Talk:Media Matters for America

A pin's dancing angels

So, after much discussion we have no agreement but a lot of invective. I'll say it again: can't we all just kill each other? Or better yet, take a time out since time in has gone nowhere but in circles? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Media Matters is in the news again (Whitehouse talking-points connections). FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Lead image

Media Matters recently updated their site design. Would replacing the (outdated) lead picture with one of the updated site be acceptable? (Had a really hard time wording that. will clarify upon request.) 74.132.249.206 (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Caller exposé

The Daily Caller just put out a lengthy profile piece on Brock and MMfA based on some internal documents and other reporting. They also published what they claim is an "enemies list" from inside MMfA. The Daily Caller is run by Tucker Carlson so I'm sure it was all rather gleefully assembled but, regardless, it's going to be a story and seems to contain quite a few citable accusations. I'm sure there's a response coming from MMfA soon if you all want to keep an eye out. TomPointTwo (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Wait, I predict much idiocy to be revealed. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 07:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, besides being a "bat signal" to right wing attacks, "Among the more than half-dozen articles and blog posts the Daily Caller has written in its “Inside Media Matters” series, there is little in the way of actual substance. From Carlson and Coglianese’s original piece we learn that Brock regularly staffs himself with body guards, even at social events. A later piece focuses on the fact that Media Matters contributor Karl Frisch once suggested hiring personal investigators to “look into the personal lives of Fox News” staff. Yet most of the content of the articles is hardly surprising or shocking. On the contrary, it points to an important fact: Media Matters matters.

...there is little in the way of actual substance.

It appears the jury may still be out on that particular question...

"Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller has published a series of reports on Media Matters for America and its leader, David Brock. It's an intriguing piece of work."

Carlson Digs Into the Journalistic Muck: The Ticker, Bloomberg

Assumedly more (cough) bias-free "journalism" to follow. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You can say the jury's out on anything: The jury is still out on round earth. What's "intriguing"? Maybe along the lines of "Britney Spears is an intriguing singer." Biggest weasel word out there. Show me "bias-free" journalism, and I'll show you crap. Journalists who don't have biases are liars. And who the hell said they were "bias free", really, you should cool the baseless and crude suspicions. Next time let's add some substance, Jakers. 17:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

What's also intriguing is that bus coming down Brock's road and some rather skittish Demo establishment types standing right behind him. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll have that in English please, and try not to be lazy. What bus, what road (talk about getting weird with metaphors), what "skittish Demo establishment types"? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Tax status, financial malfeasance lawsuit

I restored then paired down the update to the article concerning Brock's settlement with his ex partner over MMfA. This was all undone with the nonfactual summary: "soruce makes no connection between Brock's personal affairs and professional conduct. Source reports an $850K settlement was paid though later the article says Brock sued to have the award reversed and an undiclosed settlement was reached". The article clearly establishes a connection with MMfA and a tie with Brock's personal finances and the status of MMfA. I can only assume that either the undoing editor didn't read the source or he didn't understand it. Either way I'm not going to debate it in edit summaries. The article made a connection between Brock, the lawsuit and MMfA's finical and legal status. As it stands now I can't decipher any reason to exclude it. Barring a sensical objection I'll restore the material. TomPointTwo (talk) 07:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Sources should be read better, that is better than you have. Show me one clear statement that attributes Grey's accusations of "malfeasance" directly relates to Brock's association with MMfA? Also, these are charges made by Grey that he no longer makes, and for which Brock sued him $4 million for making, and got an undisclosed settlement, something Fox buried as low as it could in the article. We need a substantial source, not a Fox hatchet job that seeks to mislead and obfuscate. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I've reviewed the source, and it's ambiguous on how this relates to MMfA. There is the statement:"accused Brock in a civil suit filed in Washington of taking $170,000 in possessions". It's not clear that those possessions belonged to MMfA, but even if they did, it's only an accusation. Given that the settlement was confidential, it's not clear that there are any details available which relate this directly to MMfA. aprock (talk) 19:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The "War on FOX" clearly has consequence for both MMfA AND Brock. This is one of them. How is a FOX retaliatory strike at Brock and MMfA ("Media Matters founder accuses gay ex-lover of blackmailing him for $850K after breakup". Daily Mail (London, UK). February 27, 2012. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2107394/Media-Matters-founder-David-Brock-accuses-gay-ex-lover-blackmailing-850K.html?ito=feeds-newsxml. ) not relevant here? JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

How do Brock's personal affairs affect MMfA? A source is needed, not an editor's crude intuitions. It's all similar to reporting that Brock's daughter vows "I'll never speak to you again!" (This is a hypothetical, but Brock could have a daughter- I haven't checked.) Relevancy depends on substance, not someone getting all bitchy and whiny with his ex, then backs off his threats to blow the whole shit house down. Thereby making the accusations look phony. And in any case, never detailed in the first place. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Jake, a "retaliatory strike" by Fox could possibly be relevant here, but it would have to be notable and sourced to a reliable secondary source. Otherwise, this Fox article becomes a primary document and the whole notion of a retaliatory strike becomes original research. But that doesn't really matter as there's nothing in the article in question that has anything to do with Media Matters, other than Brock's connection to the organization. On its face, this seems to fail WP:NOTNEWS and WP:WEIGHT. Fox is going to put out a lot of hatchet pieces against MMfA this year but that doesn't mean we have to rush to this article and try to create a new section every time they do. The story has to become otherwise notable first. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm a conservative and no fan of MMfA, but at this point the connection between the two seems to be too weak for inclusion here. It is obviously appropriate to include in Brock's BLP, but not here. Lee Iacoca's personal life isn't appropriate for the Chrysler page, unless it expressly affected the company. Same thing applies here. SeanNovack (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)