Some opinions from earlier RS/N discussions
editI would argue that they could be a reliable source in some instances and not in others, and arguing that they never or always can be used as a source is a little extreme. Mostly what MMfA does is simply publicize errors, mis-statements, and gaffs (real or preceived) by other media organizations. That being case, articles might as well just cite the original media rather than MMfA. In the specific case brought up by LAEC, I think the question is not whether they are a WP:RS—clearly they are the most reliable source for their own opinions, which is what they are being used as a source for in the article—but rather the question should be whether their opinion/criticism [...] is notable enough for inclusion in the article. Yilloslime (t) 06:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
... of the hundreds or thousands of items that MM publishes, very few will tend to be both noteworthy and not receive any coverage in other places. Croctotheface (talk) 23:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
...a Media Matters report that was based on review of every transcript of "Fox & Friends" interviews of Bush administration officials. That's an example of the kind of information that's perfectly proper. In fact, it's rather dubious that, in a case like that, the information even needs to be identified in text as coming from a liberal group. I agree with Gudeldar that such identification is generally proper when Media Matters is quoted as giving an opinion, however. JamesMLane t c 22:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Media Matters seems to often or usually support its claims with evidence. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 05:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
The organization itself is claiming a bias and an agenda that violates NPOV, how can it be reliable? Rapier (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I am of the opinion that they're good for fact-checking but need something like the NYT, Washington Post, or LA times to substantiate their weight. Soxwon (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Singular criticism in any one of those sources I mentioned [Huffington Post, FAIR, and MMFA] isn't prima facie evidence that the relevant incident is inherently significant... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Material which is editorial in nature is RS only as to the fact that the source has an opinion. This includes most of HuffPo and similar sites. Where a factual claim is made within an editorial, best practice is to find a non-editorial source for the fact. In most cases, HuffPo provides proper links for citing facts - but where they do not, it is not proper to give HuffPo as the source. Collect (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
WP:BLP#Self-published sources is clear on this point: "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, forums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject". -- ChrisO (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- ... we have long understood that there is a difference between a personal blog and award winning news commentary sites that publish in "blog format". Yes, the material there is political commentary, and so should be presented as being "opinion" and not "fact"... but it is reliable when used as such. Blueboar (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
(1) Expression of notable opinions. Per WP:NPOV, we report facts, including facts about opinions -- but we can't include every opinion on every subject. This is inevitably a judgment call. [...] (2) In the case of a factual report, [...] the source's ideology is less important...
Thus, our use of these groups should be, as Gamaliel said, a case-by-case decision. JamesMLane t c 08:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Usually exclude [from BLPs] unless the organization has carried out proper investigative journalism and has a good reputation for accuracy in investigations. Or unless the commentator is a notable and serious one in their own right. It seems to me that these "watchdogs" usually pick up information published elsewhere and that we can find better sources.Itsmejudith (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
...a watchdog website may be the only source of relevant audio and video material. Xanthoxyl < 23:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
[Re: consensus] The most reasonable responses seem to advocate for case-by-case determination. PrBeacon (talk) 00:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
...MMfA is a reliable source... especially if material being taken from it is attributed (as in: "According to a Media Matters for America report dated May 6, 2010 so and so said 'such and such'.")... Blueboar (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Media Matters is notable as a media watchdog, and therefore their analysis of and commentary on the media can be included in articles on media organization and members of the press. This doesn't mean that we always must include MMfA's criticisms whenever they are on topic, but in general they may be used as a source as long as proper inline attribution is provided. Yilloslime TC 20:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Advocacy groups can be RS, though we should cite with attribution. There can be some question about using a biased source for a BLP article... Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't know much about MMfA, but I'd be wary about using that as a source in this case. Especially the first citation, which claims Chicago Tribune said something. Well, can't you use Chicago Tribune as a source there? --OpenFuture (talk) 06:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I think it can be used to locate the articles and positions it talks about, but as it is a media monitoring operation, the media that it monitors will usually be the better source. Fred Talk 17:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
MMfA is reliable for things about itself or incidents in which it has been directly involved, and I also admit its content can be useful for identifying actual reliable sources, particularly in cases where it provides links to such sources. But MMfA itself a RS? No way.--LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
That advocacy organizations have points of view does not affect their reliability. If it turns out that MRC (or whatever other organization) issues reports that are untrue, that would affect their reliability. Croctotheface (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
MMfA is generally very good at citing its statements. It does good analysis - certainly much better than many of the conservative newspapers that it often effectively rebuts. If we didn't allow MMfA to be used, these conservative newspapers - just because they're printed - would be in many cases unchecked, allowing only one POV. II | (t - c) 00:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)