Jump to content

Talk:Media Matters for America

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 69.228.156.201 (talk) at 03:50, 24 August 2010 (→‎Do we really need to discuss this?: clarification. Mr Anon). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

David Brock nonsense

I'd imagine that everyone agrees that characterizing Brock as a former right wing hit man is not neutral writing, and it's certainly not so important that it belongs in the second line of the article? Considering the anonymous user's ancestry, it seems pretty clear what's going on here. Croctotheface (talk) 22:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it was not worded the best. Someone please take a stab at improving the language and making it otherwise Wiki compliant. I'm no expert on the subject so forgive me if I pass on this. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, Brock's history might merit inclusion if it's shown to be directly relevant to the group. As it is, Brock's biography is relevant to, well, his biography, but I think we need to see a more direct connection to the organization to give it weight here. Croctotheface (talk) 23:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the material belongs in Brock's BLP, but not here unless it can be demonstrated by reliable sources that it matters to MMfA. It also needs to be made more NPOV. Drrll (talk) 00:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought on organization...

Is there anyway we could combine the two controversy sections, put them under some unified heading, or do something with them? I don't want to start a controversy section, but they seem kind of hap-hazard as is. Soxwon (talk) 00:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes seem reasonable enough. We could also avoid the "controversy" wording in the section heads if that troubles you. Croctotheface (talk) 01:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would probably work. Actually, I'm not sure whether "incident" is enough. *shrugs* I'll let others comment. Soxwon (talk) 01:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It should be shortened and then subsections would not be required. It is significant that these items were picked up by the MSM but we do not need that much detail. TFD (talk) 08:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with that. Also, "Response" seems a strangely clipped name for the section on reaction. "Criticism"? Figureofnine (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:Criticism. Not saying I agree with it, but the essay pretty much shows why things are the way they are. Croctotheface (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


George Soros as a Main Contributor to Media Matters

Can somebody tell me in which of either of these two articles it mentions George Soros is funding the organization? If you read each piece, this assertion does not hold. Can somebody else verifies that?

  1. ^ a b York, Byron (2004-05-28). "David Brock is Buzzing Again". http://old.nationalreview.com/york/york200405281333.asp National Review.
  2. ^ VandeHei, Jim (2006-07-17). "A New Alliance of Democrats Spreads Funding; But Some in Party Bristle At Secrecy and Liberal Tilt". The Washington Post. p. A01. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/16/AR2006071600882_pf.html. Retrieved 2010-04-17.

Rilixy (talk) 10:43, August 7, 2010 (UTC)


Soros is a major financier of the Democracy Alliance. The Democracy Alliance is largely fiscally responsible for MMfA and others. All of his money is funneled through, the second source explains it quite nicely. Arzel (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The WP article currently says:

"It also has received significant funding from Democracy Alliance (funded in large measure by George Soros), MoveOn.org, and the New Democrat Network."

The first source in the National Review says:

Besides Buell and Hindery, donors to Media Matters include Peter Lewis, chairman of Progressive Corp., who has contributed more than $7 million to the 527s in partnership with his friend, the financier George Soros.

The second source, an article in the Washington Post, says that Media Matters is backed by the Democracy Alliance, and says w.r.t. the Alliance:

Many of these contributors give away far more than the $200,000 requirement. Soros, Gill and insurance magnate Peter Lewis are among the biggest contributors, but 45 percent of the 95 partners gave $300,000 or better in the initial round of grants last October, according to a source familiar with the organization.

I suppose one could quibble about the wording, but offhand it seems fairly straightforward to me.... Kenosis (talk) 15:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


On multiple accounts you have failed to make the case for your premise. First of all, WP might be a reference to Wikipedia or Washington Post, so please try to expand the abbreviation for clarity.
Starting with the first source, Nation Review, and the excerpt that you selected, which is incidentally what I had zeroed in:

"Besides Buell and Hindery, donors to Media Matters include Peter Lewis, chairman of Progressive Corp., who has contributed more than $7 million to the 527s [tax-exempt organizations] in partnership with his friend, the financier George Soros." [emphasis is mine]

Donating to MMfA and other 527 organizations that Soros happens to fund makes the relationship mutually exclusive. Just because Lewis is providing funds to organization A and also contributes to Soros' organization(s), say B, C, etc. (in partnership), it does not mean Soros is also making donations to A. The partnership clause doesn't necessarily refer to "all" organizations that "both" support. There is no concrete connection here and the article makes no attempt to specifically single out MMfA as the recipient of "Soros'" donation to this particular agency. The only firm assertion one can take from this statement is that Peter Lewis is one of the donors, not Soros.
The second article on Washington Post clearly indicates that the donations are being given to the Democracy Alliance (Soros') under certain criteria but it does not aver to the fact that the Democracy Alliance is indeed funding MMfA--you are missing a link here:

"Many of these contributors give away far more than the $200,000 requirement. Soros, Gill and insurance magnate Peter Lewis are among the biggest contributors, but 45 percent of the 95 partners gave $300,000 or better in the initial round of grants last October, according to a source familiar with the organization."

The article and the excerpt put forth here simply do not assert this fact. Rilixy (talk) 02:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Firstly, please sign your posts using four tildes ("~~~~", on the upper left corner of your keyboard).
..... Secondly, huh? . . . "makes [what] relationship mutually exclusive" ? . . . What "premise" ? I've stated simply that the wording w.r.t. this issue seems pretty straightforward. If you read the two sources you'll note that MMfA is among the more notable, significant beneficiary organizations of the Democracy Alliance. Presently the WP article says:

"It also has received significant funding from Democracy Alliance (funded in large measure by George Soros), MoveOn.org, and the New Democrat Network."

So what is it that you dispute? And how might you propose to word it other than the way it presently is worded? ... Kenosis (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Why are you keep reposting the quote in the Wikipedia article as if that obvious has escaped you? Frankly, I don't even know whether you understood what I'm trying to get across from the beginning. Neither of these articles explicitly states George Soros is funding MMfA. I requested the two articles to be reexamined in which you put forth two excerpts from each of these pieces. I dissected both of them word by word to illustrate that such premise ("George Soros funding MMfA") does not hold true. You failed to rebut any of the points I brought up.
The quote you offered from the National Review does state that Peter Lewis, the chairman of Progressive Corp, provides funds to MMfA. However, it only links George Soros as a partner that shares certain funding to the "other" 527 organization [with Peter Lewis]--not necessarily MMfA. That makes the relationship between George Soros and MMfA mutually exclusive. Read the sentence more carefully this time.
The way that sentence should be reworded is to take DA and George Soros' name out of the content because neither of those articles support such assertion. If there is another source that verifies such connection, then be it. Rilixy (talk) 02:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Personally I don't care whether this parenthetical passage stays in the article or is removed (that the Democracy Alliance, which allocates funding to various liberal/progressive groups including a substantial amount to MMfA, is, as set in parentheses in the article, "funded in large measure by George Soros"). If you want to take it out, go ahead and take that parenthetical statement out per WP:BOLD and see what other participants think of it. But, IMO, the statement as present written doesn't introduce any apparent bias that is inherently non-WP:NPOV. It's well verified, having already been cited to two reliable sources. And the way it's presently written it doesn't appear to me to be an original synthesis, since one source is cited in support of the assertion that Soros contributes to the Democracy Alliance, and both support the assertion that the Democracy Alliance in turn contributes to MMfA. IOW, so what? ... Kenosis (talk) 02:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


IOW, so what?
While it may be true, it IS synthesis. Find a citable source that says "MMfA is funded in large measure by George Soros" or something to that effect. Without that sourcing, the content is unsupportable. JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


By "so what?" I meant that I don't see anything derogatory or controversial about a multi-billionaire contributing to a liberal/progressive group--seems to me it's not exactly a "gotcha" kind of observation. I do, though, think it's a much closer call on the issue of WP:SYN than some might think. There is no A+B=C here, where C is an original synthesis, but rather only an "A" which is cited to a reliable source (Democracy Alliance being a major funding source for MMfA) and a "B" which is cited to a reliable source (Soros' contribution to the Democracy Alliance) which is just what the article says. Nothing original about it. But as I also indicated, if you think it's objectionable, then by all means remove the parenthetical statement about Soros. I'd support its removal merely on the grounds it's irrelevant to the article. (IOW, so what if Soros is among its backers though the Democracy Alliance.) ... Kenosis (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I'm happy with the current wording (removal of the content in the parenthesis) although I didn't make the edit myself. Rilixy (talk) 21:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National Review Mislink

Two editors reversed citation of NR article with mislink wrongly saying it lacked citation. The article contains the mislink, and that is citation enough. Here is the pertinent excerpt from the NR article with the mislink found in the original included:

"If you go to this link[1], you can read the entire exchange."

As correctly maintained in my edit, the link leads to a transcript of Sept 28, but the NR meant to link to the transcript of Sept. 26 since the excerpted transcript quoted by the NR is from the earlier date of Sept. 26. The NR has neither corrected the mislink or its erroneous assertion that, if properly executed, it would lead to the "entire exchange." Media Matters has thouroughly documented the unanounced and unexplained edits of Limbaugh's transcript and audio.[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.224.218.27 (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC) — 69.228.156.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

OK, the above, as explained, is clearly evident in the original and absolutely correct, but it relies on my analysis without a source. No reliable sources seem to have caught the errors, and no comments attend the NR article, it's not for inlcusion. Mr Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.224.218.27 (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC) — 69.228.156.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I was about to formally raise the issue of WP:SYN/WP:V/WP:Undue but you have already seen the light. As long as I'm commenting, this article appears to contain a fair amount of coatracking for MMfA opinion rather than content on MMfA itself. I think this needs addressing. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I was premature in my assessment as the content still appears in the article. That MMfA attempted to make an issue of the alleged NR "gaffe" inre the completeness of the transcript is unsupported by third-party sourcing that would satisfy WP:V/WP:UNDUE. This article is not supposed to be a coatrack of MMfA opinion. The current content is unsupported and should be deleted if adequate third-party sourcing is not provided. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the idea is that this is all a little too much paid to a minor affair, I'm all for editing the section down to the key facts, rather than documenting the disputes about the facts. Mr Anon — 69.228.156.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
...and I'm for demonstrating that all content within the entire section rises to meet WP:V/WP:UNDUE with requisite third-party sourcing. Even assuming this content could cross that threshold, {{content}} looms as well. Why is this content relevant in an article that is supposed to be ABOUT MMfA, not their opinions? JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What opinions? Mr Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.156.201 (talk) 07:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC) — 69.228.156.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Opinions/ JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC) assertions of fact...take your pick. You should demonstrate, with third party sourcing, that content is adequately attributable to reliable sources other than MMfA itself. IOW, what other reliable sources gave a hoot about MMfA's assertion of Limbaugh's purported chicanery and made note that would raise this content to satisfy WP:V/WP:UNDUE?[reply]
However, that's even a cart before the horse. Why is this content appropriate for an article that is supposed to be ABOUT MMfA? JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One question at a time, please. I'm concerned that my edits may have left in MMfA's opinions, and I want to know what they are specifically. Mr Anon — 69.228.156.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
All fixed. Now you can deal with assertions of fact. Better yet, why is this content relevant? JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To take a suggestion literally, I'll select the term "opinions" without expecting any objection from the grantor of this perogative. Now, to "deal with" the alleged, but so far unspecified opinions: I will need to know what is being alluded to - but in detail. With that done, by the one has made an issue of opinions twice, or by anyone else wishing to be helpful, improvements are possible. My attempted close reading and sleuthing for opinions have so far come up empty. In any case, it would be good to have my now thrice made inquiry regarding this begged for question addressed satisfactorily. Since opinions parading as fact simply have to go, there may be neither a cart or a horse to place or talk about. Mr Anon — 69.228.156.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Recent Controversy deletions

Deleted: Tax exempt status. Citation has nothing about Gibons "questioning" tax statue. The citation of Mark Levin is actually a link to the news agregator Newsbusters which has a link another site which links to a video of Levin calling MMfA "brown shirts" while questioning their tax status - waaayy outside of reliable source territory. Mr Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.156.201 (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC) — 69.228.156.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The Newsbusters reference specifically mentions the questioning of their status as a nonpartisan organization, and points to an audio clip of Levin questioning their tax-exempt status. I also added another reference questioning their tax-exempt status. Drrll (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Newbusters only mentions/reports, without comment, that Mark Levin, an unreliable source(see above), questions the status, and the added citation seems to view Levin as a demagogue, so they have no part in the questioning of tax exempt status themselves. It is unclear as to why York is included since he in no way brings up the issue of whether MMfA should have tax exempt status.
Conservative reception should not be a vehicle for fringe positions. The Progressive Reception section, while weak and probably a good candidate for removal as well, doesn't sink that low. Mr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.156.201 (talk) 17:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC) — 69.228.156.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comments by Newsbusters aren't required to source that Levin questioned the tax-exempt status. Nor does it matter how MMfA characterizes Levin to source his comments about the status. York does question the validity of MMfA's status. The very title/subtitle of the article questions about how political MMfA is: "Media Matters: We’re Not Political: That's what they say. But a look at the record shows otherwise." Then, within the article: "Indeed, Media Matters has to be nonpartisan, if not nonpolitical. It is registered with the Internal Revenue Service as a nonprofit 501(c)(3) charitable institution, meaning it is tax exempt and that contributions made to Media Matters are fully tax deductible."
Levin, while conservative, is hardly fringe. He is published regularly by National Review, has 7 1/2 million regular listeners to his radio show, and has published a book with well over 1 million copies. Molly Ivins was much more fringe than Levin. Drrll (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The other edits involve trims, clarifications, and placement issues. Mr Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.156.201 (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC) — 69.228.156.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Suggested removal of minor controversies

The O'Reilly and AIM paragraphs covers controversies that barely deserve the designation. They did not reach broad circulation or become consequential as did the controversies with Limbaugh and Imus. Seeing them go would be an improvement. Mr Anon — 69.228.156.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Ironically that describes almost all of the citations to MMfA on other pages. Arzel (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, completely. You want to remove those trivial "controversies" as well? Rapier (talk) 01:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. The Limbaugh affair, though silly, got widespread,national attention while Imus lost his show. Mr Anon — 69.228.156.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Deleted Kincaid and O'Reilly controversiesy. Mr Anon — 69.228.156.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Reverted back to previous edition. Mr. Anon, you deleted nearly 20% of an article less than a day after you brought it up based on your opinion this information was not needed, after two other editors disagreed with you. Sorry, but just because you don't like something doesn't mean you get to blank it. That isn't the way Wikipedia works. I suggest you go back and read the policies and proceedures. Rapier (talk) 18:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I think the Kincaid controversy is definitely questionable for inclusion. As I've said before, I think that it's notable (in the plain English sense, not the WP:N sense) in that it's a fairly strong criticism...yet I don't know that it's received coverage in secondary sources. I'm not an absolutist with respect to considering secondary sourcing either necessary or sufficient to include material, but as time goes on and Media Matters becomes more established, episodes like this one tend to decline in significance. One odd habit of WP is the inclusion of material that was newsworthy for a time but has little overall significance to the article. This looks like it might be one of those.

Regarding O'Reilly, that's certainly a major episode with respect to MM, so it should go in. However, the current version focuses more on O'Reilly's difference of opinion and criticism than in the role that MM played in reporting on O'Reilly's original comments. The article could certainly be rewritten to increase the focus on the non-criticism stuff. Croctotheface (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever opinion any single editor may have, it is very important to note Croc's previous point: What we have in this article currently is the result of literally months of heated debate and compromise. Substantial edits need to be well thought out, based on verifiable facts, and agreed upon by consensus. This isn't something that will occur in a matter of hours, as people have real lives and don't live and die waiting next to their computers to be able to make edits on Wikipedia. A reasonable amount of time would be 7 days with no replies or with only strong support. This allows the vast majority of potential editors the opportunity to be able to voice their opinion, and nobody can claim they weren't given a chance to reply. Please keep this in mind. Rapier (talk) 03:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General Reception

If this section seems sparse, that's because it was originally. Removal of tangental Rothenberg citation and placing the of Jeff Gannon scandal in its own section had their affect of made this more apparent. Mr Anon — 69.228.156.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Unless someone wants a more substantialy developed General Reception section beyond the current progressive approbation of the site, it should go since it's not much at the moment. Mr Anon — 69.228.156.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I think there should be a separate section for "Reception" that includes progressive reception, conservative reception, and analyst Rothenberg's comments (no need for subsections, since each part is so small). The notable postings needs its own section. Drrll (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pace of editing changes

Regardless of whether you agree or not with the editing changes made by the anonymous editor, does anyone else believe that the pace of the editing needs to slow down considerably? Drrll (talk) 12:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, have no intent to step in front of this runaway-train editing by what appears to be an SPA with a rather coquettish approach to discussion. Comment in talk - wait 10 minutes (if that long) - declare consensus - edit. Rather amusing actually. There's always plenty of time for post-storm assessment and before/after comparatives are only a few clicks away...as well as total reversion. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have to agree with you there Drrll. Rapier (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In general, this kind of editing practice won't win Mr Anon (m)any friends here. Especially at a potentially contentious article like this one, editors should be aware that material often reflects a compromise that was laboriously hashed out over a long period of time. Now, some of the changes made seem reasonable enough to me. For one, do we really need to quote entire paragraphs of our sources? General practice is just to cite them, right? The Byron York article in particular, considering that it was published by the National Review, seems kind of suspect to quote at length in a footnote. Croctotheface (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem in slowing down with deletions. Now, can we all agree the Mark Levin and the whole tax exempt issue is without merit for well and patiently explained reasons? Expecting no objection, I've deleted that. Mr Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.156.201 (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if you offered time for there to BE objections... Soxwon (talk) 22:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Anon, I have already objected earlier. Please see and respond to my comments above in the Recent Controversy deletions section. BTW, you can still be anonymous and use a Wikipedia user name (perhaps as Mr Anon?). Also, please sign your Talk comments by adding four tildes (~) to the end of your comments. Thanks. Drrll (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My fault for not catching the posted objection. But I'm surprised to hear that Levin, after pointing out that he called Media Matters "brown shirts" and "a criminal enterprise" is not on the fringe. I added those accusations to Levin's lame and weak challenge to their tax exempt status? Mr Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.156.201 (talk) 23:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "brown shirts" comment was not directed at Media Matters. We could add his "criminal enterprise" hyperbole, but it's not leveled upon them by others, unlike the tax-exempt question. Drrll (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was in error regarding the brown shirts and made correction. 69.228.156.201 (talk) 00:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)Mr Anon[reply]

Byron York and MMfA's tax status

Here are quotes, per the citation, that show York making no such assertion, but merely drawing the distinction the Media Matters claims to be non-political are false, but he fails to find why their tax exempt status is in need of revision. He essentially has no opinion and only noted that others do.

Byron York noted:

Indeed, Media Matters has to be nonpartisan, if not nonpolitical. It is registered with the Internal Revenue Service as a nonprofit 501(c)(3) charitable institution, meaning it is tax exempt and that contributions made to Media Matters are fully tax deductible. In a feature of the tax code that benefits groups on both the left and right, a contribution to Media Matters is as tax deductible as a contribution to the Salvation Army or the Red Cross.

York conclude with this:

Despite its political strategy, and its political orientation, it’s entirely possible that Brock and Media Matters are operating entirely within the laws that govern such institutions. Those laws have been used, and exploited, for many years by groups on both sides of the political divide. But is Media Matters, as it claims, not political? Not by a long shot.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.156.201 (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC) — 69.228.156.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It's true that York, unlike Levin, doesn't say that their tax-exempt status needs to be challenged. He does raise the question, however, of whether they, like many other groups on the left and right, are too political to be tax-exempt. That fits in with the wording I most recently had in the article: "...and Byron York of National Review have questioned whether Media Matters is too political for its status as a tax-exempt nonpartisan organization." Drrll (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
York acknowledged that MMfA may well be "operating within the laws". What he thought about tax exempt status in general is beyond the scope of this article and a little vague since he makes no call to amend tax code. So rather than parse York's copy, and quickly end up in the ditch of semantics, i.e. is "exploited" a neutral word or one of condemnation, I've added York's views in detail since the earlier summarization leads to arguments. Mr Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.156.201 (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It makes no sense to include the "entirely possible that Brock and Media Matters are operating entirely within the laws" without including his premise of the article, which is the question of of whether MMfA is too political to be a tax-exempt organization. I say include them both. As far as the other stuff you've added to the paragraph, I don't see the point in including the unrelated comment about Brock there, but more importantly, York did not say "that a tax exempt organization can be political as long as they are not partisan"--he says that MMfA MAY be entirely lawful and that many organizations, including MMfA, "exploit" the law. Drrll (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the " "operating within the laws" and included other quotes of York's. I hope they make clear where he stands, and doesn't stand. Also added more at start of paragraph to make clear that York and Levin have very different opinions of Media Matters lawfulness. Mr Anon
Proposing moving "Tax exempt status to above general reception. It's not really a reception issue as it is a legal one, and it doesn't seem to been a widespread controversy. 69.228.156.201 (talk) 20:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)Mr Anon[reply]

Mr Anon

As Mr Anon, I've been editing Wiki articles for some time, and this is the first controversial article I have approached, besides the Alcoholics Anonymous article, which doesn't approach the greater level of apprehension given to Media Matters edits. I appreciate the mild and patient comments and edits of other editors which have been helpful.

In the interest of allowing other editors to better evaluate recent edits, and as I already said do and have already done so, I've stopped making deletions. Furthermore, I'm planning to stop adding and augmenting content, to, again, allow other editors time. But also because the improvements I wished for have mostly come about. Well, except for the leaving in of the AIM controversy, which I just don't get why it is included, since it received little notice elsewhere, as well a better accounting of the O'Reilly controversy to give an idea of what's at issue. In my view, it's a lot of nothing over clumsy wording by O'Reilly that drew more offense than it should have. The controversy seems to be over whether comments were presented out of context or not.

Recently added and restored (I believe SeanNovak mistook my additions for deletions, and I've posted on his Talk page an explanation for my restoration) my augmentation and improvement of General Reception. The Steinberg article contained additional material which, when added, made the text following the heading General Reception to actually better reflect what is the general reception of Media Matters taking care to note criticisms beyond idealogical.

The issue of MMfA's tax exempt status has been well discussed and I appreciate and have attempted to take into account points made by other editors, especially when they noted when I was wrong. Consequently, I've added to this section relevant overall views of Mark Levin via a vis MMfA. Also regarding tax exempt status. In my view, Levin is an emotional, fringe source, who due to a lack of consensus on this, needs to be left in the article. Levin is greatly bettered by York in interpreting the tax code. In that regard, I have tried to make clear what Byron York's position was by adding quotes of his and avoiding the contentious summation that he had questioned the status. I think quoting him accurately, but not at too much length, lets the reader easily decide what York meant. This should satisfy differing perceptions of what York intended, while establishing that Levin and York are not in agreement as to MMfA's lawful tax status.

The Don Imus controversy was improved by adding more detail, including the apology and suspension as well as the role of advertisers to show how great a controversy it was.

Earlier edits on the Rush Limbaugh controversy made more clear what happened and added RL's explanation to the National Review of his motives in editing the transcript at issue. If someone could find and include reliable sources explaining why this controversy is a little silly, it would improve the section. For the Kincaid controversy section, which, to be candid, in its earlier form poorly described the issue and the dialog, I clarified by adding more information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.156.201 (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for delaying edit stoppage so I could add more to the Tax exempt status issue and remove disputed inclusion. 69.228.156.201 (talk) 20:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)Mr Anon[reply]

Language in lead.

It was discussed very extensively, multiple times, and went through an RfC. Consensus was to not put a "liberal" label in the opening description. Please see previous discussion (one of many) on the subject before attempting to add this again. (If you don't want to read through the whole discussion, and I don't blame you if you don't, just scroll down to the closing conclusions). Thanks! --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We should change non partsian to partsian.They do not go after liberals which makes them partsian.Unicorn76 (talk) 15:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am a conservative and was one of those involved in the consensus last time around. It was decided that the language used on the MMfA website itself when it states that it is a "progressive" organization that was working to expose "conservative misinformation" was enough to show its inherent bias. Any intellegent person can figure it out. Any fool that can't put two and two together probably wouldn't care anyway, because they would be believeing what MMfA peddles. Rapier (talk) 22:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need to discuss this?

Obviously it should be mentioned that Dr. Whats-her-name used the word "nigger" in the context of a discussion of that very word. An IP keeps removing that info without a non-ambiguous reason given.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 23:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My edits make/made it unmistakable: readers can read quotes from a discussion regarding usage of a word and know that there was a discussion without needing to be told so. With my edits, the readers can also also deduce that Schlesinger thought that she should be able to say "nigger, nigger, nigger", which she justified with the offensive over-generalization that "Blacks guys say [nigger] all the time." Also, making it appear that the discussion was on only one topic is misleading; other related topics, such as interracial marriage and more subtle offensive forms of dialog between blacks and whites, were at issue: another reason to avoid bloating the section with sign posting. 69.228.156.201 (talk) 00:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Mr Anon[reply]
  1. ^ http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_092807/content/01125106.guest.html
  2. ^ http://mediamatters.org/research/200709280009?f=h_top
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Media_Matters_for_America&oldid=380636069"