User:Thargor Orlando/Media Matters and consensus

This page collects the discussions at the reliable sources noticeboard and biography of living persons noticeboard regarding the reliability of Media Matters for America as a source. This is comprehensive as of January 2014.

Reliable source discussions

• Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, Media Research Center, Media Matters for America, Newsbusters: This is from 2010, and is probably the most detailed discussion. Clearly, there are a lot of feelings and beliefs about MMfA (and other groups like it), and there was actually an end discussion/vote that doesn't show much in the way of consensus for including anything like MMfA. In fact, a strict vote count shows the plurality saying to "exclude." Clearly, there's no consensus on the matter here.
• Media Matters (25th time asked): Not really the 25th time by any real count, it appears to be hyperbole as I suspected, but this discussion notes a few things, such as how MMfA was removed from a Fox News controversy article at the time for a lot of the same reasons I've opposed its inclusion above. The discussion certainly shows a consensus at that time that MMfA is not self-published (a point of view I disagree with, but it's in black and white), but not much of any consensus about its use overall. No conclusion appears to have been reached the way the conclusion appears to be reached regarding its status as to whether it's self-published or not, for comparison.
• Media Matters Blogs: Begins with one editor asserting a consensus that doesn't exist from my previous link above, and the discussion goes on from there. A lot of derailing from one editor asserting consensus over and over (sound familiar?) but there doesn't appear to be consensus there either.
• Media Matters and News Hounds: A short one noting the similarities between the two groups. The discussion is short, and thus of limited value, but the weight of the arguments again doesn't appear to be showing any significant consensus in either direction.
• Reliability of Media Matters: From a few months ago, a four comment discussion that dissolved very quickly into attacks. Another unproven assertion of consensus, nothing much of value to add.
• MMFA - Media Matters for America: This is from 2008, and outside of the WorldNetDaily derailment (and WND is a terrible source), the weight of consensus from this, at least, would indicate MMfA not being a good source. That's why we're not cherry-picking our boards here, though.
• Media Matters yet again: A short one from 2010, with limited input and no real consensus to speak of.
• User-generated blog posts and an unattributed Media Matters post as criticism of a peer-reviewed journal article: From 2010, one complaint with one piece of input referring back to previous discussions and the supposed consensus that doesn't appear to exist.
• Media Matters for America: From 2010, no responses.
• Media Matters for America, Huffington Post, and Newshounds: From 2009, most of this gets delegated to HuffPo's status more than MMfA, but I don't see a MMfA consensus here, either.
• Do these sources qualify as reliable sources?: From 2011. MMfA barely discussed, "editorial decision" comes up a few times.
• Unpublished/non-peer Reviewed Study by Media Matters: From January 2014, things were shaky until the report was published by a third party. Might be the closest we've come to a positive consensus on MMfA so far.

That's all the section headings specifically about MMfA. There are other mentions here and there, but few that actually discuss MMfA as a viable/nonviable source in more than a passing statement.

BLP noticeboard discussions

• Mocking a BLP at Media Matters for America: From 2008. More about an issue with Stephen Colbert than MMfA, but there are examples here of people's distrust of MMfA on BLPs and some editorial decisions not to use them (such as at The Obama Nation at that time).
• John Gibson (political commentator): From 2010, one editor makes a good point that a bunch of involved people talking does not necessarily create a sitewide consensus, but the lean on this discussion appears to significantly want to treat these sorts of blatantly partisan "watchdog"-type groups the same and exclude them.
• Carl Cameron: From 2009, this appears to have a significant problem with using MMfA based on their blatant partisanship, using examples of other partisan-type sources.
• Coatrack, or valid criticism: From 2009, at least gives the appearance of being careful with MMfA as it's a primary source for criticism.
• Use of sources such as mediamatters and newsbusters In bios: From 2008, derailed early as the person in question was a banned user's sock, but the discussion seems to be against partisan sources in criticism pages (with a lot of dislike of criticism pages period, to be fair).
• Pamela Geller: 2010, a comment saying that MMfA shouldn't be used went unchallenged.

Notes

That's all the stuff that deals with MMfA specifically, and while I don't think this demonstrates a consensus for MMfA and BLP, the arguments at least seem to lean against MMfA.