Talk:Media Matters for America

Media Matters as a source

Since the Limbaugh and Fox News smears show that Media Matters will use misleading edits should it be eliminated as a source?65.96.135.42 18:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

No. Croctotheface 18:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Constructive as always, but since Juan williams backed up O'rielly and he has far more creible tham Media Matters as a correspondent for Fox and NPR they are have no basis as a source.Winterflyer 09:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

That's your opinion, nothing more. --Loonymonkey 19:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Correct. Juan Williams works for Fox, as Winterflyer kindly noted. Thus, he has a vested interest in supporting his friend O'Reilly. Besides that, he didn't dispute MMfA on the facts of what O'Reilly said (which are, of course, well documented). He only disagreed with their interpretation. His interpretation of what O'Reilly said and meant has no greater "creible" than MMfA's interpretation.

• I have always been opposed to using Media Matters as a reliable source in article space. It has been argued that they "just republish what others have published", but it is quite clear that they do a bit more than that, adding partisan POV commentary, and even sometimes cherrypicking comments out of context. I have found only one or two cases where Media Matters quoted a news article that was not readily available in its original form. When I see Media Matters being cited, I look to see what Media Matters itself is citing, find the original source, and change the citation to point to that rather than Media Matters. Done in this manner, I don't see how even the most partisan MM groupie could have anything to complain about. - Crockspot 18:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that, if the source is a broadcast that MM does an item on, it's better to cite the broadcast than cite MM. MM, however, can be a source for things like its own opinion or, as you suggest, for a broadcast that is difficult to find or source in its original form. Croctotheface 19:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I was wary of using them as a source myself, but if they are simply quoting other available publications, I'll opt to directly cite those sources here instead of referring to their website. --70.143.46.96 15:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

"...MM, however, can be a source for things like its own opinion ..." That's grand...assuming, of course, that their own opinion is kept on their own Wiki page. But such is not the case. Their opinions infest many Wiki pages.

And as far as "a broadcast that is difficult to find or source in its original form," I assure you if MM is commenting on something, they have the audio/video to go along with it. They may choose not to present it (if so, you should be suspicious). If they don't provide the audio/video, they cannot be validly sourced. I recommend only sourcing Media Matters if, 1) the actual audio/video is not available from either the original source or a more-or-less neutral and respected source (newspaper, television news program)...and 2) the actual audio/video is included in their report.

Too many people are elevating Media Matters to have the same level of respectability and accountability as trusted news sources like major newspapers or network/cable news. If you want Wikipedia to be an enyclopedia, then Media Matters' footprint on this site should be minimized. However, if you simply want Wikipedia to become a left-wing blog, let MM continue to delete facts negative about them (Hillary's video claims to helping start MM) and post their opinions on other pages (like interpretting what John Gibson meant when he said "have more babies"). Media Matters already has its own website...they don't need to be making a mirror of it here, for crying out loud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.58.248.33 (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of MM as a source is subject to the same guidelines and scrutiny as all reliable sourcing. If it is deemed for a particular article that MM's content is an acceptable RS that contributes to further the article, wikipedia does not suddenly convert into a left-wing blog, as you say. cheers, --guyzero | talk 18:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

But when Media Matters' opinion and analysis is treated as fact...yet Hillary Clinton's claims on tape to helping start MM is considered suspect (not the claim itself, but the fact that she said it)...well, that is indeed turning Wikipedia into a version of a left-wing opinion blog. It's a blatant double-standard that clearly favors liberal/Democrat politicians.

What gives Media Matters the authority to decide what's controversial and what isn't, as they often do on Wiki pages of conservative pundits? David Brock might find it "controversial" that John Gibson pointed out that a recent Osama bin Laden tape contained a lot of typical Democratic talking points...but Brock is clearly in the camp of the Democrats.

To be blunt, Media Matters will attack anyone that puts Democrats in a poor light, or anyone who doesn't adequately attack Republicans. Do Wiki-users really care about each and every complaint from a Democrat founded and Democrat funded organization? Should every single pro-conservative or anti-liberal utterance be treated as if it were "nappy headed ho's" or "John Edwards is a fag" or "Study hard in school or you'll get stuck in Iraq?"

Shouldn't a "controversial" statement ruffle someone else's feathers aside from those whose very job is that of a partisan political operative? Media Matters is a freakin' blog that is treated (at least on Wikipedia) like the New York Times, Washington Post, CBS Evening News, Fox News Channel, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.58.248.33 (talk) 19:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be suggesting that each and every article MM has written has been referenced on WP. That is hardly the case. Croctotheface (talk) 20:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Where to start?

* Hillary Clinton did not claim to have started Media Matters. She mentioned MMfA in a sentence which had complex phrasing, and right-wingers jumped on it in a misinterpretation, perhaps intentionally.

* MMfA does not "decide what's controversial," nor does it "attack anyone that puts Democrats in a poor light." It seeks out and highlights conservative misinformation. The interpretation, of what is controversial, is left to others.

* Finally, if the NY Times can't be bothered to do the legwork to ferret out the facts—to determine whether or not a politician or reporter is telling the truth or not—then somebody should. Sometimes that "somebody" is Media Matters for America.--HughGRex (talk) 11:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[Outdent] I have raised this issue in perhaps a better forum: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#MMFA_-_Media_Matters_for_America Perhaps you all care to contribute there as well. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Per NPOV, when the MM item is one side of a two-sided controversy, that's reasonable to include. MilesAgain (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Then why does that not apply to MEMRI, as discussed on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard page? And it still does not address the issue of notability, etc. And sometimes there is no two sides, indeed no controversy, except to MMfA only -- so anyone can complain, then that becomes a two sided controversy? If anyone could create controversy so easily, what would Wikipedia become? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware of whether MEMRI is, for instance, notoriously unreliable. While MM is certainly opinionated, I don't think there is much to the idea that they deal in untruths, despite the occasional "out of context" knee-jerk replies from people like O'Reilly. So MEMRI may be a similar case or it may not. As far as "notability", I don't really know how you're using the word. It is certainly not the case that WP:N is a factor here. Some of the things MM publishes are worthy of note in the encyclopedia, and some are not. You seem to be asserting that EVERYTHING Media Matters publishes receives attention on Wikipedia, and considering that they publish hundreds or thousands of items, I strongly doubt that even 5% are quoted or referenced here. Croctotheface (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, Croctotheface, I'm no wiki expert. I will defer to whatever is decided on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard page that discusses MMfA. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

In IMHO, MMfA's credibility is enhanced every time Bill O'Reilly criticizes it. He either indulges in name-calling ("far-left smear merchants" is a favorite) or accuses it of quoting him out of context. In the latter case, he never explains the context of his quoted speech. If he wanted to discredit MMfA, it should be fairly easy—if it is guilty as he charges.--HughGRex (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"Alleged" vs "said"

I'm not going to get involved in this edit war, but I have to say that while both terms are neutral, it's hard to get more neutral than "said" for when someone says something. MM's response comes shortly afterward, so I'm not concerned that "said" will somehow misinform the readers. Croctotheface (talk) 18:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that "said" seems pretty beneighn(sp) I would refer readers/editors to WP:WTA for further clarification. As you point out, the statement/claim/alegation/augument/ect is countered in the next following sentences and isn't just left out there. It also appears the the sources back up the funding claim. I don't know enough about this, but i am sure I will be enlightened :) Cheers, --Tom 19:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the recent edit to "According to Bill O'Reilly and others..." is a satisfactory compromise.-Hal Raglan (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton and Media Matters

I realize this is a hot button issue for Media Matters, but she clearly said what she said and it has been reported, for [[1]] for example. Arzel (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

We've been over this multiple times in the past. Croctotheface (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

And your point is what? It is still a point of discussion, and going through the history there doesn't appeat to be any type of concensus at this point. This biggest argument against inclusion is the lack of RS. Previously the debate has been if RS exist then it could be included. May I ask exactly what is your problem with inclusion? Arzel (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

That had not been my argument: my argument had been that we had no way to know what she meant by "helped start". The Washington Times article seems to just accept as a given that MM is "Clinton formed", but it doesn't actually provide evidence to that effect. The notion that people who donated to her campaign also donated funds that were used to start MM proves nothing. Your edit did not address the nature of the dispute, and it made a POV/OR determination that their expression of not being linked to a political party or candidate constituted a "passive denial", when in fact I suspect that they had that language on their site well before this business erupted. Regarding the Washington Times article, though, I'm OK with material in WP that discusses the notion that groups like MM are doing work that could be considered political. That's a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact in dispute. Croctotheface (talk) 18:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Clinton unambiguously says she HELPED START Media Matters in a speech and you say it depends on what "helped start" means? Unbelievable. This is reminiscent of Bill Clinton's dancing on the head of a pin about what the definition of the word "is" is. It is not Wikipedia's job to interpret what she meant. The simple fact is that SHE SAID IT. It is a notable claim that is independently verifiable and very pertinent to include here.70.58.66.127 (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The previous consensus regarding the comment was that the quote was too vague to include in the article, and that if it ever was to be added it should be when any follow-up information was provided by Clinton or Media Matters as to the actual meaning. No such further details seem to have been released. The quote certainly shouldn't be included in the way that Clinton/Media Matters-haters interpret it to mean, as "proof" that the Clintons are mastermind controllers behind MM. Its hilarious that the anonymous editor claims it isn't up to Wikipedia to "interpret" her comments when placing the comment in the "Funding sources" section is strictly interpretive.-Hal Raglan (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, putting it in the "Funding Sources" section is interpretive... So I suggest that we start a new section titled "Controversies" like many other entries have, and it would fit right in. 70.58.66.127 (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Kind of like this from FNC Controversies[[2]]. Fox News host Bill O'Reilly has stated that "Fox does tilt right," but that the network does not "actively campaign or try to help Bush-Cheney."[[3]]. The hypocritical nature surrounding MMfA on Wikipedia is quite astounding to say the least. They use video and audio clips to promote their point of view which gets linked here in vast amounts, yet when video or audio clips of something which might be viewed negatively against MMfA is added here the will to hide this information is unending, even when that information is backed up by RS. I have read through the history, there is no concensus to not include this well-documented statement. The primary reason for exclusion appears to be "I don't like it". The only question that we really have is in what way should it be incorporated to be presented in a neutral tone. Arzel (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Your "I don't like it" theory is a grotesquely simplistic misinterpretation of all previous commentary. If you've actually read thru the history, specifically Archive 2, you will see that there does indeed seem to be consensus not to include the quote. One of the numerous reasons was that it involved a possible BLP issue, as revealed by one of the more gleeful Clinton-haters who repeatedly claimed he wanted the quote in the article because he wanted it on record that Clinton "is a candidate for elective office claiming a role in starting a 501(c)3 organization prohibited from providing support to people running for elective office. Whether her role and support was or is illegal is wide open for debate..." While I still have some concerns regarding this, since the Clinton comment is undeniably real, if it can be added here in a completely neutral tone as you suggest, w/out the POV/OR problems of your recent attempt to insert the quote into the article, I would not argue against its inclusion.-Hal Raglan (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I read that section. I don't believe that that is a good reason to include. What I find most interesting, is that she said it. It is documented. It has been commented on by sources other than blogs. And that MMfA has not denied the quote, and in essense by lack of denial admits that it is true (not my OR, it is what is discussed in the WP). This is especially poignent given that MMfA vigorously denies any connection to Soros whenever BOR or others make that connection. And they vigorously defend Clinton for the most minor and mundane topics like NY Times' Healy, USA Today advanced myth that Clinton switched baseball allegiances [[4]]. Yet there is absolutely no mention of this subject, no mention of falsely attributing HRC to starting or helping to start CAP and MMfA. That said I think a simple sentence in the history or funding be stated that HRC stated at the Daily Kos convention that she helped start MMfA. It is reliabely sourced, it is verifiable, it is extremely notable, and it has not been denied by either HRC or MMfA. Arzel (talk) 04:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that it is "extremely notable"; it seems that conservatives love it for all the reasons the editor Hal quotes above did. I basically agree with Hal--if there is something neutral and relevant that we can say about this, then OK, but I don't really see what that would be. If we don't actually understand what she means by "helped start", it's not really informative to throw it out there without any kind of context. The context you suggest is relevant is basically all OR and POV. Croctotheface (talk) 08:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The leading Democratic presidential candidate says she helped start MM and you say that is not notable? I already stated what could be said in a neutral tone. The additional context I mentioned is not mine, it is what was reported in the WP so it is not OR. What is so hard to understand about "helping to start"? Arzel (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

What's "hard to understand" is that there is no way of knowing, simply based on the quote itself, what Clinton meant. Also, I probably missed something but what do you mean by "reported in the WP"? Has the Washington Post done an article on Clinton's comment and her alleged affiliation with MM? The only reference I noted before was to the Moonies rag, The Washington Times. -Hal Raglan (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops meant the WT, but I see you have already dissmissed this source. But it is a reliable source, if MMfA america can be used for a source then I don't see why the WT cannot be used. Arzel (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

If the Washington Times published a story that demonstrated that Clinton "formed" MM, I would be OK with putting information to that effect in the article. Merely saying that the group is "Clinton-formed" does not establish anything, especially when the evidence supporting that assertion is just that there exist people who have donated to both MM and Clinton's campaign. Again, that doesn't prove anything. Croctotheface (talk) 18:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this completely. When and if actual facts emerge, they can be placed in the article, but until then this encyclopedia article shouldn't be a conduit for extreme interpretations of out of context quotes. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 18:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This is the exact same consensus reasoning represented in the previous lengthy discussion regarding this issue. As noted by MrMurph101 in Archive Two, "there needs to be more pieces of this puzzle to get the scope of the matter presented properly and within policy. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not the latest news and rumours." Until that happens, simply dropping the quote into the article sans context seems a little absurd.-Hal Raglan (talk) 19:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Then I hope all involved here will back me in similar situations where MM is used as the primary source for their POV. Arzel (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You're not proposing to add material that references some opinion that originates in the Washington Times. The issue is whether, as the WT states, MMfA is "Clinton-formed". That's not a matter of opinion; it's a matter of fact. Considering that there is no convincing support for the idea, it would be irresponsible to include it here. When MM is "used as the primary source for its POV", it's a matter of opinion, not fact. Croctotheface (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Lose indent - I made no such assertation. Simply that HRC stated that she "helped start" MM and CAP. It is well referenced, and it is true. The only question is what the context is. Similarly BOR stated that "..Fox does tilt right.." to which MMfA used as evidence that BOR admits FOX is biased and subsequently is used within the FNC Controversies article as evidence that FOC is biased. However what is lost is the context. MMfA fails to note that what BOR is referring is that his statement was directly related to the war in Iraq, in that FNC supports president Bush in that area. BOR does not explicitly state that BOR says FNC is biased to the right, but that is how it is presented their and here in WP. I only bring this up here because my recent removal of that information their was reverted by Gamaliel when they are in effect the same thing. A biased group taking one persons word and giving their own interpretation which is then used against them in some way. The biggest difference is that one is viewed acceptable while one is not, I'll let you guess which is which. This is not the only instance of Hypocracy involving MMfA in WP.

Now if we can all get off our high horses on this perhaps we can make WP a better place, less a place for MMfA and other similar groups to promote their personal agenda. So what say all of you? Arzel (talk) 01:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Omitting the quote entirely seems POV to me. It has created quite a stir. Look at all the mundane minutiae documenting every tiny little controversy on Michael Savage's entry in the section entitled "Controversies." The solution seems obvious to me, we start a "Controversies" section like many other entries have and detail both sides of the issue there. Short and sweet, like this; document the quote, and then document how MMfA denies any ties to any candidate. Simple, and represented for what it is, controversial. 70.58.66.127 (talk) 03:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It may be the case that there is too much "minutiae" about criticism of Savage. It may also be the case that most coverage of him in reliable sources deals with criticism. In either case, we are not bound by any kind of "what would the editors of Michael Savage do" standard. This article already has a criticism standard--if there were some foundation to a criticism based on the Hillary bit, then we could include it. As it is, and I realize that I'm repeating myself at this point--we just don't know what Hillary meant when she said "helped start". Considering that this quote is basically the only foundation for the criticism/controversy, it is irresponsible to include it. To the extent that there have been accusations that there are violations of campaign finance law, there is also a [{WP:BLP]] concern as far as Clinton goes. Croctotheface (talk) 07:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

What on earth COULD "help start" mean but HELPED START?!70.58.66.127 (talk) 07:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak to that case, but if the scope of O'Reilly's comment is unclear (or if he clearly just means they tilt right regarding the war), then that should be clear in the text. If the quote is unremarkable with these changes, it should be omitted. Regarding the Hillary Clinton quote, my argument has nothing to do with references, truth, or context. I have said all along that we don't know what she means when she says "helped start", and we have no information that helps us understand what that means. To include something like this when we have no way of understanding what it actually means does not inform our readers whatsoever. Croctotheface (talk) 04:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this will clear things up. Words do still have definitions.
help (verb) 1. To give assistance to; aid. 2. To contribute to the furtherance of; promote.
start (verb) 1. To commence; begin. 2. To set into motion, operation, or activity. 3. To introduce; originate.
70.58.66.127 (talk) 07:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

She actually said "start and support" and "institutions...like", naming the Center for American Progress as well as MMfA. A more reasonable, non-conspiratorial interpretation would be that she merely supports the work of organizations like CAP and MMfA. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 14:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"Helped start" could mean dozens of different things. "Aid and assistance" could mean that she expresses her support for the work they do. It could mean she wants her people to return their calls. It could mean she donated money. Or, it could mean that she has some sort of illegal relationship like people have been crowing about. "Set in motion" could mean asking somebody to start the group. It could mean asking someone who wants to work for her staff to instead accept a job offer from MM instead. It could mean donating money. Or it could mean this illegal relationship that people have been crowing about. There are probably dozens of other combinations of ways to define the terms. Considering that there is this range of meaning and we have no insight into what it is, and considering that attempting to deduce that strictly from the comments and some ambiguous related facts would run afoul of WP:NPOV and WP:OR, there is no informative purpose to including this information. Croctotheface (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with your stance, but it is not a reason to exclude this controversy from the entry about MMfA. It should be included, and represented as controversial, with no interpretations of what Senator "meant." Her words can speak for themselves, and MMfA's policy of "no ties to any candidate" can speak for itself. It should be transparently reported and mentioned on the entry, as what it is, a controversy in a new section titled "Controversies." I suggest no interpretation or misrepresentation, ONLY information. 70.58.66.127 (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

My position, to reiterate, is that it is NOT informative to recount words when we have no insight into what they mean. Croctotheface (talk) 17:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Why would we, or anyone, consider Clinton's remark "controversial" if the exact meaning is unclear? Anonymous, your suggestion does interpret/represent the quote in the POV manner you want. By dumping the quotation by itself into a "Controversies" section you are inserting negative reporting of her comment. None of us here knows what Clinton meant, not even you. If/when further information is developed by reliable sources regarding this issue, the quote and all pertinent details can be added to the article.-Hal Raglan (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. This discussion has come full-circle a couple of times now, both in this round and in the previously archived one. We should consider it settled until any new credible information arises. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Lose Indent- Airbrushing it out completely is POV, and entirely interprets it by omission.
70.58.66.127 (talk) 23:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This is true only to the extent that casting any kind of editorial judgment about anything is "POV". Incidentally, though I'm guilty of this as well, I don't like using "POV" as an adjective. You mean to suggest that if we omit the quote, we are editing from a non-neutral POV. If you concede, as you appear to, that the quote's meaning is unclear and that we have no way of knowing what it is, I can't see why you feel that it can have any informative value at all. You have yet to respond to this argument that I've made. Croctotheface (talk) 00:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The quote's meaning is self evident, perfectly clear, and in context. Your argument that we can't possibly know what "helped started" means is merely a cop-out intended to stuff the words back into from whence they came. These words are definable, not vague, and your interpretations of what they COULD mean are laughable. I'm not surprised. The only reason NOT to include this information would be if it were a verifiable lie. 70.58.66.127 (talk) 01:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

If it's so obvious how Hillary Clinton "helped start" Media Matters, could you tell us what she did? Croctotheface (talk) 05:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm done repeating myself, we've gone through it all already. 70.58.66.127 (talk) 09:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you haven't addressed this point at all. You've simply asserted that it is the case and dismissed all other alternative interpretations without presenting any facts at all. If it is so obvious and clear, then you will have no problem answering the question. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 14:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Since the only dissenting voice here has noted that he/she has nothing else to add, we should bring this discussion to a close until more actual facts develop.-Hal Raglan (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a verifiable fact that Hillary Clinton made a statement that she helped start Media Matters. The audio and video is readily available. This FACT can, and should, be presented on this page. Feel free to include Media Matters denial of this as well. But don't leave out hard, verifiable facts (meaning, her statement, not the interpretation) just because Media Matters would rather Hillary didn't say such a thing.

It's funny that Media Matters drones post OPINIONS (not facts) all over Wikipedia and are treated as gospel...but the second a VERIFIABLE FACT appears that might hurt their image, it's suddenly not a reliable source. Media Matters has their own webpage. Don't make Wikipedia a mirror site! Ynot4tony (talk) 03:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

We are not obligated to include any and all verifiable information into the encyclopedia. How can a statement like "helped start and support", which has dozens of viable interpretations, be informative if we don't know what actually happened. Do you know what it is that she did? What does "helped start" mean in this case? Croctotheface (talk) 04:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Colbert?

I don't think the Colbert bit is totally irrelevant--the message of his satire was that it's silly for people like Limbaugh to blame MM when all MM does is report stuff Limbaugh said. The piece that went in the article was too long, but Colbert's opinion is not by definition irrelevant to the Limbaugh criticism bit. Croctotheface (talk) 05:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Colbert is a comedian doing political satire. Everything he does is to generate a laugh. He is simply not a reliable source. Arzel (talk) 12:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Reliable source? He's being used as as a source for his opinion, as expressed in his comedy. Croctotheface (talk) 17:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is his opinion done while acting matter at all? It is not germaine to the issue at all. Arzel (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

He's a commentator addressing the issue. The fact that there is a comic conceit involved doesn't somehow mean his POV can't be relevant. Croctotheface (talk) 18:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There are plenty of other commentators whose opinion is included in this article, so there doesn't seem to be a basis for excluding Colbert's. The fact that he uses satire as a device for delivering his political opinion is irrelevant. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, you all do realize he is an actor. Are you suggesting that the word of comediens should be considered for political commentary? I love Colbert, but he is character acting. If you can get his views on Bears onto the Bear article, or his view on Elephants onto the Elephant article then you have something. Exactly which point of view are you trying to portray? Arzel (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're arguing here. There is not a reliable sources concern here. The information is sourced and verifiable. It's not as if Colbert made some dubious statement of fact; this has to do with his opinion. Your argument seems to be that because he's a comedian as well as a political commentator, his opinion can never be reported on? Croctotheface (talk) 06:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

What don't you understand? The character Colbert plays when he does the Colbert Show is NOT HIM. It is a fixtional character that he created based in part off BOR. You are attempting to use a fictional character as a reference, why not just referece Cartman while you are at it. I seriously cannot believe that you are trying to use political satire from a fiction character to advance your position. Arzel (talk) 07:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to advance any position; I'm trying to represent multiple points of view here. All the facts you bring up about Colbert do not in any way disqualify his opinion. His POV is relevant and not mentioned elsewhere in the section, so it strikes me as valid to include. Unlike Cartman, Colbert is both a comedian and political commentator, and he delivers his commentary by playing a character. The fact that he uses a comic conceit does not make him less of a commentator or disqualify his opinion as you seem to believe it should. Croctotheface (talk) 07:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

That is based off the premise that he believes everything he says is true. Look, I love Colbert. I watch the show most nights, but what he says on the show is done for comedic relief. You start using his comments as a reliable source to either promote a criticism or defray a criticism and you have to allow him in every article. There is already precidence against using him on the Bear article. He presents all of his views from an extreme perspective. His own fictional bio describes himself as an untra-conservative. By his own defintion he is extreme (at least in his fictional self). This alone violates WP:RS by making his fictional self an extreme source. How do you diferentiate between the two? Arzel (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, his statement is ironic. His actual meaning is clear and described in the text you keep removing. You seem to suggest that because Colbert does comedy, we can never ever know what his point is. None of his statements can ever have any meaning because part of his schtick involves being afraid of bears. I really don't think that's a coherent position. The meaning of his statement is clear, the point is valid, there's no reason to exclude it. Croctotheface (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so you claim to know his meaning even though he is doing political satire? That would be a violation of OR and Synthesis of material. Arzel (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Comedians are not held to the same level of accountability for their statements as serious political commentators. As such, Colbert cannot be viewed as a credible source. Politicians don't call for the disciplinary action of Colbert. They do for Lou Dobbs, David Shuster, and Don Imus, to name a few. Their words bear more weight. 74.134.102.134 (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Really? And what "level of accountability" are say, Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh held to? You're actually claiming that it is a higher standard than Stephen Colbert? Again, the use of satire does not invalidate political commentary. It is included as political opinion, not fact and is therefore acceptable. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You are aware that this is the discussion page for an article describing watchdog group that tries to keep those political commentators accountable, right? ;) Notice they don't list satirists and artists on there. 74.134.102.134 (talk) 01:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, I apologize for the edits. I stumbled upon this article and I was blown away that someone was using Colbert as a source. You are right, I am not an experienced editor. I do not have an account on here. But here's an anonymous user vote against using Colbert as a source. 74.134.102.134 (talk) 01:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

<- outdent. There is no OR or Synthesis in the quote you keep removing. I fail to see how Colbert's quote is unacceptable -- with accurate context provided "character of right wing pundit, satirically.." -- while the National Review opinion is OK when they are both discussing Limbaugh's phony soldier controversy -- a situation that played itself out within the media. --guyzero | talk 23:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You act like an article in the National Review is equal to a comedy bit by an actor playing a fake personality. The point is this. Colbert, when doing the Colbert Show is a fictional character. Let me ask you all this. Would you use "The Onion" as a reliable source in this context? His show is a PARODY, it is not a real potitical commentary program. He takes news, general political news, and presents them in a way that takes the extreme point of view and turns it into comedy. The comments of a fictional character are simply not a reliable source. Arzel (talk) 00:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Five editors have addressed this issue: four on the talk page and the one who made the initial edit. Four of them believe that we can include this material, and you are alone in believing that we can't. That looks like a consensus to include it to me, so you should really stop trying to force your version through by reverting. Otherwise, no, being able to recognize irony is not original research: it's just a matter of understanding the language. Must we go through and find any quote where someone uses irony or any other non-literal rhetorical device and delete them on the grounds that understanding them is a form of original research? Croctotheface (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

WP is not a democracy, just because a few MM fanboys are wanting to include the opinion of a fictional character doesn't warrent inclusion. If you want to reach a concensus, perhaps you should present a RfC first. Least I remind that reason for inclusion resides with those including the material. To this point you have provided no valid reason for inclusion. You have failed to explain how you avoid violations of WP:RS under sections of Extremist Sources, not to mention that this is a fictional character. In as much your explanation of what Colbert is saying is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to promote a point of view. Arzel (talk) 04:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that there's any explanation that can convince you. As I said, there is a difference between understanding what someone is saying and doing research about it. I don't think that being able to identify satire is "research" in any sense, and I don't think you or anyone else can provide a remotely plausible explanation for what Colbert is saying that goes against the text you keep removing. As I said, Colbert is a political satirist. The fact that he uses irony or a comic conceit (he is not a "fictional character" the way you suggest he is; he's a real person who plays a character for the purpose of satire) somehow disqualifies his opinion. Also, four editors who believe one thing with a lone editor who disagrees seems like consensus to me. Since everyone who has weighed in agrees with me and nobody agrees with you, I don't need to find more opinions. Besides, you'd just dismiss them anyway, as you just did here. Croctotheface (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I was on the fence. . .on the one hand it's verifiable, on the other. . .just because something is verifiable doesn't mean it should necessarily be in an article. But the use of the word 'fanboys' has persuaded me. Arzel has made an attack on the editors and not the edit. Therefore, I move from my fence position to include the colbert text. Hey, it doesn't hurt. And reading over it, it is meaningful text. R. Baley (talk) 08:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Colbert doesn't even write his own stuff. At least some satirists do... so when can I quote some Michael Savage in the article without it being reverted? Or is only left-leaning satire worthy of inclusion? Amazing that an ACTOR doing an ACT is being quoted here, and I can't put in what someone running for President said about "helping start MMfA." I know, I know, that's not the issue here... But to quote Colbert? This just goes to help prove what I already knew about the level of seriousness on Wikipedia. 70.58.66.127 (talk) 05:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any attempts to introduce a Savage quote in your edit history. I'm not sure what you have in mind: the quote could be relevant or it might not be. As far as Hillary, if you could answer my question about what it is that she did, then maybe we could include it. Since you don't know, I don't see how the quote could possibly be informative when it could mean dozens of different things. Croctotheface (talk) 06:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

We should include it. Satire is an essential part of political commentary and has been for centuries. After all, Thomas Swift didn't really believe that poor children should be cooked and served to the rich when he wrote A Modest Proposal. If someone editorialized the exact same point Colbert is making (that the reason MM is so hated is because they make available to the public that which was only intended for a small agreeable audience), I don't think we would be having this discussion. So Arzel's entire argument comes down to his belief that the use of satire automatically invalidates the opinion and demonstrating satire is an argument against inclusion. That's simply absurd. Like it or not, Colbert is a political commentator and an influential one at that. See his performance with Bush at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Dinner to see just how effective he can be at criticizing someone under the guise of praising them. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually my arguement, in case you have missed it, is that Colbert (on the Colbert Show) is an act, it is fake. He has stated several times that his character is not him. I know several people have a hard time with this, but SC the Character, is a fictional character. Why some people here feel necessary to use a fictional character to promote their POV is beyond me. You might as well quote Bugs Bunny, or Cartmann for the same effect. The irony here, is that Colbert is soo good at his act that many people get the real Colbert confused with the fake Colbert. His presidential stunt is a perfect example. Arzel (talk) 06:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Right, he doesn't mean what he literally says. He uses irony. It's satire. The fact that the character is not him explains that he is not actually blaming Media Matters for the controversy. It's clear that the point of his commentary is to satirize the notion that right wingers would say MM is to blame for the criticism they get when all MM does is post transcripts of their stuff. The edit in question clearly explains that Colbert is in character when he makes these remarks. Your argument seems to be something like "because Colbert uses a comic conceit of a fictional character, he is incapable of putting forth an opinion." Even if it's ambiguous what Colbert personally thinks about the issue, the opinion he expresses can't be relevant. Croctotheface (talk) 06:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, you are confusing the two. Try to think of Colbert the Character as Peter Parker from Spider-Man, with Parker giving his perspective on something. Now, would you say this is actually Tobey Maguire thoughts? No you wouldn't, just in the same light you are assuming that Colbert the Character's thoughts are equivilant to Colbert the person. Your argument is that Colbert the PERSON is using Colbert the CHARACTER to convey Colbert the PERSON's opinion, when Colbert the PERSON has stated quite often that Colbert the CHARACTER is NOT Colbert the PERSON. So tell me, how can you use Colbert the CHARACTER's position as opinion of Colbert the PERSON when Colbert the PERSON has already stated they ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PEOPLE? Your other argument is synthesis of material, because you have no way to know what the heck Colbert the person is thinking about anything, it is part of the brilliance of that character. Arzel (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to suspect that you don't actually understand what political satire is. There doesn't seem to be any other explanation for why you keep trying to "prove" to us that he is playing a character even though we keep explaining that it is satire. Of course he's playing a character! That's the whole point. In this particular instance he is satirically defending O'Reilly and criticizing Media Matters (in a way that, in fact, makes mockery of O'Reilly's position). Likewise, when took the dais at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Dinner and spent a half hour praising Bush, he was actually issuing a blistering criticism. To pretend otherwise is simply to be willfully obtuse. Are you suggesting that Thomas Swift was actually advocating that poor children be fed to the rich when he wrote A Modest Proposal? --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, Hello, I have already stated that it is satire, it is the first thing I stated. The problem is that it is a fake persona doing the satire. I am aware of his satirical attack on Bush as well (I am a fan of Colbert). The fact that I am able to differentiate between the two (Real and Fake) is no fault of mine. Arzel (talk) 00:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You're still missing the point. It is not "a fake persona doing the satire." The real person is doing the satire. The fake persona is the satire. Do you see the difference? Stephen Colbert the satirist pretends to espouse arguments he does not actually support (as his character). But he does so satirically, to highlight the ridiculousness of many of those arguments. To use the Swift example again, the fact that he didn't actually believe what he was writing does not invalidate his point. In fact, it strengthened it. That's the essence of satire. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Real Person Stephen Colbert was employing the straw man logical fallacy. Source: the wikipedia article for Straw man setup (4) Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, such that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical. 74.134.102.134 (talk) 01:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Look Loony, I understand the situation, the problem is that you fail to grasp the difference between the two. You keep going back to Swift, but they are not the same situation. Swift (I am guessing) wrote his own stuff to begin with, plus he wrote it as himself, providing satire as himself. Another good example is Lewis Black, who does a great deal of political Satire, as himself. Colbert, has created a fictional character. This fictional character is part of an act, but it is not himself. Furthermore, he doesn't write his own stuff, thus what he said could not even be said to be his OWN opinion. Why not get down to the real issue, you, Media Matters, and others are trying to belittle the situation by using Colberts comedic act as a way to ridicule Limbaugh's position. In reality it makes MM look very childish, but that is besides the point. I want to make sure that other people view WP as a reliable source of information, and when sources like Colbert (who I like) are used in situations like this, it makes the whole project look like a joke. So pick your side, make WP look like a respected form of information on the internet, or continue to have it viewed as an unreliable source of information for anything scholarly. Arzel (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Colbert is the head of the writing staff. Yes, the show has writers, but it's not as if they're just handing him a script to read. He is in charge of the content of the show. He decides what he's going to talk about. But what does that have to do with anything? Do you think that Brian Williams or Katie Couric write their own newscasts every night? As for Swift, no he wasn't writing as himself. He was writing in the voice of somebody who believes the opposite of what he believes (and ridiculing their arguments in the process). That is exactly what Colbert does. It has nothing to do with "source." Colbert isn't being used as a source for anything other than his own commentary. I'm sorry, but you haven't made any convincing case that Limbaugh criticizing MM is relevant but Colbert's derision of that criticism isn't.--Loonymonkey (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This article does not present Limbaugh's criticism on its own. It does present a criticism presented by the National Review that came to the defense of Limbaugh. The difference is important, because the credibility of that accusation falls upon The National Review and not Limbaugh. This is precisely why the inclusion of the Stephen Colbert quote on its own is in bad form. You should really point out that Media Matters attempted to defend its own integrity by citing the support of Stephen Colbert. 74.134.102.134 (talk) 02:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion

Time to call this one dead... Six editors (add me to the list) have now tried to show or explain to Arzel what satire is... if he continues to either misunderstand or be obstinant, I don't see how it should require repeating the same information ad infinitum. This isn't the first place he's tried to do the "Colbert isn't really criticising" thing, and I think consensus is clear. Game over, Arzel. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You should probably also say game over to me, too, because I side with editor Arzel. I checked the reference for the Colbert quote and saw that it was from Media Matters for America. It became clearer to me what motivated an editor to insert that quote, given that source article. However, by not saying something like "Media Matters for America further defended themselves by quoting Stephen Colbert's caricature of a right-wing pundit which said <Colbert quote>", you are introducing POV. Without that attribution, you are taking Media Matters for America's point of view by becoming their voice and repeating the Colbert quote that they used as a rebuttal. 74.134.102.134 (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Your idea of what an editors' motivation may be is both speculative and irrelevant... nor do I buy your argument that without characterizing the quote we are "introducing POV". In any case, consensus is clear. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 07:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You're introducing POV because it is not your place to parrot Colbert's argument. You reported the accusation made by the National Review. You reported the rebuttal as given by Media Matters. It is not your place to throw in an additional comment by Stephen Colbert to defend the position of Media Matters. It's redundant and irrelevant. I speculated on the editors' motivation because I was giving him or her the benefit of the doubt-- that they were providing more information regarding Media Matters' rebuttal. However, because of the way the paragraph reads, it sounds like Stephen Colbert's remark is used by the author of the article to support the position of Media Matters. It should be that the author of the article writes the paragraph such that both viewpoints are represented but in a balanced manner. The additional Colbert "gotcha!" remark adds an imbalance in favor of Media Matters. Also, I'm not digging this "consensus" thing. I just got here, and after reading the pages of all of you it looks like you have longstanding bones to pick with each other that has nothing to do with coming to an objective debate of this particular issue. 74.134.102.134 (talk) 08:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Consider this passage from Funding Sources: According to Bill O'Reilly and others, George Soros is funding Media Matters through Democracy Alliance -- an organization of progressive donors. The Democracy Alliance does not collect and distribute money on behalf of its members. Alliance members donate directly to the organizations of their choice. Media Matters has stated publicly on numerous occasions that Soros has never given money to the organization either directly or through another organization. O'Reilly's accusation of Media Matters is presented, and Media Matters' response is presented. Would it be appropriate to add a reference to a political cartoon which mocks the O'Reilly's accusation of Media Matters? Would it be appropriate to add a reference to a political cartoon which mocks Media Matters' response to O'Reilly? It would be redundant because O'Reilly's accusation and Media Matters' response has already been stated, and irrelevant to an informational article because a cartoon is the opinion of a third party whose credibility is not at stake in that matter. 74.134.102.134 (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Cybercast News Source

Should the qualifier "conservative" be added to the Cybercast News Source reference in the Funding Sources section? CNS used to be called Conservative News Source and the wikipedia page for it identifies it as a conservative leaning news website. I think the text should be changed to "According to the conservative Cybercast News Service, ..." This would maintain consistency, since in the Criticisms section the National Review is identified with the conservative qualifier. From my understanding, the National Review is more well-known to be a conservative-biased publication than CNS. 74.134.102.134 (talk) 04:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It's generally considered poor wikipedia style to do so, unless they self identify as such. That said, I've never been thrilled about the inclusion of that financing claim with CNS as the only source as they are a pseudo-journalistic outfit at best and generally unreliable. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert Remark (moved from Croctotheface's user talk page at their request)

Stephen Colbert Remark on Media Matters for America article

Please consider re-writing or deleting the Stephen Colbert remark found on the Media Matters for America page. The context of Stephen Colbert's remark is not fully explained, and its insertion into the article may be misleading. The paragraph on the Media Matters for America article is:

In September 2007, the conservative National Review accused Media Matters of creating a "phony controversy" and trying to "manufacture outrage" regarding Rush Limbaugh's controversial remark about "phony soldiers". The National Review wrote that Media Matters took Limbaugh out of context and suggested that they may have intended to present a "completely false account of what happened".[34] Media Matters has argued that their item was accurate and included context and that Limbaugh and his defenders sought to remove context to cast his remarks in a more favorable light.[35] Stephen Colbert, in character as a right-wing pundit, satirically blamed Media Matters for the controversy. "By posting [Limbaugh's remarks] on the Internet," Colbert said, "the general public [heard] words that were meant for people who already agree with us. Hey, Media Matters, you want to end offensive speech? Then stop recording it for people who would be offended."[36]

The greater context of Colbert's comment, as found in http://mediamatters.org/items/200710090001 is:

JOHN GIBSON (Fox News host): [W]ho started this phony war? ... Answer ... Media Matters for America.

COLBERT: That's right. Hatemongers like Media Matters take innocent statements like mine, Rush Limbaugh's, John Gibson's, and Bill O'Reilly's and make them offensive by posting them on the Internet, allowing the general public to hear words that were meant for people who already agree with us.

Colbert's retort was made in response to John Gibson's attack on Media Matters for America. Gibson said that MMfA was at fault for reporting the issue alone -- simply raising questions. Colbert's opinion may be relevant with respect to that remark, but Gibson's comment is not stated in the MMfA article. Colbert's words do not address the contention of the National Review: that MMfA themselves took Limbaugh out of context. The National Review criticized the way that Limbaugh's statements were reported in the MMfA story -- not that it was reported at all -- so Colbert's comment does not make sense in the context of this paragraph. 98.215.54.162 (talk) 04:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC) (74.134.102.134)

First, this comment would be more appropriate for the article talk page. Second, Colbert is indeed satirizing the notion that Media Matters did something other than post Limbaugh's remarks. Perhaps the entry could be clearer, but I don't think it's unresponsive to the topic being covered at the article. Croctotheface (talk) 04:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I tried to comment on the talk page, but you guys said you had consensus after one user was unsuccessful in making the case for its removal. My point is not being addressed. It was not the claim of the National Review that MMfA should not be writing critical stories. That was the nature of John Gibson's comment, which Colbert was addressing. But you left that out. So, how can Colbert's statement be relevant? 98.215.54.162 (talk) 04:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This discussion should be taking place there, not here, even if the consensus has been established. If you have a new point to bring up, then go ahead. Colbert makes the point that all MM does is post transcripts of what people said. The Limbaugh defenders claim that the transcripts were somehow misleading, and that's why people were offended. Colbert says people were offended because they saw what Limbaugh said. It's certainly relevant. Croctotheface (talk) 04:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Colbert's joke is a straw man argument then, if John Gibson's remark was to represent all of Limbaugh's defenders. Of course there were conservatives who saw what Media Matters had written about Limbaugh and were upset. The only person to argue that Media Matters should be blamed for writing the story in the first place was Gibson. And Colbert responded to that. Colbert's quoted remark did not respond to the point of the National Review which was that MMfA took Limbaugh out of context. 98.215.54.162 (talk) 05:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Trying to see where you are coming from here. Are you suggesting that because Media Matters for America posts excerpts of transcripts that they are immune to taking people out of context? By selecting and emphasizing certain portions of text, choosing to include and omit parts, a point of view can be created. 98.215.54.162 (talk) 05:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)