Talk:Media Research Center
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)
Contents |
[edit] funding
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)
[edit] about
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.
[edit] MMFA
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.
[edit] "However, to this day, the MRC continues to promote the idea that the WWE holds a liberal media bias."
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?
[edit] someone rip into this please
http://newsbusters.org/node/3465
-
- Why? Is Wikipedia a liberal blog or is it presenting the FACTS on the MRC and Newsbusters? Equinox137 07:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
