Talk:Accuracy in Media

Assessments

I've reverted the removal of the assessments (that is, the assessments are back in). NPOV shouldn't stop us from calling a spade a spade. I'm not aware of any prominent denial that AIM is conservative, and certainly most of their views are conservative (unless this can be refuted, but it would have to be proven--a look at their website would appear to back me up on this). In short, there's no reason to water it down, especially when the terms used are not pejorative. Meelar (talk) 21:13, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

My trouble here is that they call themselves neutral. How many positions are required to assign one the "conservative" label against their will? I disagree with the unnecessary labeling. Calling a spade a spade would be to call them what they say they are, then to describe their positions on unrelated issues if we really feel it necessary. plain_regular_ham 22:32, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

True, but the word "conservative" needs to be in the lead paragraph. I've rewritten to reflect usage; as near as I can tell from a quick Lexis search, most media refer to it as a conservative group (Washington Post, New York Sun, St. Louis Post-Dispatch all do). Is this version better? Meelar (talk) 23:24, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't care much for the wording, so I tweaked it. -- Viajero 10:26, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Ditto. To explain my reasoning a bit more, I changed the lead to include the perception of AIM's 'conservatism', while making clear that it is not a fact, but a point of view. plain_regular_ham 14:26, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I changed up the wording a bit more, but the spirit of the thing is preserved ; it was just clarification and other tweaks. Acceptable? Best, Meelar (talk) 18:26, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. Still not quite.

• "claim of" versus "stated" - Implies that the statement is less valid, but if that seems necessary, I have no problem with it.
• "news sources" versus "sources" - Do no other sources refer to AIM as conservative?
• "(and all of its political opponents)" - assumes that AIM has a political position to begin with, which is not necessarily true.

plain_regular_ham 19:19, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad we agree on "claim of"--I'm much happier with that wording. As for the other two points:

• There's a qualitative difference between, say, the WaPo and FAIR. Readers need to know that both openly liberal groups (see point 3) and self-proclaimed neutral media often refer to AIM as conservative.
• It's clearly fact that AIM has political opposition. For example, take a look at the list of FAIR publications below in which they explicitly criticize AIM:
  • "Accuracy in Media...[is] openly conservative." [1]
  • "The right-wing Accuracy in Media" [2]

In short, whether or not they're taking a political position, they have political opponents. Meelar (talk) 19:32, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Check my rewording of the referenced part. If a dog calls me a cat, that does not make me a cat, nor does that make the dog my natural opponent (unless I am in fact a cat, which I say I am not.). I think my change is FAIR :-) plain_regular_ham 20:10, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Your rewrite works very well, and I approve. I'm going to correct a typo, which will be the edit you see, but it won't change the wording. Best wishes, Meelar (talk) 21:11, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

All accuracy in media is conservative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 09:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

I removed this text:

• AIM has also been criticized for its attacks against journalists critical of conservative leaders. For example, a September 9 2005 press release from AIM critized reporters for over-hyping the Kartrina disaster and ignoring the slow response of local and state government officials. It said that reporters on the Hurricane Katrina aftermath are "self-righteous windbags" and "hotdogs" for rushing to "blame Bush and let a black mayor and female governor off the hook." The press release goes on to state that rather than the hurricane or alledgedly slow federal emergency response, actually "the media coverage was (the) disaster."

because it does not actually contain the criticism. It contains something that could be criticized, but not the criticism itself. Who criticized AIM for this press release? -Willmcw 23:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• • WikiPOV'ers criticized AIM for this press release. Jeremy Nimmo 05:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedians, alas, are not notable critics. -Willmcw 07:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed the statement about AIM supporting the Vince Foster conspiracy theory. They did not promote they only posted the transcript of a conversation with U.S. attorney Miguel Rodriguez regarding the case -Geoffrey Gibson 18:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

They did support the conspiracy theory. In fact, they claim "Foster Was Murdered" and there is "overwhelming evidence that proves Foster was murdered."[3] That was a 2001 report. There are a lot more links, and I started a new section about it. C56C 00:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

FAIR is a "leftist" organization

I've recently removed the "leftist" descriptor for FAIR and replaced it with FAIR's own description of "progressive". A previous editor claimed that both terms are the same. If we accept that editor's reasoning, then surely if we describe FAIR as leftist we must also describe AIM as right-wing, since that term is "consistent" with conservative. Instead of doing so, I made the above noted change.-Hal Raglan 18:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I think both descriptors should be included (and even expanded upon) in their respective articles. They can be given appropriate context by putting it in the criticism sections. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

FAIR certainly IS leftist. it takes the farthest left view of every issue and generally accuses everyone (including identifiably liberal outlets) of being right-wing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.141.73.31 (talk) 05:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Than progressive left should be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 09:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Self-referenced

This article contains entirely too many primary sources (namely, AIM press releases); secondary sources are preferred. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

They call themselves conservative

Despite AIM's claim of political neutrality[1], it is frequently described by the mainstream media and other media watchdog groups as a conservative organization.

Should this be removed and should it just say it's a conservative organization? If you Google "accuracy in media", it's apparent that it describes itself as "Conservative watchdog group for fairness, balance and accuracy in news reporting" in its own HTML headers. Tempshill (talk) 23:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to remove 'conservative' from the group's description. Thats their view and wikipedia should inform it's readers on AIM's ideology, assuming that readers will check the group's HTML headers in google isn't reason enough to eliminate that crucial detail in it's description. Ruick (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfounded Claim

Your article claims, "At CBS's meetings, Irvine frequently denounced Walter Cronkite as a Soviet dupe." No source is cited and no evidence is given for this. Can you prove it? If not, you should remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.141.73.31 (talk) 05:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks for pointing it out.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Weasel word? & American English spelling

In the line (under the Criticism heading)... "Some say that Accuracy in Media distorts stories, and misrepresents its own information meanwhile criticising other news organizations or politicians of manipulating their own stories." ...would "Some say" be considered a weasel word? The paragraph does have 2 source links, but I would think that the actual sources (at least one) should be named in the paragraph instead of "some".

Also, this is an article about an American organization, so I think the spelling of "criticising" should be changed to "criticizing". 97.119.169.99 (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)