Talk:Media Matters for America

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Scjessey (talk | contribs) at 12:12, 14 June 2014 (Reverted to revision 607105588 by The Four Deuces (talk): Rm trolling. using TW). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 12:12, 14 June 2014 by Scjessey (talk | contribs) (Reverted to revision 607105588 by The Four Deuces (talk): Rm trolling. using TW)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Media Matters for America article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Media Matters for America. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Media Matters for America at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Journalism

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Media

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Media To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite
NPOV : Content (media and publishing)
Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper
Other :
- Answer requests for comments

Organizations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States: District of Columbia Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as Low-importance).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Media Matters for America article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Daily Caller Investigations

I have read through the article and the discussions and the Daily Caller investigations are not in the article nor has anyone really talked about them here. I plan on constructing a piece in the "controversies" section that at least addresses the fact that the Daily Caller has led investigations against MMfA and unearthed several important controversies (here is a link to the initial investigation: http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/12/inside-media-matters-sources-memos-reveal-erratic-behavior-close-coordination-with-white-house-and-news-organizations/?print=1). I realize that because MMoA is an ardent progressive group that we have to be careful of neutrality; however, I think it would be a blow to neutrality if we did not include this. I might be mistaken, but I believe someone already brought up that the current "controversies" are really just MMfA's efforts to bust high profile conservatives whereas if you look at "controversies" on the Drudge Report page--aguably MMoA's conservative equivalent in some ways--there are "notable stories" and then a list of real "controversies."

So (1) I suggest that we change this so that MMoA's "notable stories" are not under the heading of "controversies" (it confuses the reader, certainly this one) and (2) we make sure we cover the real controversies surrounding MMoA, especially the Daily Caller investigations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.47.152 (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Just because Tucker Carlson goes after MMfA on a regular basis doesn't mean that it's a "controversy." For starters, you would need references from a reliable third-party source discussing this as a controversy, not simply the original editorials that he ran on his blog. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I have seen your replies on this discussion so far Loonymonkey and it is hard to deny that you have a favor towards Media Matters. In any case, it would be foolish and misleading not to at least mention that the Daily Caller has investigated MMfA and if there is a consensus that these investigations have not exactly come to fruitation, then we will also mention that. Also, to counterargue you notion that because the Daily Caller "goes after MMfA on a regular basis doesn't mean that it's a 'controversey,'" I am quite confident that every media outlet with a liberal-slant goes after Fox News every day so with that logic, why mention that MMfA started a "War on Fox"? All I am suggesting is that we separate the "controversies" and "notable stories" and then discuss the legitimacy of the Daily Caller investigations in the "controversies." The fact that this media outlet has colluded with the Obama Administration and the Daily Caller has some evidence to back this claim is certainly enough to mention it in this article.

Whether you agree with their opinion or not, it still isn't notable enough to include here. What's the controversy, exactly? Is it that they were written about by The Daily Caller, or is it the substance of the DC's articles? In either case, you would need to go to a reliable third-party source to establish that this is in any way noteworthy. Also, DC is not considered a reliable source for factual information, so you would also have to have better sourcing that supports the factual claims. What you are proposing is turning a section of this article into a coat rack of criticism. That's exactly why "controversy" sections are discouraged and are gradually being dismantled across the project. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

What is the statement that "DC is not considered a reliable source for factual information" based on? Was this decided by the community at the reliable source noticeboard on several occasions, and that is the working consensus until a new one forms (say the editorial management changes and they have reinvigorated policies)? Where there documented cases of falsifying factual information such that they are no longer trustworthy? Please illuminate this. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The answer is no. The Daily Caller has not been judged at RSN as a not a reliable source. That is an assertion without foundation, as quick search reveals. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I have zero involvement with this but Loonymonkey or anyone else around here should not say such unfounded things. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfounded? It has been discussed several times and there has never been a consensus that they should be considered a reliable source for factual material. They're a political attack blog, not a journalistic outfit. They meet none of the criteria for a reliable source (particularly when dealing with WP:BLP issues which are much more strict). They're no different than Daily Kos on the left; that is, they're reliable for their opinion, and as an aggregate of other sources, but cannot automatically be considered reliable for factual material not otherwise corroborated. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You changed the claim from saying that DC is not considered an RS for facts to saying that there has never been a consensus that they should be considered an RS for facts. Either way, if there's no consensus that they're unreliable then the people in the dispute should take this to RSN. The fact is that source reliability differs for different claims. My view is that when we argue we should be specific and precise. For example, provide some links that prove your point. Saying that a source that has what appear to be normal editorial processes is not reliable for facts, as a blanket statement, is problematic for a number of reasons. For example, do they not sometimes provide interview audio for the interviews they do? Or they provide detailed descriptions of the calls they do? Then it would be to suggest they simply fabricated this material, which seems on its face not a credible claim. They are a conservative news website - that makes them politically on the right but it doesn't show that they're unreliable for any facts. Anyway, that's all from me. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 03:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, first of all, WP:RS was the lesser issue, the bigger problem was WP:WEIGHT. But addressing RS, no, they're not a regular news organization. At best, they're a tabloid (and a fairly over the top one at times). --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

They are in the White House press pool. There is no doubt that they are partisan, but then so is Media Matters, and it is treated as an RS. The DC should therefore also be treated as one.William Jockusch (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The difference between the two is huge. Media Matters for America archives and reports on batshit insane stuff done by the right wing, whereas Daily Caller actually produces some of the batshit insane stuff MMfA reports on. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Political partisanship is different to whether a source can be used as an RS, the inclinations of Misplaced Pages editors aside. It seems that this conversation is not having much of a concrete impact on what's going on this page, though, so I suggest specific cases of use of DC be brought to RSN by concerned parties. I'm done. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if my IP address is showing up as I comment, but just in case I am the person who created this discussion. Sorry that I have not re-revisited this discussion in some time, but I really wanted to avoid this disgraceful partisan poo flinging. Loonymonkey mentioned that we should not have "controversies" sections, meanwhile the page about the Drudge Report is riddled with criticism while the MMfA page looks spotless except for one short quip. It is my philosophy that when you come to Misplaced Pages, a lack of information is just as powerful as the presence of information. If some third party user were to research MMfA on Misplaced Pages, it would appear that there are no controversies and MMfA is just "progressive" organization trying to dig up dirt on the right. This is clearly wrong and the Daily Caller has spearheaded the investigations and other sites have reported these investigations also. Just because Loonymonkey has decided that he does not like these organizations is no reason to keep this information from the users of Misplaced Pages. Now, I really have no idea how you guys generally go about editing pages--ie if we need to form some sort of "consensus"--but I think it is time to put it to a vote or time to start drafting a section for criticism/the Daily Caller. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.47.152 (talk) 00:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Criticism sections suck, because they become magnets for crap. Notable, significant critique (which this is not) can be woven into the article appropriately, but it should not be given its own section. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Sources:

Obviously not just the Daily Caller reporting on Media Matters. MMfA has been highly controversial and this article makes no mention of it, thus violating NPOV. The sources are reliable and bipartisan, the topic is hot and controversial, yet there is no mention of it. It's about time we put this to a vote and write it up when it passes.--173.76.46.132 (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The first article you link to merely mentions that the "investigation" but the nutjobs at Daily Caller has increased MMfA's audience. The second article is a 2007 piece from the conservative National Review, arguing that MMfA is somewhat political. Well, duh! This is still absolutely nothing "critical" to write about, let alone noteworthy. Your claim that MMfA is a "highly controversial" organization is based purely on your opinion, informed by the bloviating right wing echo chamber. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

It's worth noting the pure, unadulterated irony of your echo chamber comment in defense of Media Matters. Thanks for the laughs. †TE†Talk 18:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Not ironic at all. The right wing echo chamber is a real thing. People on the left are more open minded, so there's less of an echo problem. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

No criticism section?

There is no section dedicated to criticism of MMfA in the article, yet the Media Research Center article has one. Why the discrepancy? Krjcheck (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Criticism sections are examples of poor writing. Legitimate criticism should be woven into the prose as needed. As far as the Media Research Center article is concerned, that is a matter for the editors who maintain that article. It has nothing whatsoever to do with this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. There can be instances where criticisms, or more broadly, receptions to an organization from all perspectives, can warrant their own section. I also disagree with your suggestion that the two articles are completely independent with one another, they both belong to the same Misplaced Pages community. Krjcheck (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry you disagree, but there it is. Criticism sections are shit magnets, hence unwanted. And the two organizations are independent of one another, which means the articles are independent as well. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Jimmy Wales, and therefore Scjessey too, on this one. Jinkinson (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

There can be a criticism section, they take writings and videos out of context as the O'rielley won showed64.134.64.118 (talk) 13:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a criticism section. It's called 'Reception and controversies'. What is not needed is a section called 'criticism' which is a random list of unrelated complaints, ranging from objections to someone's hairstyle to claims of inaccuracy. That;'s why such sections are generally avoided. Paul B (talk) 16:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh

Today, Rush Limbaugh mentioned Media Matters (in connection to monitors in news rooms.) — FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Just so you know: Headline from RushLimbaugh.com archive is, Anyone Remember the Fairness Doctrine?

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT, RUSH: You still don't believe me about this newsrooms monitor business? Let me give you two words: Fairness Doctrine. Have you ever heard of the Fairness Doctrine? Before I leave here today, I am going to convince you that this would end up being totally supported by America's journalists. If it is aimed at getting rid of talk radio, you think they'll support it? Remember, the monitors are gonna be in TV and radio newsrooms, radio stations.

  . . .   etc.   . . .

End of article: "The headline of this piece: Is Obama Trying to Kill a Free Press? Is he, or has he been? Anyway, I've spent enough time on this. The only point that I want to make is that if you are expecting massive outrage from current journalists, you are not going to see it, and that's what Snerdley still can't believe. I'll take it a step further. Who are the monitors going to be? Have you ever thought about that? Who is the government going to put in there to monitors all of this?

"How about Media Matters?

"They already are the monitors, folks.

"What do you think they're doing? Media Matters sits out there, and they "monitor" every bit of so-called opposition media to the Democrat Party. They report it, they shape it, they take it out of context, and that's how the Drive-By Media learns what happens on this show and others. Media Matters is already the monitors. I would contend to you this is already happening. They just haven't officially installed the monitors actually in the newsrooms.

"But that would just be a minor formality, because this is actually already happening."

END TRANSCRIPT — FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 06:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC) Just so you know.

Soros funding

There has been some back and forth about a ref for Soros' funding (and whether it is RS). I would point out that there already is RS (Politico) ref for that in the article. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

True, but the the content added by various IPs was misleading in its context and poorly sourced.- Mr X 15:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and that sourced content is already well covered in the article. The text was making a different claim, one even the Newsmax 'article' didn't support. In any case, the fact that Soros has given funds to MMfA is already included in the article, with the source you've linked to. Dave Dial (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, uneeded addition to lede. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Information about MMfA that isn't allowed on this page?

What information is considered to be correct when talking about MMfA? Is it incorrect to quote the Executive Vice President of MMfA when he speaks of victory against Fox News? Is it considered wrong to point out that his victory speech did not coincide with any kind of drop in viewership for the FNC? Furthermore, is there a consensus that the Daily Caller is an unreliable source? And what reason is given for considering the Daily Caller an unreliable source? If the reason for disregarding information from them is that they are a conservative group, why then is MMfA considered a reliable source when they are a liberal group, as evidenced by excerpts from this article containing parts of an interview with David Brock: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/04/david-brock-says-he-doesnt-know-if-media-matters-worked-with-sharyl-attkisson-before-group-attacked/ Please, educate me on the finer points of policing Misplaced Pages to ensure that it is unbiased.Execrated (talk) 15:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no consensus that the Daily Caller is a reliable source, especially when dealing with BLP issues. Also, you have to take weight into consideration. As for the other edit, you have taken one Huffington Post article that talks about Angelo Carusone has declared "victory" over Fox News because it is now seen as a partisan source, and they have changed from a more vitriolic prime-time to a less vitriolic prime-time, and then you took it upon yourself to research television ratings and synthesize the corresponding relationship. That is against policy. That is why your edits were removed. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

You may be right, I'll reword it to use only what they have stated, as I cannot find a reliable source to back up claims that they were attempting to reduce viewership. As for the Daily Caller report, not even Media Matters refuted those claims. Perhaps you'd be so kind, since you're obviously quite concerned with providing as much information as possible on Wiki pages in such an unbiased way, and you could do some research and aid me in finding out all pertinent information regarding this group. I thank you in advance for your assistance.Execrated (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The Daily Caller is not a reliable source because there is no reason to believe that stories appearing in it are accurate. One way of telling if a source is reliable is that mainstream media (BBC, CNN, etc.) will carry its print stories and news clips. Another way is to read reports in media watchdogs, such as MMfA. And note that reliability has nothing to do with the political orientation of a source, merely whether they can be expected to get their facts right. Mainstream media do this by researching the facts they report, using fact-checking and publishing retractions when they are wrong. TFD (talk) 01:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Categories: