Talk:Media Research Center

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Old comments[edit]

I'm wondering about how (or if) to include the MRC's self-described mission and history. That seems perhaps more relevant than a legal action in which they were involved.

"The mission of the Media Research Center is to bring balance and responsibility to the news media. Leaders of America's conservative movement have long believed that within the national news media a strident liberal bias existed that influenced the public's understanding of critical issues. On October 1, 1987, a group of young determined conservatives set out to not only prove - through sound scientific research - that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene. What they launched that fall is the now acclaimed --- Media Research Center (MRC)"

My concern is this - when a determined group of people have an end in mind which they intend to prove, even the best scientists have a way of making sure that is what they prove. It's called "experimentor bias" in the social sciences. The MRC is high profile and I'm sure believe that their findings are evenly balanced, but with a pre-determined assertion, finding evidence to back it up is usually not hard.

I'm not advocating discrediting this organization (that would be POV in the extreme), just including facts about their mission and funding - it's important and pertinent information which any person should know before taking as fact the findings of any organization. I would welcome thoughts and comments on the matter. --ABQCat 00:46, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dear sir. Please don't edit my edits based on npov without providing under which auspice you are referring to. The NPOV neutral language as I've read states that factual information is not subject to POV. The above quote is factual(also it's from their own site) and does not violate NPOV. The edit I made was directly from the meta description of MRC website and it's been clearly recognized by most major news that MRC is a conservative group. --dis- 13:38, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


In this edit, the words

funded almost entirely by Richard Mellon Scaife

were removed. Why? If the information is correct, it should be in the article. If not, it would still be desirable to have a true description of its financial sources. regards, High on a tree 03:08, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


The about media research center information should be included. However I already added their meta name=description from their website. Though I do think their "about us" is more appropriate.


I'm quite disappointed. This entry has obviously been written by someone who does not like this organization. I personally have made a number of small adjustments, including making the language more neutral. I have also added examples of typical content that MRC produces. Someone has erased them twice. The person who wrote this entry has totally focused on negativity ("Controversies," "Criticisms") without giving any examples of typical MRC content. The writer has not been fair to MRC. This is a good example of why Wikipedia is building a reputation as a source which has an anti-conservative, pro-liberal bias. Fair and honest changes are made, and then they are erased. That is not cool. (1-13-07) 18:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

1-15-07 - I have re-formatted this entry so it is less biased. The entry now contains "examples of content" AND "controversies" and "criticisms." I also changed the biased language of the opener so its language is neutral. 02:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
2012-09-11 Coming very late to the game, incensed by heavy and biased MRC advertising...
  • Shouldn't the claim above that Wikpedia is "building a reputation" be ... founded in the real world and be supported by citations? Or at least re-worded to "getting a reputation"?
  • Repeated unfair edit deletions are referred to as Edit warring — there are specific steps to follow in that case.
Mwr0 (talk) 01:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

NewsBusters description[edit]

Simply in the interest of an accurate description of NewsBusters, is it important to include in that section of the article mention of how on NewsBusters' own 'About' section on their site, they repeatedly refer to the media as having a liberal bias?

"Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), the leader in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias.

In August of 2005, with the guidance of Matthew Sheffield of Dialog New Media, the MRC launched the NewsBusters blog to provide immediate exposure of liberal media bias, insightful analysis, constructive criticism and timely corrections to news media reporting." -

I'm just thinking that with that on the site's own 'About' section, that it would be important to include in a description: their belief that the media has a 'liberal media bias' whether it be factual or not. Lettersandpackages (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


I do not understand why a link to Media Matters is offered on this page. Whoever posted the link needs to offer an explanation beside the link telling readers why its there and what its purpose is. Otherwise, I may delete. Please advise.

It is an organization which provides a similar function from the opposite side of the political spectrum. Gamaliel 04:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I realize that. However, I do not think that a link to an organization dedicated to the opposite cause of the original organization being discussed is needed. Perhaps it would be more fitting if someone created a "Criticisms" section of this page that included a few of the criticisms that MMFA has offered on their website. Until then, I do not think that it is helpful. Until someone creates a criticisms section including MMFA critiques, I think it will be best for me to delete the link.

It would be a very sad day when they deleted any chance for the Americans to question the right wing conservative control of the media. This site is far worse even than Fox News with its constant one side attacks of clinton and any liberal candidates, Ie. Gore, Obama, etc. They even attack science just as the White House would not allow scientists to publish their knowledge of global warming.

"However, to this day, the MRC continues to promote the idea that the WWE holds a liberal media bias."[edit]

Needless to say, I think someone else put this up for humor. While very funny, I think it needs to go. Any others seeing something in it that I'm not?

Where's your signature? —Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

someone rip into this please[edit]

Why? Is Wikipedia a liberal blog or is it presenting the FACTS on the MRC and Newsbusters? Equinox137 07:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
MRC and Newsbusters are good at exposing Democrats, but they always turn a blind eye when Republicans screw up and when it's time to expose them. That's why it's worth mentioning in the article. Ericster08 (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Please ...[edit]

I have re-written this entry so it is less biased. The entry had obviously been written by someone who has a bias against MRC. I have changed the biased language of the opening line. I have also added "examples of content," yet "controversies" and "criticisms" still remain. Wikipedia needs to be more neutral in its content of conservative voices. Very sadly, Wiki is building a reputation as a source of liberally slanted information. The previous MRC entry was a good example of that. Thank you. I appreciate any feedback. HonestAndFair 17:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC) generally only allows neoconservatives to leave their comments. They will not be satisfied until they totally control the media.

Here is a typical comment left by homophobic neoconservatives that has nothing to do with global warming but their hatred and fear(disguised by insults) of Al Gore:

" February 26, 2007 - 22:56 Thanks for reminding me about this, Schmidt...... I heard from Brother Rhayes the other day. He had just received his marching orders from Pat Robertson and was heading out to East LA to preach the Word and drive the demons from the Vampires when he told me something profound. He said that he was profoundly mistaken about the "neocons." He also, for the first time, was being counseled by Brother Pat in private about his affinity for "other men." I told him that I couldn't relate to that, but that I was happy that he was facing his sin head on with Brother Pat. Rhayes also confessed to me that he found Al Gore "hot" and that he knew that was wrong and wanted the forgiveness of the Lord. Rhayes told me that he struggled with "Gore's sexiness". He felt really bad. I reminded Rhayes that he was pathetic in terms of his worldview. He told me that he's "trying" to change. I'm glad. BTW, he told me that Jesus Camp was tool of Satan

If a so called liberal (disagrees with Bush's neocon philosophy) would make the same gay slur, they would be banned. This site has a double standard in regards to media. They feel that the truth or facts is liberal bias.

"It has also accused Wikipedia of a liberal bias, and claims that it "habitually delivers unflattering content about conservative media figures while giving liberals a much lighter treatment." Dave Pierre of the MRC has claimed that the Wikipedia article on the Media Research Center is slanted against their organization. [3]"

If anyone checks out newsbusters, which has recently been removed from wickipedia (fear of unflattering comments?(facts), you will find that any time anyone criticizes the neocon philosophy of the site, the blogger is banned. Neocons have a tendency to spin any fact about our present administration to the way they want it to sound. A prime example is Fox news. This organization hates the term neoconservative, and so now recently since the label has come into vogue with much of the country, the term might soon be also deleted from wickipedia. I worry about the constant intimidation of journalists from this very right wing organization that won't be happy until they have full control of the media the way Russia did in the past and still does.

They wrote the book on banning users who post comments with opposing views. They are also classic spin artists with a total disregard for honesty.

"My attorney contacted Wikipedia by email demanding the removal of this false entry. No response. So we edited out the offensive material ourselves, after which in writing counsel alerted Wikipedia to the legal action that might befall them should this be repeated. Here’s full disclosure, Wikipedia-style: You can see how each article is altered, sometimes hour by hour, in its "History" section. But there is no mention of the attorney’s complaints. In the Goldberg article’s history, an editor simply now scolds: "Bozell's article is a mock-jealous swipe at Goldberg's opportunism. PLEASE REREAD IT." (Capitals theirs.)" This is from Brent Bozell in Newsbusters threatening intimidation of anyone that puts out facts they don't want us to see!

now these neocons want to intimidate the blogosphere with lawsuits and they whine about the liberal media. they wont be happy until they totally control all info like did in communist russis!

This entire entry should read - Like media matters but without the factual content, the MRC was formed to prove that Rosie O'donnel leans to the left, and that Jerry Falwell was a kind old soul. Any conservative who reads this site should be offended that the left has an effective report like Media Matters and the right has this joke of a website. 15:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"HonestAndFair", you seem to fall prey to the same type of thinking that MRC itself is based upon: assuming that just because a statement or report is critical of them or otherwise reflects negatively upon their positions, it must be bias. This type of thinking ignores an essential point: sometimes an accurate reporting of the facts will reflect negatively on a person, group, and/or ideological position. That's not a sign of bias, it's a sign of that person, group, and/or ideological position being wrong. — Red XIV (talk) 08:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


Per Rhino7628's request, I am discussing on talk before reverting this edit by that user (even though they did not feel compelled to discuss on talk before making the original change). I'm reverting one more time (actually someone else has done it already) because the intro as rewritten by Rhino is no good. If that user wants to move the label "conservative" out of the first sentence so be it. But the rewritten version reads like an advert for the group (and also trails off before finishing the thought). Background info about conservative leaders believing the media has a liberal bias does not belong in the intro. Comments like "young determined conservatives" and "acclaimed" (though the thought is not finished there) are not NPOV and do not belong here. The idea that the MRC does "scientific research" is absurd (just as the idea that Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting does scientific research would be absurd--these are media watchdog groups who watch the media). Anyhow another user has reverted already but here's an explanation to Rhino for what it's worth.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Since you have made it clear that you are going to oppose any suggestion by myself or anyone else on these boards whose opinion differs from yours, I'm going to rely on you to suggest a compromise. Please suggest. I am awaiting your reply. If you have not compromise to suggest, then please stop reverting my edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhino7628 (talkcontribs) 21:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
You're wildly mischaracterizing my view. I explained above why your changes do not work. You are just as capable of suggesting a compromise as I am--this is not my burden. You are the only person pushing this right now and several other people (not just me) are reverting you. The intro as you have rewritten it is just bad writing (again, you don't finish your sentence) and not NPOV so I am reverting it again. I believe you have also now violated WP:3RR. Thanks for coming to the talk page though, whereas before you were demanding that everyone else discuss on talk whilst you reverted as much as you pleased.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I have tried once, twice, multiple times to give you the chance to sound objective, but you obviously cannot. This is no longer worth my time. Enjoy your one-sided views in peace. You have the option to prove to me otherwise by editing the intro., but we all know that will never happen. Peace out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhino7628 (talkcontribs) 22:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The intro should note its status as a "501(c)(3) non-profit organization". (talk) 07:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)Jax

Rachel Maddow Lesbian[edit]

Text that has been deleted by TheRedPeacock on the ground of WP:RS

However, over the network's decision to add Rachel Maddow as primetime host, Tim Graham appeared on the Fox News Channel morning show Fox and Friends to criticize the decision, calling Maddow "this lesbian Air America radio host".[1]

I believe this material should be re-added to the article, and anyone clicking the link can clearly see that the information is reliable. MMFA is partisan in the editorializing and whom they chose to cover, but the clips and quotes they take are WP:RS. We shouldn't rely on MMFA to characterize the MRC, but it is appropriate to use MMFA as a source for a quotation used in the article. Also user:theredpeacock templated me with a NPOV warning, so he might also have a NPOV concern, although he has not articulated his concern over that on this page. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 01:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


  1. ^ Walzer, A.J. (2008-09-09). "On Fox, MRC's Graham criticized MSNBC for "adding this lesbian Air America radio host, Rachel Maddow" to its lineup". Media Matters for America. Retrieved 2008-09-10.

Media Matters not a reliable source?[edit]

This is quite interesting. One User:Chris Chittleborough has been deleting a reference to this article by Media Matters for America, "MRC studies that "prove" media's "liberal bias" collapse under scrutiny." CC has said about MMFA: "none of their attacks on conservatives are encyclopedic," and "MMFA is a propaganda project, not a Reliable Source." So why does MMFA have to go but not FAIR? Andrewlp1991 (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems like drive-by removal of information that CC doesn't like. As the source is used for a differing viewpoint, and not a sourced statement of fact, I don't see any reason to remove it based on WP:RS. Dayewalker (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
It's repeated, systematic removal of "information" that does not belong in the article by Wikipedia's rules.
Remember that the everything MRC does — including almost every post at Newsbusters — harms the basic mission of MMFA. There are statements by WikiNotable conservative bloggers describing MMFA as a malicious, dishonest propaganda operation. Would it be OK for me to put their viewpoint in the article about MMFA? Then why is it OK to privilege MMFA in this article? (The relevant policy here is WP:NPOV, especially WP:UNDUE.)
Maybe the (rather outdated) attacks from FAIR should be removed as well. I haven't looked closely at them. Cheers, CWC 10:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Both FAIR and MMfA material should be removed. From WP:RS: "Questionable sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties."--Drrll (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

See also section[edit]

I said above that I don't think Media Matters for America can be used as a source or a viewpoint in this article. However, I think they and other US media watchdog groups (notably FAIR) should be listed in the "See also" section, and I've just added them. Does anyone disagree? Perhaps more importantly, are there any other groups we should add? (PR Watch was already there, and quite rightly too.) Cheers, CWC 17:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that. Accuracy in Media should also be added.--Drrll (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Good point. I've added it. I see we now have all 5 groups listed here (PR Watch being part of Center for Media and Democracy). Cheers, CWC 08:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Reference section edit[edit]

Not sure who, when or why, but the traditional "References" section was labeled as "Notes" and citations to assumedly uncited content were included there. I have removed those to the "See Also" section and re-ordered the sections to have the {{reflist}} immediately after the article conclusion as is, I think, the Wikipedia norm? JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


Since I found no evidence of them referring to themselves as conservative I have removed that description of them in the opening sentence. Recognizing that at least one other source believes they are conservative I have added that to the lead with the aknowledgement that they do not self identify as conservative. I have said only that "some" believe they are conservative due to only one source being available. I feel these changes are completely fair, but if you must debate them feel free to comment below.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 03:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I added nine sources, all from the past year, and could have added another nine hundred. Few organizations call themselves "conservative" or "liberal", regardless of how well those labels fit.   Will Beback  talk  04:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Could you please link to the articles that you found?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 04:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm afraid I can't - the archive is behind a firewall. Many libraries provide free access to their patrons. However in each of these cases the sources referred to the "conservative Media Research Center".   Will Beback  talk  04:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
While the other sources I added were all from the past 12 months, the characterization dates back at least to 1987, 23 years ago. Here's the excerpt:
  • "It has been a very sexy story in a dull campaign," said L. Brent Bozell, head of the conservative Media Research Center. "But my guess is that it's going to disappear until or unless Hart actually claims a victory."
    • Helpful Attention and Unflattering Jokes Mark the Press's Reaction to Hart ANDREW ROSENTHAL, Special to the New York Times. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Dec 21, 1987. pg. D.12
Like I say, there are hundreds of similar sources.   Will Beback  talk  04:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
You can probably just cut that down to 3 or 4 sources since you're overcrowding the lead, but try to make at least 2 of them accessible online(which shouldn't be hard to do if they're called that everywhere). Other than that I'm fine with everything here.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 04:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
The Washington Post piece is probably available online- they tend to keep their stuff online for a long time. Feel free to search for them and add them if you think that's necessary. I'll consolidate the refs.   Will Beback  talk  04:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, that's a neat trick of yours. I don't really know how to enter in a link from the Washington Post article however(I'm a little lost in your citation) but it's probably fine anyway. I was just told before that I needed to cite references you can see online.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 05:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I can't take credit for it. Template:cite news. Some of these newspapers have archives that allow you to pay $5 or some similar fee to see an old article. The New York Times has an archive that goes back to the 1800s. The also make some available for free.[1] However it is not strictly necessary to use sources that can be linked. Books, for example, are fine to use, even if Google Books hasn't gotten to them yet. However as a matter of etiquette and practicality, editors usually provide excerpts of hard-to-find materials on request.   Will Beback  talk  06:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It is conservative, it is called conservative, and it itself says it is conservative. No sane person can honestly dispute that is should simply be labeled conservative. The organization itself claims to be conservertive - a tool for the conservative movement: This reference was removed with an edit summary that falsely said that it did not support the label 'conservative'.[2] This type of ridiculous, disruptive, childish and petty editing is a real danger to the Wikipedia project. Dlabtot (talk) 23:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Umm, what quote from the page(which I am getting tired of re-looking at trying to see if I've missed something) does the organization call itself conservative or a "tool of the conservative movement"?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 01:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
What I saw on that page is that MRC was founded by conservatives for conservatives. Anyway, is this still a dispute? We have literally hundreds of sources that call it "conservative" and so far no one has suggested any other characterization or disputed they are conservative. It seems like a settled point, but if someone has a new source or evidence that would be interesting.   Will Beback  talk  02:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I disagree agree with proposal that we declare a group a conservative or liberal group based on what others call them. It has always been the policy of Wikipedia(as far as I know) that we label groups what they refer to themselves as. It's perfectly fine to let it be known what everybody views them as, but it's a slippery slope if we start labeling groups partisan just because you can have sources other than them alleging them as partisan. For instance we could just outright label Fox and MSNBC a conservative and liberal news channel with plenty of sources to back it up, but it's not what they refer to themselves as, so I don't want to start this practice of labeling groups based on what others see them as. To take this further I could note that could label Mel Gibson an anti-Semitic. I don't think anybody would disagree with that, and there are plenty of sources to back it up, but if he doesn't refer to himself as an anti-Semitic then would shouldn't either.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 03:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

conservative (part 2)[edit]

per the above discussion, its silly not to note that MRC is a conservative organization.--Milowenttalkblp-r 19:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Per my original argument. It is the standard practice of Wikipedia to refer to organizations by what they refer to as themselves. Many sources call Fox and MSNBC conservative and liberal, but we do not refer to them as that because they do not self-refer to themselves as that. In a non-political sense, Mel Gibson doesn't refer to himself as being an anti-Semitic yet plenty of sources do, per our standard practice then we do not refer to Mel Gibson as an anti-Semitic but instead report that other sources do.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
We would not refer to the Nazi party as a "loving organization" if they referred to themselves that way. That's silly. We don't parrot self-published descriptions, this comes up all the time in BLPs. Glenn Beck is described a a conservative, for example, regardless of his personal descriptions. Here, reliable sources repeatedly describe MRC as a conservative organization (e.g., Christian Science Monitor just yesterday), so its disingenuous to remove. What's your MRC connection?--Milowenttalkblp-r 20:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Glenn Beck does describe himself as a conservative, but I'm glad you brought up that point. Bill O'Reilly doesn't consider himself as conservative and his article doesn't refer to him as conservative either. Try finding me an example however where we don't refer to an organization as they describe themselves or say something like they self describe themselves as "insert self-describing material".Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Why don't you find me a rule that says "it is the standard practice of Wikipedia to refer to organizations by what they refer to as themselves."'s "about us" page doesn't use the word "liberal", but its wiki article does. And please answer my prior question.--Milowenttalkblp-r 20:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Then's page should be changed and I would be willing to go there and support that. As for your "prior question" do you mean this? What's your MRC connection? To be honest I didn't even notice that for some reason, but now that you mention it don't you think that is a little paranoid/ and or offensive to suggest that someone's argument is not based on logic but rather some personal POV? You have still not answered my questions.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
LOL, the MRC about us page uses the word "conservative" 7 times.[3]--Milowenttalkblp-r 20:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Media Matters uses the word conservative plenty of times. What is your point?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Re your comment about my question, I am not assuming bad faith, I am simply asking a question.--Milowenttalkblp-r 20:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

"What's your MRC connection?" is not just a question. It is a statement that I have a connection. Quit lying to everyone.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

To purpose of the question is to get you to say either that you have a connection or you don't. Your history of edits caused me some concern.--Milowenttalkblp-r 21:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
  • And now you take word "conservative" out of the article without showing any wikipedia policy supporting your edit? This is disturbing.--Milowenttalkblp-r 21:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Let's evaluate your claims.
  1. I want to remove the word conservative from their article. Then why do I support this sentence in the lead paragraph? "MRC is widely called "conservative"."
  2. I have a troubling edit history? Like these two edits? [4], [5].
Do you have any more baseless smears to level against me?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a silly guideline to identify groups by how they self-identify rather than by reliable sources, but in this case, the MRC does self-identify as conservative, as well as reliable sources identifying them as conservative. Drrll (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

But they don't self identify.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I believe your claim on that, but it doesn't really matter, because we have no guideline that requires us to use a group's self-identification to describe it.--Milowenttalkblp-r 22:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Why don't we just mention that it does not self-identify as conservative? Anything else on top of that I am fine with.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
MRC's own website uses that description for google searches!! Look at this page, Bret Bozell's bio at MRC[6], the metadata used (which is what pops up in your search results when you search google for ("media research center" and conservative) as the 2nd hit, is: "Media Research Center (MRC) is a conservative media watchdog group dedicated to bringing political balance to the news and entertainment media." That is MRC's self description used for google!! News reports have noted that self-description in the past.e.g.,[7], [8] (behind a pay wall, but it says group describes itself with that quote).--Milowenttalkblp-r 23:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Well if they used to describe themselves as conservative and they haven't outright stated a change then I'm fine with referring to them as conservative.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 23:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Description of founding either very misleading OR pure trivia[edit]

I've got a real problem with this pair of sentences.

Bozell and a group of other young conservatives founded the MRC on October 1, 1987, with only themselves, a black-and-white television set, and rented computer at their headquarters. Their initial budget was at US$339,000.

The 1st sentence characterizes MRC as starting on a shoestring budget, just a few (non-salaried?) guys and some outdated and rented equipment.
But the 2nd sentence belies that. It implies that for some reason, even with lots of funding, they chose to open shop with "only...", which makes it sort of nostalgic trivia (encyclopedic in terms of providing exhaustive information, but not encyclopedic, since it's not a properly characterizing summary).
Mwr0 (talk) 02:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Discrepancy between description of Media Matters and the MRC.[edit]

The introduction of the Media Matters for America article states that it "is a politically progressive media watchdog group". Why does the same introduction not exist for MRC? I have adjusted the introductory sentence of the MRC article to mirror the style of the MMfA article. Krjcheck (talk) 14:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

What happens in one article has no bearing on what happens in another. Edits should be made on individual merit. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


Given the descriptive subtitle ("exposing Liberal Media bias"), does this mean that they ignore conservative media bias? 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Media Research Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

NPOV - no criticism in the lead[edit]

Someone want to fix this? Doug Weller talk 16:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I gave it a try by following infobox template guidelines and updating the "mission" per the source. (Alas....) The article/lede does need to reconcile the 2 mission statements and give a NPOV lede as you point out. – S. Rich (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Mmm - I only added 'american' 'nonprofit' as the two more prominent things out of the cite. Thats consistent with Charity Navigator. But I'm not seeing a lot in Google or prominently so ... Media Bias Factcheck doesn't seem thrilled with them and Sourcewatch mentions some criticism... nothing worth headlines or obviously DUE. I think leave it at 'politically conservative' and the words they have or mission statement is clear enough on what it is and there just are no seperate things of much note. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Confused That depends whether your applied definition for “...of much note” matches what's-laid-out not in WP:NOTABLE but WP:LEAD. Are you somehow implying that external criticism is the daily-business with every single “politically conservative” pressure-group that exists? —Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 02:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Media Research Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Media Research Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

On the climate change passage in "Viewpoints" section, specifically[edit]

To "@Snooganssnoogans, "Calton" and every other harmonious account( not necessarily an editor) who might come across this: Can either of you bother to explain your contentions exhaustively? I did my Best[ to rationalise my contribution] in the limited constraints allowed me to. But to be frank, given my prior accumulated experience on[ English] Wikipedia®, all the patterns were followed upon so I saw this one coming that my edit will be inexplicably reverted by a familiar senior( i.e. one with greater WP:UAL) but disappointed to see that the former has engaged in absolutely-unjust reversion via WP:TWINKLE without even bothering for a single letter. So I had already planned to create a talk-page discussion[ once my anticipations were borne-out]. But then they had to send me a fully-boilerplate warning-shot filled with intimidating phraseology. So please, will either of you try your Best to explain yourself, or in this courtroom..Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 01:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC) Edit Note: Fixed the factual-error about the application of WP:TW. Got it confused with other cases. Some[ unilateral] WP:CLEANUP for formatting, as well. —Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 01:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

No comment on anything except to point out that all accounts or IP addresses are editors. Doug Weller talk 12:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Sorry? Is that some-sort of "correction"? I'm afraid to say there is lack of sufficient context for me to infer whether you're "correcting" me[ so that my terminology may apply more broadly].( Unless you expect me to deduce it, which might as well be prejudicial — given this is not the universe of "Sherlock Holmes".) Or was that not even directly-addressed to me but it's some idiosyncratic practice you engage in, and the alignment is perhaps more for the formatting-reasons than to denote a ‘reply’?( No judgment, seriously.) —Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 21:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Edit Note: Fixed the typo[ causing accidental-palilogy]. —Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

This appears to be about the difference between two formulations:

  • frequently criticizes media coverage on the science of climate change (which suggests that the science is a real thing, as it is)


  • frequently criticizes media coverage favoring the science of climate change (which might suggest, incorrectly, that media coverage is taking sides in an un-settled scientific debate).

The first formulation is clearly superior. However, having read the references, I wonder if there's a better one that more clearly describes what is actually being done, perhaps "frequently criticizes media reports for discussing the relevance of climate change to current extreme weather events"? Hunc (talk) 12:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, with additional-reply: First of all, Thanks for your initiative.
And to clarify, the addition of verb ‘favouring’ was merely to denote that the subject clearly cherry-picks ONLY that media-coverage to criticise, which does reflect the scientific-consensus on the Accelerated Climate Change/Anthropogenic Global Warming. Or are we to pretend that the RW media proudly engaged in such editorial-worldview doesn't cover stories/topics related to climate crisis or because their positions are antithetical to the scientific-consensus( obviously whilst engaging in pretentious-obtuseness over semantics in a bad-faith haranguing), they don't constitute as ‘media coverage’ altogether because thay're not "real press"?( To wit, the RW has reported on erratic weather changes and keeps doing so, but ONLY to twist-&-turn and deny it through their mental-gymnastics that it has anything correlative to human-activities.) Because that would be taking Scientism( or more dispassionately, authority bias) to the extreme and last time I checked, Wikipedia®'s neutral editing policy( i.e. mostly-misinterpreted WP:NPOV) didn't advocate for glossing over established/mainstream institutions' amplification of pseudoscience. Otherwise, we would would've to scrub over every single article which contained citations to contemporaneous press-sources with favorable coverage to scientific racism — even though it was indisputably a scientific-consensus well until the early preceding-century all Thanks to socio-politically clouded HUMANS who happened to dominate the field of sciences at the time — as well, no? And hence, before answering your query about the change — let's get this over with: Does this clarification suffice? Or shall I..? –Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 22:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Edit Note: Fixed the link to the "Scientific racism" wiki-entry. –Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
I think that's as clear as it's going to get, thank you. We now have a comment that accurately reflects what the source says. Hunc (talk) 09:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Yep! I have seen that the closest left-to-right ordered citation is merely an AP® [news]wire reporting to the likes of "DJTJ" mocking CNN®'s Mr Anderson Cooper whereas the subject apparently continuing their classical narrative of the "studio-actors being politicos" and "field reporters being ( what's-that-word? Errmmm.. Ha!) "crisis aCToRs"." So yeah, for me: the wording is clearly better than the one which might lead any potential press-friendly visitor to object on discounting the role of RW press in such stories.
But let we be clear: I was merely challenging your presupposed-conclusion that I was referring to the domain of scientific-consensus and thusly, judging which one is "superior" revision. I won't compel you to judge in the light of absorbing that information, "whose is better": But from my experience on this platform, I've to confirm that you sufficiently got my point. Isn't it the least I could expect? –Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 06:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
I can confirm that I have sufficiently got your point. Hunc (talk) 07:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)