Talk:Media Matters for America

February 2024 clean-up summary
Efforts to get article to B-class have included addressing: NPOV, OR, SYNTH, Undue Weight, excessive quotations, Non-notable sources, Non-notable content, BLP, copyediting to get more precise and concise text and section titles, removing redundancies, organizing more clearly, generally copyediting for consistency + clarity, fixing incomplete or inaccurate citations, and citation formatting with most of the issues addressed and the rest flagged. Superb Owl (talk) 01:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)


 * This kind of work is difficult, it's a long article with many sources, plus it is not easy to neutrally describe an organization that has a bias! -- Green  C  02:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Left leaning
Suggest we make citation #1 into a single cite - perhaps the NYT or something already used elsewhere. Then move the other cites into a talk page section. And leave an inline edit comment referencing where to find additional sources. The article has a lot of sources, and reduction will help. There's no reason to have all these sources for this claim, it gives the appearance of battleground. Lead sections should have minimal citations. -- Green  C  02:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Sources moved (Special:Diff/1206036745/1206038687) from the lead section to the talk page:



-- Green  C  02:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)


 * It might be nice to keep/improve the most notable sources for those of us who don't know a lot about Media Matters and are coming into the conversation without as much background information or ideas? Open to this streamlining but it probably heads-off more discussions in the future
 * On a related note, I removed 'liberal' as an adjective from the short-desc btw to be more concise and avoid confusion as to whether the group was a watchdog of liberal media or a liberal group that was a media watchdog...felt that keeping it short was more important than including that adjective there when it's also in the first sentence. Superb Owl (talk) 04:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Browsing the talk archives, this issue of "far-left/liberal/left-leaning/progressive" in the first sentence has been debated extensively including many RfCs. Most of it is very old now. The sources above are all more recent. I have no problem with "left-leaning" personally. It does seem like how to characterize the org on the political spectrum is a perennial topic that has used up extensive amounts of editor time. Strange.
 * If we keep all these sources in mainspace it should be in the article body IMO, not as a big list of sources in the lead sentence. It signifies battleground, which does appear to be the case. -- Green  C  05:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I have a hunch all the above were cherry-picked for the rather watered-down phrase "left-leaning." A Google News search for "Media Matters for America" in the past year of course finds the phrase is sometimes used, but the same outlets (and other exceptionally reliable sources) also describe MMfA as a "liberal advocacy group",, "left-wing advocacy group", "liberal (media) watchdog group"    "progressive analysis group", and especially, "progressive watchdog". This is not a scientific analysis, but suggests that "left-leaning" may not be the single best descriptor to use to introduce the organization.

Going beyond those pesky dumb journalists, recent scholarly sources, when they make any mention of partisanship, also use terms such as "progressive watchdog",, "progressive nonprofit organization", and "liberal and progressive" as well as "left-leaning". &#45;-Animalparty! (talk) 05:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * It is technically speaking a media watchdog organization. To say it's an advocate takes it further and suggests bias even intentional inaccuracy, the very thing they are trying to expose from the right. It's like boomerang at ANI, it's hard to point fingers at someone without fingers pointing back. Go into a mud pit, and you will come out muddy. I prefer we try to remain as objective as possible and not throw more mud, muddle. The best way to do this is avoid labels as much as possible. If someone is saying they are advocacy group, ok what academic journal or book lays out the case for this? Not only using the word, but justifies and explains why in more than 1 or 2 sentences, really makes the case for it. That is a POV we can report on and explain in our article. -- Green  C  15:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not lobbying to introduce it as an advocacy group in the first sentence (although I don't see how calling something an advocate/advocacy group suggests intentional bias: are human rights advocates intentionally inaccurate?), rather I think the degree of partisanship should be clarified. If an organization was frequently called "conservative" or "right-wing" or "far right", as well as sometimes "right-leaning", would we think "right-leaning" is the best descriptor?  &#45;-Animalparty! (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. One might have used the term "Left-leaning" for Media Matters in 2017. In 2024 Media Maters is now rated by AllSides at -4.5 or "Left" or about as radically leftist as one can get. https://www.allsides.com/news-source/media-matters-bias AllSides itself may be left-biased, for example, it whitewashes "climate change," which is factually unsupported given that we are in an interglacial period of the Holocene with polar ice caps, a minority (25%) geophysical occurrence during our planet's oxygen rich history (600 or 538.8 million years, depending on how one looks at it). Students of climate history are not radical right-wing activists, frankly, geologists care more about ancient rocks than human history.
 * There are likely consequences for Media Matters's radical positions. For example, see the pending lawsuit against Media Matters https://www.allsides.com/story/media-industry-elon-musk-says-x-will-file-thermonuclear-lawsuit-against-watchdog-media-matters. This has already resulted in layoffs at Media Matters https://scnr.com/article/media-matters-lays-off-at-least-a-dozen-employees-amid-federal-investigations-elon-musk-lawsuit_8e01d63f193b11ef9c930242ac1c0002 Note that scnr is not an echo-chamber source. For example, scnr calls Median Matters "far-left," whereas the other sources all seem to be duplicates that begin with the word "Liberal...," and I put it to you, if Media Matters were merely "liberal" or "left-leaning" they would not be in hot water.
 * I would urge the authors to update this article. It is outdated. 216.197.221.61 (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Allsides scale is 6.0 is the further left. And 3.0 is left-leaning. So at 4.5, MMFA is midway between radical left and left-leaning. Not "as radically leftist as one can get". You hyperbole notwithstanding, I don't even know if Allsides is reliable itself.
 * The Elon Musk threat of a "thermonuclear" lawsuit (more hyperbole) from 9 months ago has come to nothing, so far, but obviously there will be a lot of people who will want to jump on the bandwagon and punish MMFA. This sort of gang-up happens whenever people smell blood. See my essay User:GreenC/The Instinct to Punish for the roots of this behavior. It promises to create a huge mess for this talk page should Elon ever find the time from rockets and cars. --  Green  C  02:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and not to mention that AllSides is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia and is owned and run by a former Republican political operative who still self-identifies as right-leaning politically. Not saying it's necessarily right-leaning, just seems unlikely that it's left-leaning Superb Owl (talk) 03:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * AllSides would not seem leftist to anyone on the hard left. To me, leftism self-identifies by its unsubstantiated elitist propaganda. Note GreenC that -4.5 is as solidly left as I have ever seen on an AllSides rating, it is mid-range in terms of absolute numbers, -3 to -6, but unusually leftist for a rating, that is, in terms of frequency of occurrence, unusually heavily biased. Superb Owl, note that Wikipedia's comments on AllSides are probably less valid than AllSides comments on Wikipedia. I prefer your language in bold below, but you are still speaking in code. "Liberal counterweight to the conservative Media Research Center." That language is fairly dripping with bias. It may be language used by Media Matters to describe itself, but if Wikipedia uncritically echos Media Matters's propaganda, it opens the door for criticizing Wikipedia as being as equally hard left as Media Matters is. Can you dial it down with less presumptive language, please? 216.197.221.61 (talk) 05:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The article should avoid ambiguous language. MMfA is certainly not left-leaning as the term is commonly understood. It's used here to mean that it supports the mainstream Democratic Party. TFD (talk) 14:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And what is the connection between the Democratic Party and left-wing politics? It is a pro-capitalism party which has not embraced the typical left-wing ideologies of (from the main article) "socialism, anarchism, communism, Marxism and syndicalism".Dimadick (talk) 15:37, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. But the sources that call it left-leaning don't mean socialist etc. They use left and right as shorthand for U.S. liberals and conservatives. TFD (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * How about this: Media Matters for America (MMfA) is a non-profit watchdog journalism organization.[2] It was founded in 2004 by journalist and now-Democratic political activist David Brock as a liberal counterweight to the conservative Media Research Center.[3] Superb Owl (talk) 15:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's fine, and a great suggestion. The attempt to state in neutral wiki voice the political affiliation of the organization in the lead is too fraught with opinion and has resulted in over 15 years of endless dispute in the talk archives. The issue is too complicated. When things get complicated, break it down into smaller pieces. So we move the political affiliation into a new section, providing multiple POVs from various reliable sources (including MMFA's position if any). It will clearly demonstrate a lack of consensus in the sources, and thus our inability to state unambiguously one or another POV in the lead section. -- Green  C  17:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * How about, 'which describes itself as "a liberal counterweight to the conservative Media Research Center."
 * That seems more factual than, for example, "an extreme leftist attack vehicle for propagandizing counter to the Media Research Center." Do you see the point I am making? 216.197.221.61 (talk) 08:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The only issue is "which describes itself" isn't correct; we're paraphrasing Brock's words.
 * -- macaddct1984 (talk &#124; contribs) 12:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd encourage all of you to check the archives for this page. This topic has been discussed ad nauseam and the current wording reflects the current consensus. Yilloslime (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Why is MMFA Funding Elevated to the Fore ?
At the fore of this article is MMFA's funding sources. Is this an attempt to prejudice the reader? Other Wikipedia articles about New Media Alternative conservative outlets don't even have funding sections (the Daily Wire for example.) 2600:8801:BE28:A800:8B7:2C3E:74C8:F3A9 (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Yeah I'm not a fan of funding sources. They are invariably outdated, incomplete and misleading. Typically used to sway readers. If the organization publishes a list of funders, link to that, but otherwise leave it alone. Don't cite partial lists, unofficial lists, etc.. that's where the problems are. --  Green  C  23:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Antisemitism on X (formerly Twitter)
Two points, (1) the title "Antisemitism on X (formerly Twitter)" is not neutral, that is, that there is or was "antisemitism" on X, was an accusation attributed to Median Maters, and since that accusation is currently in dispute before the court, it would be more neutral to use a title that is more factual, for example, "Median Matters accuses X of antisemitism" (2) The links in this section are outdated and none are from 2024. For example, see the following for more recent content.


 * Well, the top-level section is called "Initiatives", this sub-section identifies the initiative, section titles are not asserting a fact. That's why we don't use citations for section titles, they are only placeholder names. Your suggestion "Median Matters accuses X of antisemitism" is repetitive because it's obvious this is a Media Matters initiative by the fact it's in the article Media Matters in a section titles "Initiatives". Personally I don't see a problem, the section describes the issue, we don't write on behalf of readers who are only reading section titles out of context with where it's located. Regarding the suggested URL, I have not followed this case closely so can't say anything about the content of the section. -- Green  C  18:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It used to be "Twitter (X) advertising" until 10 February 2024. WP:NPOV says "Pay attention to headers, footnotes, or other formatting elements that might unduly favor one point of view or one aspect of the subject." and I agree that attention must be paid, but won't revert unless there's more objection to it. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "Twitter (X) advertising" is clearly very neutral and probably more in line with how it should be since the aim of MMA is to go after advertising ie. it is another "cancel culture" campaign. (not sure if there is a more neutral term for "cancel culture" since this is a pejorative). -- Green  C  19:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)