Talk:Media Matters for America

New section

Volunteer_Marek could we talk about this? I agree that there would be issues of WP:DUE if it was something like a passing mention in a single source, but the material you're removing was the major focus of articles from The Hill, Newsweek, The Wrap, Business Insider and WashPo, in which Wemple specifically notes the tension given Carusone's public role and MMFA's mission. A short paragraph, not in the lead, placing the matter in context does not seem WP:UNDUE. NPalgan2 (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you, NPalgan. I don't see how it is UNDUE to include the Carusone stuff yet DUE to include the Carlson stuff. The incidents and coverage are related and it doesn't make sense to only cover one or the other. The Carusone stuff was dug up as a retaliation for the Carlson stuff. It's part of the same story and notable. Surely we can cover both the Carlson and Carusone incidents in a way that reflects the available sourcing, which is robust. Marquardtika (talk) 02:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I see several problems with it. First, it's only tangentially connected to the topic of the section ("Tucker Carlson blog posts"), being a slight sub-controversy that received only brief coverage; second, the sourcing doesn't really do much to establish due weight, given that eg. the entire focus of the Newsweek source is that it didn't attract much attention. Devoting an entire paragraph to something with coverage like that doesn't seem due. --Aquillion (talk) 03:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Circular argument - the topic of the section was previously "Tucker Carlson and Carusone blog posts" before VM reverted. Yes, the Tucker Carlson remarks got more coverage but I really think that 5 separate sources should be enough. NPalgan2 (talk) 03:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

(And I would not say the "entire focus" the Newsweek article is that the controversy received little/inadequate media attention- it quotes Trump Jr saying that; and in any case Trump tweeted prior to the publication of the sources quoted in the article.) NPalgan2 (talk) 03:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that the weight is due relative to the section. The only issue is how much weight the section deserves, if any, in the article. Finding ill-advised comments by Carlson isn't in the same league of investigative journalism as say Woodward and Bernstein. TFD (talk) 03:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

At a bare minimum, I don't think it's viable to mention the Daily Caller accusations in this context without also mentioning that it's Carlson's website - that's the only thing that connects it to the topic of the section. Without that connection we would have to remove it entirely as off-topic. --Aquillion (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree, but my edits to include that fact keep being voided as if some editors are embarrassed by it.- MrX 🖋 20:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

That was my thinking until I saw it was mentioned in the first paragraph of the section:

In March 2019, MMfA released audio recordings of Fox News host and Daily Caller founder Tucker Carlson

It's unusual to mention it again in the second paragraph:

Carlson's website, the Daily Caller

Twice is too much so which spot's better? Cestlavieleir (talk) 20:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Good question. The first instance in the first paragraph is irrelevant. It should be mentioned in the second paragraph.- MrX 🖋 20:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Fine with me. Here's how the sources describe Carlson's relation to the DC

"Daily Caller founder Tucker Carlson" [1]

"the Carlson-founded website The Daily Caller" [2]

"the co-founder of the Daily Caller, Fox News host Tucker Carlson" [3]

"the Daily Caller — a paper co-founder by Carlson in 2010" [4]

"The Daily Caller, a conservative-leaning news site co-founded by Carlson" [5]

So I changed it from "Carlson's website" which none of them use to "which Carlson co-founded." Cestlavieleir (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Tucker Carlson blog posts

In the first sentence of the last paragraph of the 'Tucker Carlson blog posts' section, there seems to be a a dispute about how Carusone's comments should be described. I lean toward "satirical" while acknowledging that they could also be described as "derogatory". However, only describing them as derogatory while omitting the satirical explanation tilts the material toward un-WP:NPOV and should be avoided.- MrX 🖋 23:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

There are four sources currently used in that section, and they describe the blog posts as "offensive," "derogatory," "controversial," and "inflammatory." The only time the word "satirical" is used is in Carusone's own explanation of the blog posts. That can be used but needs to be attributed and not put in Wikipedia's voice. Marquardtika (talk) 00:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, you have a valid point. - MrX 🖋 11:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I made that point in an edit summary which you ignored and reverted.[6] This is I think the third time you've removed Wemple without discussing it. He's the media critic for one of the top papers in the country and this is media criticism. He's obviously due. Cestlavieleir (talk) 13:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, you're the one who wanted to work in a fast-paced environment. I would be happy to discuss Wemple: Unless his opinion has been noted by other sources, I think it would violate WP:NPOV to include it while excluding other opinions. Since I don't think we want this section about a minor controversy to be overrun by opinions, it's best to leave third party opinions out entirely. But if others feel strongly that it should be included, I won't put up much of a fight.- MrX 🖋 20:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

A few rewordings

I just made a bold edit with some rewordings that I thought I'd discuss here.

• I changed "a former conservative journalist who became a liberal, and later a prominent Democratic party political operative." to "a former conservative journalist who has since become a prominent Democratic party political operative." I feel like the wording is cleaner this way, and while we lose the identification as liberal I think it's clear from the context.
• I also made a few edits in the initiatives section that I think are minor and improve readability, in one case I added a date to give context to the phrasing of an NYT comment.
• In the bit about Ben Shapiro I changed "Media Matters has been criticized by Daily Wire Editor and Co-founder Ben Shapiro, who accused it of targeting those with opposing political views with boycotts." to "Media Matters has been criticized by conservative political commentator Ben Shapiro, who accused it of targeting those with opposing political views with boycotts." I also added a source to support the description of Shapiro. I feel like in this case, especially since his comments were not published through the Daily Wire, it's more relevant to describe him as a conservative commentator than it is to identify his website.

SreySros (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, that Shapiro criticism is pretty lame and irrelevant to the organization. It probably doesn't belong in the article. Croctotheface (talk) 11:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Concern....

I am very concerned to see an organization such as this that's been operational for almost 20years yet there's no section on their Wikipedia page for "controversy's"......I mean this is a news source, and I find it very odd that they're able to not mention anything damage. That worry's me about who is editing this page Mickeymouse1288 (talk) 11:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The article is not protected so who is editing this page could be anyone. Go for it. soibangla (talk) 13:31, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Per WP:CSECTION, controversy sections are often not an ideal way to structure articles. --Aquillion (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Left leaning?

Does the fact that this organizations focuses exclusively on fringe quackery coming from the right (which is almost exclusively where fringe quackery has been coming from for the past two decades) really make them "left leaning"? Is CNN "left leaning" too? Is Wikipedia "left leaning"? I find that highly unlikely. 46.97.170.40 (talk) 14:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

In this context, left-leaning means supports the Democrats while right-leaning means supports the Republicans. Without the context, it is misleading. MMfA basically supports centrist Democrats. TFD (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

"Centrist Democrats" would be considered right wing, not left. And considering how off the rails the GOP and the right have been for the past decade, it is virtually impossible to be neutral and factual without inevitably coming off as supporting "Centrist Democrats". Is MMfA's mission statement to support them? Or are the DNC just much more closely aligned with objective facts than the other party? 46.97.170.40 (talk) 10:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

MMfA was founded by Clinton ally David Brock, whose Correct the Record spent millions on internet trolls trashing the Sanders campaign in 2016. While MMfA doesn't attack left-wing media, it doesn't mean that they share their political perspective. We wouldn't for example call Correct the Record right-leaning just because it attacked the Left. TFD (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)