceding some ground while you and others have refused to do so, your compromise is not neutral, I don't consider "just about everything 'conservative'" and now you're really getting as unreasonable as Niteshift36. Just stop it. -PrBeacon (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, I see some light here. Could you either point me to a diff where you "conceded some ground" in terms of willingness to include information about Hillary Clinton or explain your thoughts about that now? Croctotheface (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
No I'm not doing your reading or re-reading for you. You can certainly go through the discussion yourself. -PrBeacon (talk) 02:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I have looked. I don't see anything from you but absolute resistance. It's why I asked. Croctotheface (talk) 03:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
^willfully blind.. -PrBeacon (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
How hard is it to link the diff? If you don't want to do that, how hard is it to explain the kind of information you'd be willing to include in a sentence or two right now? I honestly don't understand how your position is different from an abject refusal to include any information on Hillary Clinton.
I am sincerely asking you to explain it here. If you don't want to explain it again, then I have to question whether you're really interested in discussing how to improve this article. It might make for a more interesting WP:Battle to just say "I'm not doing your reading for you," but it doesn't further the discussion. And if you're not interested in furthering the discussion, then what are you interested in doing? Croctotheface (talk) 22:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Unless it relates to the topic of improving this article, could you two take your discussion of editor behavior elsewhere? Thanks. SaltyBoatr get wet 17:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Third party sourcing.

Just above, Badmintonhist raises a question[17] that really deserves closer examination, that is what is our best available sourcing for this article? I believe that WP:SYN is a big problem here, looking at the 42 existing references, not that many are pointing to articles about MMfA. The bulk are pointing directly to the MMfA website. Ignoring those, seventeen are pointing to articles that only tangentially mention MMfA. By my count, only five point to articles which are third party and primarily written about the topic at hand, MMfA (these are footnotes 24-28).

Footnotes to third party sources with topics not primarily about MMfA

6. Barnes, Brooks, et al. (April 13, 2007). http://online.wsj "Behind the Fall of Imus, A Digital Brush Fire"

8. http://spectator.org/blogger.asp?BlogID=1999

11. http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/column?oid=oid%3A458467 "Media Watch: Sunday Morning Blues?"

13. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/09/30/EDLJSFN16.DTL "John Diaz An Editor's Note Beyond the right-left labels"

15. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTdhNzdlNmVlMjQ0ZDY1ZTAxOWU0NmM4YWQzMTQyNzQ "Phony Controversy - Defending Rush."

18. http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/64879/ "Colbert on Why Media Matters Makes Life Hard for Limbaugh [Video]"

29. Don Van Natta Jr; Jeff Gerth; Van Natta, Don (2007). "Her way: the hopes and ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton"

30. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/tech/news/3045613.html

31. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/the-oil-spill-is-obamas-fault/

32. http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/11/ivins.future.journalism/index.html

33. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/the-oil-spill-is-obamas-fault/

35. http://www.usasurvival.org/ck82005.shtml "Reply from Cliff Kinciad"

37. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,268043,00.html" "Buying Political Power - Cliff Kincaid"

38. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070927/D8RTI3200.html" "Bill O'Reilly Says He's Being Smeared"

39. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298126,00.html" "CNN Goes Over to the Dark Side"

40. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298245,00.html" "Media Matters and the Corrupt Press on the Run"

42. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1666573,00.html "What Bill O'Reilly Really Told Me"

Footnote to third party source primarily about MMfA

24. Rutenberg, Jim (May 3, 2004). New York Times "New Internet Site Turns Critical Eyes and Ears to the Right".

25. Steinberg, Jacques (2008-11-1). New York Times "An All-Out Attack on 'Conservative Misinformation'"

26. York, Byron (2004-05-28). National Review "David Brock is Buzzing Again".

27. VandeHei, Jim (2006-07-17). Washington Post "A New Allicance of Democrats Spreads Funding; But Some in Party Bristle At Secrecy and Liberal Tilt".

28. York, Byron (2004-05-28) National Review "David Brock and Media Matters"


The point I am trying to make, is that we would be wise to give more focus to finding and using reliable third party sources written about the Media Matters for America. The 2008 article[18] in The Hill found by Badmintonhist is a sixth source that primarily is "about the MMfA" which we could use. The seventeen sources that only tangentially mention MMfA are lessor quality sources and 'red flag' indicators of editor synthesis here, and we would be wise to trim these down and carefully root out editorial synthesis. SaltyBoatr get wet 17:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick note--I'm certainly more than happy to see a rewrite that improves the article, but in response to your recent edit summary, it's not OR to include a fact and then reference primary sources. It's not the case that all we can ever do in our articles is quote secondary sources. (That said, there's almost certainly a better section that could be written there based on secondary sources anyway.) Croctotheface (talk) 02:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Here's a third party source on MMfA: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,593183,00.html
"Oh, one other completely unrelated story, Weiner's newly hired press secretary, until recently, worked at Media Matters — a George Soros-funded spin machine for the left. It was Media Matters who first started the lie that my ratings were down on this program. Update: May ratings year-to-year are up 22 percent. It's also Media Matters who started this ridiculous attack on gold sponsorships.
"Now that sounds like something worth looking into. And you can do that on the new site: www.weinerfacts.com. Because, the only way to deal with a joke of an investigation is to treat it like one."
--LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand. The Fox News/Glen Beck transcript you point to as a "third party source" is actually an article about Anthony Weiner. In that article is one tiny mention of MMfA that even Fox called "completely unrelated to the story". My point is that if we want to improve this article by favoring high quality sourcing we should seek out instead articles which are written primarily about the MMfA and which are published by the most reliable publisher. And, we should tend away from the innumerable 'snippets' in tangential articles visible while Google searching. SaltyBoatr get wet 20:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I get your point but it doesn't apply here. This is not just any old Google snippet. This is a victim of MMfA's bias specifically pointing out exactly how MMfA is wrong and is creating stories out of thin air for political reasons. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Heh, victim. Thanks for the laugh. PrBeacon (talk) 00:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
PrBeacon, a legitimate point was being made by an editor in an effort to move the argument forward. Your comment was nothing but a sniping insult to his point of view and in no way added anything to the article or the argument. Please refrain from this type of behavior in the future. Rapier (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Try to contain your self-righteous indignation, especially when you engage in what you're accusing me of over at other articles like FoxNews. Calling Beck a victim is laughable, as is your defense of it as 'legitimate.' -PrBeacon (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Once again, you are throwing out accusations that are not based in fact but in opinion, and show your unwillingness to debate in good faith. This is not a forum discussion on Glenn Beck, it is supposed to be a debate on how to present the article on Media Matters For America. You can participate in the debate according to Wikipedia policy using reliably sourced facts, but the comment above served no purpose other than to push a particular point of view. At this point I am having a very difficult time assuming good faith on your part because I haven't seen anything from you but shrill partisanship and an unwillingness to accept facts you don't happen to like. Kindly refrain from attempting to turn this Project into your personal battleground, and remember that Wikipedia is not a place to attempt to right great wrongs. Rapier (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
And once again you are attempting to lecture, patronize and dismiss others with whom you disagree. We are talking about MMfA, the comment before called Beck a victim of their bias. That is ridiculous. And it's perfectly appropriate to say so. I already know you don't AGF, so cut the posturing crap. -PrBeacon (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Not trying to get into a personal fight with you here. I asked, you've refused. We'll let the concensus decide if either of us is persuasive. Rapier (talk) 21:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

David Brock nonsense

I'd imagine that everyone agrees that characterizing Brock as a former right wing hit man is not neutral writing, and it's certainly not so important that it belongs in the second line of the article? Considering the anonymous user's ancestry, it seems pretty clear what's going on here. Croctotheface (talk) 22:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree it was not worded the best. Someone please take a stab at improving the language and making it otherwise Wiki compliant. I'm no expert on the subject so forgive me if I pass on this. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Brock's history might merit inclusion if it's shown to be directly relevant to the group. As it is, Brock's biography is relevant to, well, his biography, but I think we need to see a more direct connection to the organization to give it weight here. Croctotheface (talk) 23:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the material belongs in Brock's BLP, but not here unless it can be demonstrated by reliable sources that it matters to MMfA. It also needs to be made more NPOV. Drrll (talk) 00:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a thought on organization...

Is there anyway we could combine the two controversy sections, put them under some unified heading, or do something with them? I don't want to start a controversy section, but they seem kind of hap-hazard as is. Soxwon (talk) 00:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Your changes seem reasonable enough. We could also avoid the "controversy" wording in the section heads if that troubles you. Croctotheface (talk) 01:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
That would probably work. Actually, I'm not sure whether "incident" is enough. *shrugs* I'll let others comment. Soxwon (talk) 01:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
It should be shortened and then subsections would not be required. It is significant that these items were picked up by the MSM but we do not need that much detail. TFD (talk) 08:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree with that. Also, "Response" seems a strangely clipped name for the section on reaction. "Criticism"? Figureofnine (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
See WP:Criticism. Not saying I agree with it, but the essay pretty much shows why things are the way they are. Croctotheface (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Two editors reversed citation of NR article with mislink wrongly saying it lacked citation. The article contains the mislink, and that is citation enough. Here is the pertinent excerpt from the NR article with the mislink found in the original included:

"If you go to this link[1], you can read the entire exchange."

As correctly maintained in my edit, the link leads to a transcript of Sept 28, but the NR meant to link to the transcript of Sept. 26 since the excerpted transcript quoted by the NR is from the earlier date of Sept. 26. The NR has neither corrected the mislink or its erroneous assertion that, if properly executed, it would lead to the "entire exchange." Media Matters has thouroughly documented the unanounced and unexplained edits of Limbaugh's transcript and audio.[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.224.218.27 (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC) — 69.228.156.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

OK, the above, as explained, is clearly evident in the original and absolutely correct, but it relies on my analysis without a source. No reliable sources seem to have caught the errors, and no comments attend the NR article, it's not for inlcusion. Mr Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.224.218.27 (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC) — 69.228.156.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I was about to formally raise the issue of WP:SYN/WP:V/WP:Undue but you have already seen the light. As long as I'm commenting, this article appears to contain a fair amount of coatracking for MMfA opinion rather than content on MMfA itself. I think this needs addressing. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps I was premature in my assessment as the content still appears in the article. That MMfA attempted to make an issue of the alleged NR "gaffe" inre the completeness of the transcript is unsupported by third-party sourcing that would satisfy WP:V/WP:UNDUE. This article is not supposed to be a coatrack of MMfA opinion. The current content is unsupported and should be deleted if adequate third-party sourcing is not provided. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
If the idea is that this is all a little too much paid to a minor affair, I'm all for editing the section down to the key facts, rather than documenting the disputes about the facts. Mr Anon — 69.228.156.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
...and I'm for demonstrating that all content within the entire section rises to meet WP:V/WP:UNDUE with requisite third-party sourcing. Even assuming this content could cross that threshold, {{content}} looms as well. Why is this content relevant in an article that is supposed to be ABOUT MMfA, not their opinions? JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
What opinions? Mr Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.156.201 (talk) 07:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC) — 69.228.156.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Opinions/ JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC) assertions of fact...take your pick. You should demonstrate, with third party sourcing, that content is adequately attributable to reliable sources other than MMfA itself. IOW, what other reliable sources gave a hoot about MMfA's assertion of Limbaugh's purported chicanery and made note that would raise this content to satisfy WP:V/WP:UNDUE?
However, that's even a cart before the horse. Why is this content appropriate for an article that is supposed to be ABOUT MMfA? JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
One question at a time, please. I'm concerned that my edits may have left in MMfA's opinions, and I want to know what they are specifically. Mr Anon — 69.228.156.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
All fixed. Now you can deal with assertions of fact. Better yet, why is this content relevant? JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
To take a suggestion literally, I'll select the term "opinions" without expecting any objection from the grantor of this perogative. Now, to "deal with" the alleged, but so far unspecified opinions: I will need to know what is being alluded to - but in detail. With that done, by the one has made an issue of opinions twice, or by anyone else wishing to be helpful, improvements are possible. My attempted close reading and sleuthing for opinions have so far come up empty. In any case, it would be good to have my now thrice made inquiry regarding this begged for question addressed satisfactorily. Since opinions parading as fact simply have to go, there may be neither a cart or a horse to place or talk about. Mr Anon — 69.228.156.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Recent Controversy deletions

Deleted: Tax exempt status. Citation has nothing about Gibons "questioning" tax statue. The citation of Mark Levin is actually a link to the news agregator Newsbusters which has a link another site which links to a video of Levin calling MMfA "brown shirts" while questioning their tax status - waaayy outside of reliable source territory. Mr Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.156.201 (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC) — 69.228.156.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The Newsbusters reference specifically mentions the questioning of their status as a nonpartisan organization, and points to an audio clip of Levin questioning their tax-exempt status. I also added another reference questioning their tax-exempt status. Drrll (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Newbusters only mentions/reports, without comment, that Mark Levin, an unreliable source(see above), questions the status, and the added citation seems to view Levin as a demagogue, so they have no part in the questioning of tax exempt status themselves. It is unclear as to why York is included since he in no way brings up the issue of whether MMfA should have tax exempt status.
Conservative reception should not be a vehicle for fringe positions. The Progressive Reception section, while weak and probably a good candidate for removal as well, doesn't sink that low. Mr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.156.201 (talk) 17:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC) — 69.228.156.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comments by Newsbusters aren't required to source that Levin questioned the tax-exempt status. Nor does it matter how MMfA characterizes Levin to source his comments about the status. York does question the validity of MMfA's status. The very title/subtitle of the article questions about how political MMfA is: "Media Matters: We’re Not Political: That's what they say. But a look at the record shows otherwise." Then, within the article: "Indeed, Media Matters has to be nonpartisan, if not nonpolitical. It is registered with the Internal Revenue Service as a nonprofit 501(c)(3) charitable institution, meaning it is tax exempt and that contributions made to Media Matters are fully tax deductible."
Levin, while conservative, is hardly fringe. He is published regularly by National Review, has 7 1/2 million regular listeners to his radio show, and has published a book with well over 1 million copies. Molly Ivins was much more fringe than Levin. Drrll (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
The other edits involve trims, clarifications, and placement issues. Mr Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.156.201 (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC) — 69.228.156.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Suggested removal of minor controversies

The O'Reilly and AIM paragraphs covers controversies that barely deserve the designation. They did not reach broad circulation or become consequential as did the controversies with Limbaugh and Imus. Seeing them go would be an improvement. Mr Anon — 69.228.156.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Ironically that describes almost all of the citations to MMfA on other pages. Arzel (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, completely. You want to remove those trivial "controversies" as well? Rapier (talk) 01:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Not really. The Limbaugh affair, though silly, got widespread,national attention while Imus lost his show. Mr Anon — 69.228.156.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Deleted Kincaid and O'Reilly controversiesy. Mr Anon — 69.228.156.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Reverted back to previous edition. Mr. Anon, you deleted nearly 20% of an article less than a day after you brought it up based on your opinion this information was not needed, after two other editors disagreed with you. Sorry, but just because you don't like something doesn't mean you get to blank it. That isn't the way Wikipedia works. I suggest you go back and read the policies and proceedures. Rapier (talk) 18:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think the Kincaid controversy is definitely questionable for inclusion. As I've said before, I think that it's notable (in the plain English sense, not the WP:N sense) in that it's a fairly strong criticism...yet I don't know that it's received coverage in secondary sources. I'm not an absolutist with respect to considering secondary sourcing either necessary or sufficient to include material, but as time goes on and Media Matters becomes more established, episodes like this one tend to decline in significance. One odd habit of WP is the inclusion of material that was newsworthy for a time but has little overall significance to the article. This looks like it might be one of those.

Regarding O'Reilly, that's certainly a major episode with respect to MM, so it should go in. However, the current version focuses more on O'Reilly's difference of opinion and criticism than in the role that MM played in reporting on O'Reilly's original comments. The article could certainly be rewritten to increase the focus on the non-criticism stuff. Croctotheface (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Whatever opinion any single editor may have, it is very important to note Croc's previous point: What we have in this article currently is the result of literally months of heated debate and compromise. Substantial edits need to be well thought out, based on verifiable facts, and agreed upon by consensus. This isn't something that will occur in a matter of hours, as people have real lives and don't live and die waiting next to their computers to be able to make edits on Wikipedia. A reasonable amount of time would be 7 days with no replies or with only strong support. This allows the vast majority of potential editors the opportunity to be able to voice their opinion, and nobody can claim they weren't given a chance to reply. Please keep this in mind. Rapier (talk) 03:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

General Reception

If this section seems sparse, that's because it was originally. Removal of tangental Rothenberg citation and placing the of Jeff Gannon scandal in its own section had their affect of made this more apparent. Mr Anon — 69.228.156.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Unless someone wants a more substantialy developed General Reception section beyond the current progressive approbation of the site, it should go since it's not much at the moment. Mr Anon — 69.228.156.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I think there should be a separate section for "Reception" that includes progressive reception, conservative reception, and analyst Rothenberg's comments (no need for subsections, since each part is so small). The notable postings needs its own section. Drrll (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_092807/content/01125106.guest.html
  2. ^ http://mediamatters.org/research/200709280009?f=h_top
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Media_Matters_for_America/Archive_6&oldid=390184862"