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 Would replacing the (outdated) lead picture with one of the updated site be acceptable?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.) 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)

Liberal v progressive

Could any of the editors watching over this page please explain what is this nonsense about "progressive" being the "correct" term to describe liberal politics? Is this an endemic term? Furthermore, considering the universality of WP, if the term "progressive" has evolved over in America to such an extent as to become the only accepted word, should its use not be clearly qualified so that non US-based readers can understand that it's use applies, in particular, to American political language? I think US-based editors should remember that English has become lingua franca, that there are millions of native English speakers outside America, and that WP is meant to be neutral.--Ianonne89 (talk) 10:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

You are very wrong about non-US readers. In the UK at least, "liberal" has a long and honourable history in politics, and means something very different than it does in modern American political use. As a general rule, it is much better to avoid sticking labels on a subject, since that is an editorial judgement, and if a label is to be used at all, it should be one by which the organization self-describes. --NSH001 (talk) 12:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Please read the Talk archives where this issue has been discussed at great length, then discuss if you wish to attempt to reach a new consensus. Rostz (talk) 13:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Good morning editors, precisely because in the UK "liberal" is a term widely accepted that does not have pejorative connotations, is that I don't understand why would America-centric editors claim that after reaching consensus, presumably among themselves, that term is not to be used, and is to be changed by "progressive." So what does this means, I wonder, that only Democrats are progressive? That Conservatives, or their American version, Republicans aren't? Liberal and Conservatives are not charged terms, in pretty much the same way of neutral Democrats and Republicans. Therefore, I'll ask again, why the need to differentiate along endemic political causes that are of no interest to the wider world? As a Brit, and native English speaker, I'd say non US-based editors should discuss this and try to maintain WP as a neutral source as much as possible. Until such discussion takes place, I'm reverting to plain English.--Ianonne89 (talk) 13:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Greetings. Deficiencies in your understanding of the nuances of a different nations political system and terminology is not justification to change the used labels. Even if you do not completely accept the long standing consensus to prefer the organization's self-description, it is a clear and open violation of WP:ENGVAR to rewrite an article about a US based organization in British English. The simple fact is the UK meaning of "liberal" is not the same as the US meaning of the same term. --Allen3 ^talk 15:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec) You appear to be providing original research; sources? If your argument that "progressive" has distinct meanings between the US and the UK/rest-of-world, that's also true of "liberal", which has strongly negative connotations in the US (e.g. Who Are They Calling Elitist?), so that gets us nowhere. According to MOS:TIES, "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation."
In any case, it's unclear what part of WP:NOT your undo comment refers to, but procedurally you must follow WP:BRD to achieve new WP:CONSENSUS for this change, employing WP:DR procedures as needed rather than edit-warring - note WP:EW/WP:3RR in the event you're unaware of it. Rostz (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Greetings to all. Thanks for calling me deficient, that'll certainly add positively to the discussion, won't it? Folks, I have no interest whatsoever in engaging in a long and protracted debate about US-centric nuances of certain terms of the English language. That great invention called the dictionary suffices in my opinion. The term liberal does not have negative connotations anywhere but in America, it seems, and I am not the one saying that progressive has distinct meaning, rather whoever agreed to it is. Because in other parts the meaning is not the same, I think it would be appropriate to qualify the term, and I don't see the harm in doing so. In any case, none of you have given a clear explanation as to why "progressive" is the correct term to describe exclusively "liberal" organizations, politicians, etc. Perhaps some of you can point out where can one read literature on appropriation of terms for political reasons in America.--Ianonne89 (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, you might want to read through the archives of this talk page for further explanation. This has been discussed to death and consensus is clear. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Progressive is simply a rebranding of Liberal or maybe a return to the term from the early 20th century because of implied negative connetations regarding the word Liberal. It also allows Liberals(Democrats) to claim that they are moving forward with progress while conservatives(Republicans) are regressive and moving backwards. It is quite clever. Convervatives tried to rebrand themselves in the late 20th with neo-conservative(new conservative or compasionate conservative as it were), but the Liberals were able to quickly turn the word into Neocon, which has a nice bad sound to it, probably similar to the supposed bad sound of Liberal. As a result you have Liberals strongly claiming that they are actually Progressives (a distinction without any difference) and Conservatives have completely dropped Neocon. So if you want to piss off the left call them a Liberal. If you want to piss off the right call them a Neocon. Here is one quick recent read [1] Arzel (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

It is just such a shame that simple things, like calling things according to dictionary definitions, are ever so difficult to achieve in WP, specially considering "Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve the purposes of an international encyclopaedia." WP:COMMONALITY. I have read some of the previous debates, and it seems that consensus was reached among the American-based participants, hence it is far from clear. As a matter of policy you guys are entitled to to be bold, though turning WP into a US-centric encyclopaedia, where only your local colloquialism and vernacular are to accepted does the overall purpose more harm than good. As per implied negative connotations of the word liberal, perhaps in America, certainly not in the UK, or anywhere else, as far I can tell. Though I'd appreciate if US-based editors can convince me otherwise.--Ianonne89 (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)