body.skin-vector-2022 .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk,body.mw-mf .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk{display:none}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a{display:block;text-align:center;font-style:italic;line-height:1.9}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before,.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{content:"↓";font-size:larger;line-height:1.6;font-style:normal}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before{float:left}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{float:right}Skip to table of contents


A few rewordings[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
The boycott criticism is relevant again with the X Corp law suite filed yesterday. Media Matters orchestrating a boycott of advertisers on the X platform with defamation intent is the core of this suite. `X Defamation Law Suite` will need to be a new sub-section in the Controversies section. JHelzer💬 17:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Left leaning?[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
"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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Correct the Record is left wing and it attacked the far left Sanders. Because Media Matters only goes after right wing groups this makes them biased at least but also left wing as we know their founder to be left wing. SSSVee5914 (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Centrist Democrats are center-left, centrist means center and Democrat means left wing. If you honestly believe that “DNC [is] just much more closely aligned with objective facts than the other party” then you’re at home on Wikipedia. SSSVee5914 (talk) 22:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Democrat means left wing" Since when? Left-wing politics covers "the labour movement, socialism, anarchism, communism, Marxism and syndicalism". When have the Democrats stopped being pro-capitalist? Dimadick (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You sound as biased as Media Matters if you really believe that “fringe quackery” comes almost exclusively from the right. The truth is the leftist mainstream media chooses to highlight and amplify right wing misdeeds only. SSSVee5914 (talk) 21:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Media Matters has often criticized CNN and NYT.
https://www.mediamatters.org/cnn
https://www.mediamatters.org/new-york-times soibangla (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep, Media Matters often criticizes CNN and NYT--for allegedly being TOO pro-Trump or pro-conservative, so you are just proving the OP to be correct. 223.25.59.28 (talk) 05:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. This entire talk thread here is why nobody trusts Wikipedia anymore. At least when it comes to anything political. I can't believe people on here are saying you are "right-wing" unless you are anti-capitalist. This whole website is a joke now. 223.25.59.28 (talk) 05:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
has always been 75.114.200.33 (talk) 05:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes CNN, Wikipedia, and Media Matters are left wing, from an objective viewpoint. In fact, calling Media Matters only “left-leaning” while calling its counterpoint (the MRC) “conservative” is proof of Wikipedia’s leftism as “left-leaning” is lighter than full on liberalism. The opposite of conservatism is liberalism. SSSVee5914 (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The nonprofit MRC has received financial support primarily from Robert Mercer
The Mercers are also major funders of Breitbart.
So there's that. soibangla (talk) 23:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Multiple credible sources identify it as left-leaning, as stated. That should be the end of the conversation here, unless you want to go hunting for more and better sources saying otherwise. Robincantin (talk) 00:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not suggesting anything other than left-leaning as supported by multiple reliable sources. I'm simply pointing out the false equivalence here because MRC is funded by the same people who fund Breitbart, which is so disreputable that it is blacklisted here. soibangla (talk) 01:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since left-leaning is a relative term, it can mean different things to different people. For most people, it refers to "the labour movement, socialism, anarchism, communism, Marxism and syndicalism."
And conservatism, in particular U.S. conservatism is not the opposite of U.S. liberalism except in the sense that Coke is the opposite of Pepsi. U.S. conservatism is in fact a form of liberalism that is less supportive of welfare and more supportive of morals legislation than U.S. liberals. TFD (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CNN? Are you serious?? If CNN/NY Times/WaPo/AP/etc are not left leaning then what is? 75.114.200.33 (talk) 04:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fake quote?[edit]

The introduction currently refers to the group's "War on Fox News". However, that phrase does not appear anywhere else in the article, nor does it appear in either of the two references at the end of the sentences, nor does it appear in any of the sources used in the "War on Fox" section (the phrase war on Fox, yes, but not with News.) It is not at all clear who is being quoted, if anyone. May I suggest a change so that it's "war" on Fox News (i.e., lower-case the w, move the closing quote mark)? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a strange little phrase to add to the lead. I took it out, aggressive criticism of conservative outlets by itself is more factual. Robincantin (talk) 00:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I stand corrected, there's a 2-paragraph section on this with pretty good sources. Should stay. Robincantin (talk) 01:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But that section does not have the quote "War on Fox News", so that should be taken out. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nat Gertler, the entire sentence needs to be removed. The sentence was added to Wikipedia here and here by User:Safehaven86 in September 10, 2015. Safehaven86, blocked since December 2016, was likely a member of this politics-oriented sock farm, probably employed for a political agenda. Who is behind this? Clearly some kind of attempt to shape narrative. The earliest echo of the phrase is Fox News itself, December 2017, which clearly benefits from the phrase, and a Google search finds a host of other instances. Way to go Safehave86, job done. IMO it should be deleted from the article, but the damage is done, the meme has already spread widely. -- GreenC 21:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The news-sphere has been so polluted by Wikipedia and this phrase/idea, it's going to be difficult to find objective sources on this topic post-September 10, 2015. And any you do find need to be carefully worded with proper context who said it and when. -- GreenC 21:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is "known" for?

Which particular reliable secondary source in this article is being put forth to source the claim that what Media Matters is known for is the "war on Fox"? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here is a good write up by the Washington Post that has some good background on MMFA. Between 2010 and 2013, the liberal watchdog was engaged in its “War on Fox,” which had the group working to get advertisers to boycott the network. Media Matters declared in 2013 that it had “effectively discredited [Fox’s] desire to be seen as ‘fair and balanced.’”[1] from last month.
Here is another from Newsweek Media Matters for America is a left-leaning 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization and media watchdog group founded in 2004 by journalist and political activist David Brock. It was established as a counterweight to the conservative Media Research Center and is known for its aggressive criticism of conservative journalists and media outlets, including its "War on Fox News."[2] also from last month.
We could keep digging but there is really no need. It is part of the core and reason they were even created. PackMecEng (talk) 02:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The first source (WAPO) talks about MMFA's 2010-2013 activities discrediting Fox, but it doesn't say that MMFA is known for it's war on Fox News. The second source (Newsweek) is a word-for-word quote from how the lead of this Wikipedia article has been phrased for years, hence the writer of that opinion piece was obviously just quoting Wikipedia. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 04:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Direct quoting of known for is not required but as noted several sources that describe the organization use that wording. Same same. PackMecEng (talk) 15:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Use what wording? That's the point, several sources are directly quoting Wikipedia, it's circular. Wikipedia says it's known for it, sources then frame it that way based on Wikipedia, then we say the sources prove they are known for it! lol .. Go back to when that sentence was added, and look at who added it, and based on what information. It was based on a single source, added by a user with a COI probably part of a political think tank engaged in propaganda. Given all these facts, I don't understand why we defending it. Obviously we have to say something in the lead characterizing this organization, but this? -- GreenC 16:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't really see an issue. It sounds like a lot of original research and second guessing sources for no apparent reason. What is there, and has been there for years, is fine and well sourced. PackMecEng (talk) 20:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Other people see an issue.. It's not original research, the quotations are word for word, it's plainly obvious it was copy pasted from Wikipedia. "What's been there for years" is not an argument, it's a logical fallacy. -- GreenC 05:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is where you are mistaken. It had consensus for inclusion and years of unchallenged inclusion is a form of consensus as well. Also yes original research, because it is not "word for word", you two are deciding that it is where the authors got the information. Lastly, if reliable sources are vetting and saying the information that is all that is required, which is what is happening here. PackMecEng (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are wikilawyering and not addressing the actual issue. Talk page discussions specific to the issue carry way more weight than mere previous existence in the article. Otherwise nothing could be challenged, it always existed, therefore it will always exist, is a logical fallacy. The existence of this thing is being challenged. Being in a source is not "all that is required", Wikipedia doesn't work that way. You need to have consensus, and right now, there is not consensus. If we need to have an RfC we will, but before you waste people's time, at least make an argument that doesn't resort to wikilawyering. -- GreenC 23:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
at least make an argument that doesn't resort to wikilawyering You mean well established policies and stating why the current version has consensus and as the person challenging that consensus the onus is on you to secure a new consensus? Also alk page discussions specific to the issue carry way more weight than mere previous existence in the article. is flat wrong so lets just ignore that. Being in a source is not "all that is required", Wikipedia doesn't work that way. is an example of weight, not just because sources exist. So again no argument there. I really have not seen anything convincing from you other than right great wrongs and I don't like it type arguments. Now if you have sources or policy that agree with your viewpoint, and I will note you have presented neither, you are just wasting everyone's time at this point. PackMecEng (talk) 23:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see anything there specific to the issue. Your just wikilawyering again, avoiding the issues and playing rhetorical games. -- GreenC 01:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah yeah whatever. You are entitled to not like facts, but at least try to understand them. PackMecEng (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Newsweek is not a reliable source. See WP:NEWSWEEK. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PackMecEng, let's have a look at your argument that it's not "word for word". First, here's the state of the lead of this Wikipedia article on 22 November 2023:

Media Matters for America (MMfA) is a left-leaning 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization and media watchdog group. It was founded in 2004 by journalist and political activist David Brock as a counterweight to the conservative Media Research Center. It is known for its aggressive criticism of conservative journalists and media outlets, including its "War on Fox News".

Next, here's the text from the 22 November 2023 Newsweek opinion article by Aron Solomon that you provided yesterday:

Media Matters for America is a left-leaning 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization and media watchdog group founded in 2004 by journalist and political activist David Brock. It was established as a counterweight to the conservative Media Research Center and is known for its aggressive criticism of conservative journalists and media outlets, including its "War on Fox News."

Did you actually take the time to compare the two texts before making your argument above that the writer didn't grab this content from Wikipedia? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A good search of the exact phrase: known for its aggressive criticism of conservative journalists and media outlets, including its "War on Fox News." [3] -- GreenC 23:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfC: Drop Fox campaign[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
In this RfC, six editors supported "Drop Fox" (including XavierItzm, whose proposed text suggests using this as the primary term, compared to four editors support "War on Fox". However, consensus is not determined by voting but by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.

In support of "Drop Fox" editors argued that "War on Fox" had negative connotations and as such was a violation of WP:NPOV. In response, editors supporting "War on Fox" argued that it was the most commonly used term for this; I interpreted this as an implicit argument towards WP:DUE and WP:BALASP.

Further complicating this is the fact that the original wording was added by a politics orientated sock-farm, and that there is an element of citogenesis here; sources are calling this a "War on Fox" because we are calling it a "War on Fox". However, these concerns are lessened because reliable sources don't merely use the phrase "War on Fox"; they reference it as a war on Fox.

This comes comes down to whether NPOV requires that we use the language that sources use, and it does not; it requires us to include the information that sources include, but we are free - and typically encouraged - to use our own language, particularly if the words used by the sources are charged.

As such, I find a rough consensus to call the campaign "Drop Fox", but to mention prominently in the section that it is commonly described as a "war on Fox". BilledMammal (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Should the lead section, and section title, be called the "Drop Fox campaign" (article version 1), or "War on Fox" (article version 2). (see the differences in the lead section wording, and in the name of the section "War on Fox") -- GreenC 20:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Background: In 2011-2013 Media Matters conducted a cancel culture campaign to encourage advertisers to leave ("drop") Fox News by issuing reports that discredited Fox's claims to be "fair and balanced". They called this campaign the "Drop Fox campaign". During a March 2011 interview, the CEO of MMFA said they were "at war with Fox News". In December 2013, MMfA Executive VP Angelo Carusone said "The war on Fox is over. And it's not just that it's over, but it was very successful. To a large extent, we won," claiming to have "effectively discredited the network's desire to be seen as 'fair and balanced.'" MMFA further said changing Fox, not shutting it down, was its goal.

Survey[edit]

Wikipedia is not a newspaper that repeats every emotionally charged thing someone says and cuts out the context (not even good journalists do that). Newspapers say and repeat a lot of things but they are not encyclopedias we don't follow their lead. Wikipedia is neutral and needs to take care it doesn't unfairly portray the organization with quotes taken out of context. -- GreenC 20:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Article version 1 - Drop Fox - Since the name of the Cancel Culture campaign was literally the "Drop Fox campaign," that is what the title should reflect. When you review WP:POVNAMING it is clear that the name that should be used is the one well-recognized by readers. Using "War on Fox" as a quote from the CEO of MMFA in the body of the article would be a good way to further support the campaign's name. Pickalittletalkalittle (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion[edit]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tax-exempt status challenge[edit]

I can't find any resolution to this challenge, which means it probably was unsuccessful and arguably not notable (or at least not deserving of its own subsection on this page). Any thoughts?

Tax-exempt status challenge

In 2011, C. Boyden Gray, former White House counsel for George H. W. Bush and Fox consultant, sent a letter to the IRS alleging that MMfA's activities were unlawful for a non-profit organization and asking the IRS to revoke MMfA's tax-exempt status.[1] Prior to Gray's IRS petition, Politico reported that Fox News had run "more than 30 segments calling for the nonprofit group to be stripped of its tax-exempt status."[2] In another report, Politico said Fox News and Fox Business campaigns held, "The non-profit status as an educator is violated by partisan attacks. That sentiment was first laid out by a piece written by Gray for The Washington Times in June."[3] In an interview with Fox News, Gray said "It's not unlawful. It's just not charitable."[4]

MMfA vice-president Ari Rabin-Havt responded to the challenge saying "C. Boyden Gray is [a] Koch-affiliated, former Fox News contributor whose flights of fancy have already been discredited by actual experts in tax law."[4] Gray denied having been on Fox's payroll while he was a Fox consultant in 2005, but at that time, Fox had said Gray was a contributor, adding: "We pay contributors for strong opinions."[3][5] Marcus Owens, former director of the IRS's Exempt Organizations Division, told Politico in 2011 that he believed the law was on Media Matters's side.[6] Owens told Fox Business that only an IRS probe could reveal if partisan activity takes up a substantial enough part of MMfA's operations to disallow its tax-free status; the IRS allows limited political activity at nonprofits if it does not take up a substantial amount of their operations.[7] Superb Owl (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks WP:UNDUE to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ Elizabeth MacDonald (August 4, 2011). "Former White House Counsel to IRS: Pull Media Matters' Tax-Exempt Status". Foxbusiness.com. Archived from the original on December 3, 2013. Retrieved November 28, 2013.
  2. ^ "Fox News takes on Media Matters". Politico. July 7, 2011. Archived from the original on December 4, 2013. Retrieved November 28, 2013.
  3. ^ a b Everett, Burgess (August 5, 2011). "Former W.H. lawyer to IRS: Rescind Media Matters's non-profit status". Politico. Archived from the original on July 29, 2013. Retrieved November 28, 2013.
  4. ^ a b Wemple, Erik (August 5, 2011). "Gray petitions against Media Matters". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on November 13, 2012. Retrieved November 28, 2013.
  5. ^ "Ed Klein, Drowning in Ink and Gasping for Air". The Washington Post. July 11, 2005. Archived from the original on July 28, 2013. Retrieved November 28, 2013.
  6. ^ Hagey, Keach (July 7, 2011). "Fox News takes on Media Matters". Dyn.politico.com. Archived from the original on December 3, 2013. Retrieved November 28, 2013.
  7. ^ Elizabeth MacDonald (August 4, 2011). "Former White House Counsel to IRS: Pull Media Matters' Tax-Exempt Status". Foxbusiness.com. Archived from the original on December 3, 2013. Retrieved November 28, 2013.

February 2024 clean-up summary[edit]

Efforts to get article to B-class have included addressing: NPOV, 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 and clarity and citation formatting with most of the issues addressed and the rest flagged. Superb Owl (talk) 01:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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! -- GreenC 02:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Left leaning[edit]

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. -- GreenC 02:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

-- GreenC 02:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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. -- GreenC 05:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories