Talk:Center for Media and Democracy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Criticism section

The first two aspects of the criticism section appear to me to not be criticism at all, but only descriptions of the center. of course, they were made by right-wing organisations and therefore might count as cirticism in their context/worldview, but surely not on wikipedia? this complete article needs some work! --84.129.132.5 (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticism/Praise

I am curious - is there a reason why this article has a section on criticism of the Disinfopedia, but no section on praise/importance of it? This is out of character with the rest of the Wikipedia, who to remain neutral place balanced arguements of both sides in such situations.

Erolos 20:17, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Most of the criticism should in fact go to Sheldon Rampton - it's not about Disinfopedia per se - David Gerard 23:29, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The criticism is really aimed at the book, Banana Republicans, which I co-authored with John Stauber. I don't object to moving it the the Sheldon Rampton article instead of here, but shouldn't John get his share of the glory too? ;-)

More importantly, some of the criticism is misleading and inaccurately characterizes our books. As currently worded, it states,

They liken the conservative Republican's [sic] domestic policy agenda to the cultural revolution in China, and to the economic plans implemented the Soviet Union. [sic]

Compare this with what we actually say in the book:

One-party dominated states and hierarchical, command-driven social systems are notorious for their tendency to make disastrous decisions, in the areas of both domestic and foreign policy. China’s cultural revolution and the Soviet Union’s failed economic development plans are among the most extreme but not the only cases in point.

This sentence is literally the only place in the entire book where we mention China at all, and there is nothing in this passage that even mentions the Republican party's policies, let alone "likens" them to the cultural revolution in China or the Soviet Union's economic plans. All we do in this passage is point out that one-party states are prone to make errors. Later in the same chapter of the book, we go into some detail about how the Soviet Union pursued a disastrous agricultural policy because it insisted on subordinating biological science to Marxist ideology, going so far as to imprison and even kill scientists whose research contradicted the party line. We then write,

Under Republican rule, of course, scientists are not being arrested or shot, but the Bush administration has begun a disturbing process of subordinating science to politics, with potentially dangerous consequences. To inform its decisions on issues including sex education, environmental health, global warming, workplace safety and AIDS, the Bush administration has used a variety of political litmus tests to create scientific panels stacked heavily with members who have scant scientific credentials but strong industry ties and right-wing agendas. It has altered official government websites, removing scientific information that contradicts the political views of industry groups and the conservative movement. In some cases, scientists have been ordered to remain silent by their politically appointed higher-ups.

Following this passage, we list a number of documented cases in which the Bush administration has done this. While it is true that we point to one similarity between Republicans and the Soviet Union in the way both have subordinated science to ideology, we also point to important differences, namely that scientists are not being arrested or shot. It is therefore an untrue to say that we "liken" Republican policies to those of the Soviet Union.

To sum up: I don't expect that books that John and I have written with titles such as Banana Republicans should be treated as noncontroversial, and I have no objection to criticisms of us or our books appearing in the Wikipedia. However, if Wikipedia is going to summarize one of our books, it should present an accurate summary rather than a misleading caricature. If anyone here wants to do so, the book is of course available in stores, and you can find chapter summaries on the Banana Republicans website.

--Sheldon Rampton 05:43, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well I agree that the criticism seems very exaggerated, but more to the point it is utterly bias and not 'neutral' to have criticism without the opposite. Either the criticism is utterly removed, or someone adds a section with the opposite view. I'm not the person to do this, as I'm simply not well-informed enough, but I will be the person to remove the criticism if no one steps up to write a supportive/anti-criticism section. Erolos 09:15, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, no, it shouldn't just be blanked. What can be recovered for good sense and NPOV could be moved to Sheldon Rampton or to an article on the book itself (since it has two authors). In any case, just blanking it will invite it being re-added; fixing it would likely be a better move. Not that I have time - David Gerard 18:41, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agreed with your point, and fixed the sentence so that it includes the entire passage, and readers can make of it what they want. I left the mention of the linkening to Hitler, despite possible inaccuracy, because it hasn't been disputed.

I still believe that an anti-criticism section, or one that puts a positive take on the website, should be included to make the article NPOV. I'm not the one to do it, but it needs to be done.

-Erolos 14:55, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, actually the "likening to Hitler" has been disputed -- by me, one of the authors of the book. I haven't disputed it by editing the article directly, because self-editing seems to be frowned on by Wikipedia, but I certainly have disputed it here on the talk page.

I realize that you are trying to bend over backwards to be fair to the person who wrote this crap, but it you review the history of the discussion here, it should be obvious that the guy was grinding an axe against us and making no effort to be fair or accurate. He even called me a "danged liar" merely for stating -- accurately -- that I am a member of the staff of the Center for Media and Democracy. I don't see how it is NPOV to misrepresent the contents of our book, simply because one guy with a hostile attitude wrote a bunch of nonsense about it. Your edited version merely reiterates his hostile POV, without any qualification whatsoever. --Sheldon Rampton 18:11, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Some also allege that the posture of a research group, which both the organization and its Wiki-based website Disinfopedia assume, is a sham, pointing to a Village Voice article from April, 2001 which said "These guys come from the far side of liberal."

I agree that there are probably some valid criticism of this group, but the one presented above is a poor and POV one. Calling it simply a "sham" is so overgeneral that it's not informative. What does it mean for the "posture of a research group" to be a "sham"? What does that even mean? (Not to mention the sloppy sentence construction makes it a bit confusing to what exactly is being argued, which alone merits rewriting or removing it.) Whatever is being claimed, one quote, apparently out of context, making an ad hominem is probably poor evidence. --Taak 03:19, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If one wants to introduce a valid section on criticism, these must be verifiable and from reliable sources and free of weasel words. False "criticism" introduced as a way to attack the organization is not going to fly. Please see the relevant policy guidelines on verifiability, citation, weasel words and reliable sources and leave your POV-pushing for your own blogs and barroom blathering. Calicocat (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Capital Research Center

What business do they have on this page? Their rating system is neither reliable nor notable, and no other page cites them as an accurate barometer. ~ smb 18:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I intend to remove this soon, unless I hear a credible objection. ~ smb 22:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Since I spent a bit of time clarifying the CRC's specious rating system, in the interest of helping fend off future inclusions, I'd like to place that addition here (also I'm fond of it):

(To place this ranking in context, the CRC considers the U.S. Department of the Interior to be a "radical left" organization, assigning it a ranking of "1" (include ref link to "Capital Research Center: U.S. Department of the Interior organization profile"). It should also be noted that the CRC ranking scheme includes no rank variables corresponding to far-right or radical-right organizations.) Rangergordon (talk) 08:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If one wants to introduce a valid section on criticism, these must be verifiable and from reliable sources and free of weasel words. False "criticism" introduced as a way to attack the organization is not going to fly. Please see the relevant policy guidelines on verifiability, citation, weasel words and reliable sources and leave your POV-pushing for your own blogs and barroom blathering. Calicocat (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Activist Cash' Inaccurate Criticisms

I am the Executive Director of the Center for Media and Democracy. I recently edited this page to note that the following criticism of my organization is not accurate:

"ActivistCash.com . . . describes the Center for Media and Democracy, the sponsor of SourceWatch, as "a counterculture public relations effort disguised as an independent media organization... it is essentially a two-person operation" run by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber."

I indicated that neither Sheldon nor John work at CMD and that John, who founded CMD, retired from the organization last year. The Center has over a dozen full-time or part-time professional, administrative, and research staff or consultants, as listed on our masthead. Over a decade ago, perhaps it might have been technically fair to suggest that the Center was primarily two guys, but in this century that is simply not true and ActivistCash's biased efforts to discredit and minimize our institution by writing that does not make it so. The fact that the assertion is referenced to that corporate front group does not displace the actual facts, which are that the Center has employed several staffers over the years beyond the two authors of the organization's books. And, the facts are that the assertions of ActivistCash are false.

Therefore, in accordance with the best practices protocol of Wikipedia, I would ask that whomever reverted my edit indicating that ActivistCash's statement was inaccurate please correct the article. On our wiki, we do allow interested parties to edit articles so long as they self-identify and of course such edits can be altered by others. So, I did not knowingly breach your protocol but was simply attempting to set the record straight and considered myself to be a sufficiently authoritative source to do so, since I am the Executive Director (contrary to the prior version of the article) and know first-hand the size of our organization. Here is a link to our masthead, we have three additional new staffers who are on board this fall and some of our summer staff will be coming off the list but plainly we are not just two guys: http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/bios . Lisa Graves

I've removed the whole section, based mainly on what I wrote here rather than anything else. Thanks for posting here rather than editing the article again, per out guideline on how best to deal with a conflict of interest it is best if you only post here to request changes to the article, rather than updating it yourself. On wikipedia, everything needs to be verifiable and often edits made by staff members are not since they know information that we cannot verify. I'm watching this article now so I'll notice any other requests you make. Smartse (talk) 11:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Smartse. I appreciate that and the advice. Point taken going forward. Before I saw your note I updated the staff list and stats on SourceWatch, with citations and an explanation there, but did not alter any criticism. I'm not sure how to ensure that staff information stays current in the future without doing it but I promise in the future to follow whatever protocol you suggest. Lisa —Preceding unsigned comment added by LisaFromSourceWatch (talk • contribs) 05:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Maintenance issue clarification

I've gone ahead and cleaned up the maintenance tags added to the article. Before replacing maintenance tags, please clarify rationale in accordance with the concerns below. The following have been removed:

1. two refimprove and self-published tags. Each statement in the article is cited, albeit with primary sources. Adding a SPS and two refimprove on top of the primarysources tag is clearly redundant and unnecessary. see WP:TC
2. rm advert and npov as redundant and lacking clarification; please clarify identified areas of concern and engage in discussion on talk page.
3. rm COI due to lack of identified COI editing.
4. rm notability due to national scope and awards received; while additional independent sources are needed, notability is established; if notability remains in question, please consider submitting for a community discussion. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 21:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Merge PRwatch.org into article

I was unable to locate well established and thorough secondary references on PR Watch section. It doesn't appear to merit its own page, so it was merged here as a website to this organization. Even then, this article is in serious need of supporting significant portions of contents with credible, secondary sources. As it stands now, it is almost entirely written off of PRwatch contents. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for merging, I think that was the right move. PRwatch.org appears to be the home website for the Center for Media and Democracy, so it makes sense for info about the organization's website to be housed on the organization's page. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

ALEC Exposed vandalism

After reading the paragraph I deleted, I tried to read the cited article. It is a dead link. I looked further, and found that reporter Beau Hodai, whom the editor claimed had been evicted by hotel staff, was actually removed at the behest of ALEC, which has been doing illegal lobbying for decades. (They recently split off a 501(c)4 organization from their 501(c)3.)

The author here is Olivia Ward, a respected international reporter from the Toronto Star. http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2011/12/17/americas_secret_political_power.html

(Back in Toronto I reach the hotel’s managing director, Bruce Lang, by phone and am told, “Mr. Hodai was considered to be a persona non grata from the conference.” But he adds, “not by the hotel, not by the police. . . He clearly presented a threat to the conference, based on his history.”) That would be the threat of investigative journalism?

The deleted paragraph was:

Reports later revealed that Beau Hodai, the reporter for PR Watch who wrote many of CMD's attacks on ALEC, has a long criminal history. He was charged in 2011 of assault with a weapon as "Mohamad Hodai" and in 2007, he was charged with three counts of threatening or intimidating, disorderly conduct, and criminal trespass in the third degree. That same year he was asked to leave ALEC's conference after hotel staff reported, he “clearly presented a threat to the conference, based on his history.”

That paragraph is clearly meant as guilt by association, and is little more than an ad hominem attack on reporter Hodai. The contention, sourced to a dead link, that the eviction from a room that was paid for and properly registered (all hotels in the U.S. require that identification be presented by the booked guest) the conference hotel was on grounds of a supposed "threat" are clearly ludicrous and I would presume, a violation of BLP. The year of the incident was given as "2007," though 2011 is mentioned earlier. The eviction from the conference site was indeed in 2011, per Ward's article. Activist (talk) 10:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Source on ALEC Exposed

For those who are interested, here is an excellent source summarizing how CMD put out ALEC Exposed and collaborated with The Nation and Color of Change:

• Scola, Nancy (April 14, 2012). "Exposing ALEC: How Conservative-Backed State Laws Are All Connected". The Atlantic.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Notice re discussion about SourceWatch use in Wikipedia

A discussion about SourceWatch as an external link in Wikipedia is underway here. – S. Rich (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Merger with Progressive Magazine

In April of 2014 CMD anounced a merger with Progressive magazine. Within a couple of months the merger failed or was quietly called off. We have the big initial announcement but nothing on the end result. I can't find a ref on the Progressive website, but this is well known in Madison Wi. What do we do about the ref'd but inaccurate merger info in the lead? Capitalismojo (talk) 03:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Dr OVERCITE! Paging Dr OVERCITE! Hugh (talk) 03:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

By that remark are you suggesting that we remove the merger info? I can't quite tell. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that SourceWatch be merged into Center for Media and Democracy. The content in the SourceWatch article can be better and more easily explained in the context of the Center for Media and Democracy. The Center for Media and Democracy and SourceWatch articles are of a reasonable small size such that the merging of SourceWatch will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Hugh (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Merge support as proposer. Hugh (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Merge per nom. Sourcewatch is a major project of CMD. It should be here. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Center for Media and Democracy

Cyberbot II has detected links on Center for Media and Democracy which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.change.org/groups/center_for_media_and_democracy

  Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Advocacy?

Please add a section on the causes of the subject of this article, and a section on the activities of the subject of this article in support of those causes, in support of your attempt to characterize the subject of this article as an "advocacy" organization. The lede summarizes the article. No new info in the lede. Nothing in the lede that is not in the body in more detail. I look forward to reading in detail of your novel characterization of the subject of this article. Meanwhile, "watchdog," the lede prior to your injection of "advocacy," stands. Hugh (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

We have five solid reliable source refs for the descriptor "liberal advocacy group". These include the St.Louis Post Dispatch, DesMoines Register, Wisconsin State Journal (their hometown paper), LaCrosse Tribune, etc... Since this is Wikipedia we follow where the refs lead not what the organization cares to use to describe themselves. The organization describes itself as a "watchdog", that's fine and their characterization of themselves should remain but we should use RS to describe how they are referred to. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Per your suggestion, and using the (very similar) model of the Common Cause article, I have added the full information on the descriptor "advocacy group" to the article body. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Describing the Center for Media and Democracy in the lede sentence as "nonprofit liberal advocacy group" to the exclusion of "investigative journalism" is patently absurd, and pointed. For god's sake, can we not agree to call a thing what it is? Do you recognize that your proposed lede sets up an obvious question in a readers mind, what causes does it advocate for, and what activities has it done in furtherance of those causes? What are CMD's causes in your mind? Cite bombing the lede sentence to change one word, aren't you clever! I am very sure you will be returning to this article to format all those bare urls and integrate them into the body, or did you leave that for someone else? Hugh (talk) 15:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

You can put "watchdog" or "investigative journalism" in the first sentence (with proper sources), but it's known as an advocacy group, even among those who consider the journalism great work. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

As for the NYT sources you used to rewrite the "Characterization" section, the first calls it a "watchdog organization" in background (background not being the most reliable, even in otherwise reliable publications), and the second refers to it only in a correction to an earlier article, and doesn't say "watchdog" or "journalist". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

did you read the ref you are deleting or did you just keyword search the 1st page Arthur?

I read all three pages, although I didn't search to see if there was another incidental reference to CMD. I have to take off for a doctor's appointment; I'll see if you have anything credible to say by this evening. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

be well Hugh (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I see no refs for the inclusion of "investigative journalism" in the first sentence of the lede. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you in advance for work in cleaning up the many bare urls refs with which you decorated the lede sentence, formatting your bare urls and integrating them with into the body. Thank you in advance for your commitment to quality. I am sure you did not mean to leave this for a fellow editor. Hugh (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

HughD, please restore the tags. I'very carefully read all three NY articles, and they don't say what you claim. Either remove the irrelevant references and unsourced text, or restore the tags. I would be pushing 3RR if I did so, but you, having already violated 3RR, would only help your status by a self-revert. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

1. nyt June 12, 2005, on the web version of the article its on the 2nd page "A watchdog group in Washington, the Center for Media and Democracy, ..."
2. nyt April 16, 2007 last graph: "...John Stauber, executive director of the Center for Media and Democracy, a watchdog organization..."
3. nyt June 19, 2005 corrects city in previous, nyt June 12, 2005 Hugh (talk) 07:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Even in the unlikely case that that is correct, it's still only one source, NYT background. Pick the best one, and let it go. However, we cannot add your (or even a legitimate) definition of "watchdog group" to the sentence without a specific source. If there were more than one article about CDM, that probably would be different. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

My apologies; it does say that. It says it so much in passing that we cannot be sure it's the same CDM. One reference in the three listings. Only one. I will remove it, now. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding advocacy, one of the refs already in the article talks about CMD organizing and participating in protests advocating against ALEC. Apparently they also created/co-founded a coalition of advocacy groups against ALEC. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The group itself says it conducts "nonpartisan advocacy". Please see this link [1]. Champaign Supernova (talk) 05:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Center for Media and Democracy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140502125413/http://www.hillmanfoundation.org/sidneys/The-Center-for-Media-and-Democracy-and-The-Nation-Win-September-Sidney to http://www.hillmanfoundation.org/sidneys/the-center-for-media-and-democracy-and-the-nation-win-september-sidney

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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. Hugh (talk) 05:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Disinfopedia

I question the POV of this article. -- Zoe

Any particular suggestions? For myself, I think the liberal/conservative sentence could go away, leaving a factual (although very short) entry. Let the reader follow the external link and decide for themself. -- Jrv 19:45 Mar 19, 2003 (UTC)

The Disinfopedia seems to hold liberal views, but that's only because in the United States, there has recently been much conservative-leaning propaganda -- Throwing in the "according to the website" at the end is sort of self-serving. If the article said something like (note, I say something like -- I keep getting accused of demanding things be changed when I only suggest the way they might go) -- "The Disinfopedia claims to hold liberal views in order to counter the predominance that it sees of conservative-leaning propaganda in the United States." Words to that effect. -- Zoe

Removed from the article: The Disinfopedia seems to hold liberal views, but that's only because in the United States, there has recently been much conservative-leaning propaganda, according to the website. -- Stephen Gilbert 21:36 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)

I started out adding current number of articles to page, but thought it worked better with general numbers, "doubled after two weeks", etc. Moved number of articles to this talk page. Cut info:

The directory has only around 220 articles but is growing quickly. (451 articles as of 26 Mar 2003.) (1482 articles as of 23 Jul 2003.)

Also got exact start date from Disinfopedia site. - Jrv 01:50 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

Disinfopedia has taken wikipedia articles and expanded them usually with a back reference. Is it worthwhile to forward reference from Wikipedia to Disinfopedia? Zardoz 17:57 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

no, why would you do that? LittleDan

Disinfopedia is highly POV. CGS 19:51 1 Jun 2003 (UTC).

Sometimes. Treat disinfopedia articles as you would any other external source. Martin 00:42 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

After discussion on wikien-l [2], I've added a suggested attribution line to Wikipedia:GNU Free Documentation License resources. (Originally for Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, where they can openly call the AdTI scoundrels, but we must be strictly fair.) - David Gerard 15:59, May 24, 2004 (UTC)

As a member of the staff of the Center for Media and Democracy, I think it would be better for people other than myself to edit this article. However, I would like to state for the record that I regard a number of statements in the recent revision to the article as inaccurate. Specifically, it is very misleading to say that we "liken the conservative Republican's domestic policy agenda to the cultural revolution in China, and to the economic plans implemented [by] the Soviet Union, both carried out by totalitarian communist regimes during the height of the Cold War. They liken the conservative Republican's foreign policy agenda to those of Napoleon and Hitler." It is also misleading to say that our "nonpartisan posture" is a sham, since we have never "postured" as nonpartisan. The Center for Media and Democracy is not affiliated with any political party, but we have never pretended to lack opinions or a point of view. Moreover, the editorial policy of the Disinfopedia is expressly different from the editorial policy of the Wikipedia. Whereas Wikipedia calls for a "neutral point of view," the Disinfopedia's editorial objective is "fairness and accuracy."

The individual who made today's edits to the Wikipedia also made a similar contribution to the Disinfopedia. I have edited his/her contribution on the Disinfopedia. If anyone here would like to review the changes I made there, the article can be found at the following URL:

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Center_for_Media_%26_Democracy

I also commented on this individual's contributions on the corresponding Disinfopedia Talk page, at the following URL:

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Center_for_Media_%26_Democracy

--Sheldon Rampton 20:08, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I just zapped it suggesting full references if they want it back in - David Gerard 22:02, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Jstanley01

"Can't we all just get along?" Probably not, but maybe we can come to some semblance of a NPOV.

Does NPOV mean spayed and neutered? If every "liberal/conservative sentence" has to "go away, leaving...factual (although very short)" entries, then you've made a gelding out of Wikepedia as far as I'm concerned. The way to handle controvesial articles is to present a NPOV overview of what both/all sides say.

Is my contribution NPOV? Heck no! My viewpoint is not neutral. But why don't the partisans on the other side, along with the more detached, work to IMPROVE the NPOV instead of whining and/or deleting wholesale? Go ahead, Sheldon. Contribute. Come on. Don't worry just because you're a coauthor of the cited diatribe (and not just "a member of the staff," ya dang liar). We'll edit you. What are you really afraid of? A meeting where you can't shout down the speaker? True wiki in full and free bloom? (Or maybe it's just that you hate seeing your prose - denser than the hardened concrete surrounding Jimmy Hoffa's earthly remains - edited.)

The "thinking peace" website gives this excerpt from Banana Republicans, the subtitle of which, by the way, is: How the Right Wing Is Turning America into a One-Party State:

"In a democracy, Alexander Hamilton believed: 'The differences of opinion, and the jarrings of parties . . . often promote deliberation and circumspection; and serve to check the excesses of the majority.' Although these jarrings and clashings sometimes seem messy, contentious and wasteful, in fact they are one of the great strengths of democracy in both peacetime and wartime.

"If, however, a single viewpoint or party is able to drown out or suppress the views of others, a different dynamic sets in. One-party dominated states and hierarchical, command-driven social systems are notorious for their tendency to make disastrous decisions, in the areas of both domestic and foreign policy. China's cultural revolution and the Soviet Union's failed economic development plans are among the most extreme but not the only cases in point. In the field of foreign affairs, Napoleon and Hitler both disdained dissenting advice..." (emphases added)

If that isn't "likening," then what is?

The way I see it, in the name of NPOV, it is the facts about this organization that, for some reason, are being drowned out and supressed in this article. I couldn't care less if Stauber, Rampton, and their gang want to keep their "Disinfopedia" website a place "where never is heard a discouraging word and the skies are not cloudy all day." But this is Wikipedia, doggon it, and I care about this place.

One statement critical of Stauber and his organization (supporting the last paragraph of my contribution), from among the many that can be found, is cited at jsonline:

"'The guy's [Stauber is] a serial exaggerator,' said David Martosko, director of research at the Center for Consumer Freedom in Washington, D.C. 'The guy wakes up every morning thinking how can he change Americans' behavior by frightening them.'"

First of all, I don't appreciate being called a "danged liar."

Secondly, the reason I try to refrain from editing this article directly is that the question of whether people should edit articles about themselves has been discussed repeatedly on the Wikipedia listserv (WIKIEN-L), and the preponderance of opinion seems to be that although it isn't prohibited, people should be cautious about doing so. This is also the opinion of Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia's founder. We don't have that same policy at the Disinfopedia, and I have edited your comments there. If you want to see how I think your misleading characterization of the arguments in our book should be rephrased, you can go there to get an idea. I posted the URL above. I'm sure that notwithstanding your obvious hostility, you should be able to figure this out.

As for the rest of your insults, I'm not going to dignify them with a response. --Sheldon Rampton 08:12, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Jstanley01: 1)Well then, quit lying. 2)This article is not about you. 3)So I'm hostile and insulting. So get over it. It's just a "differences of opinion, and the jarrings of parties," which you purport to believe in. So why the fuss? Heck no, I don't like you, and I'm not going to act like I do. I stated very clearly that I am a partisan from the other side who recognizes that his contribution will lack in the NPOV department. But I also believe you are a relatively reasonable man, who could strain his brain enough to improve this article's NPOV. Go ahead contribute here.

The article is about his organisation; contributing directly may well be seen to be improper.

I note also your criticism is about the founders, not CMD or Disinfopedia specifically. You really need to make it look less like a personal attack if it's worth keeping in the article - David Gerard 08:51, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Jstanley01: Or you need to. I gave you people documentation and links.

It is the book that I cited in the article, I didn't criticise it. Since said book is prominently touted on both Disinfopedia's and the Center's websites, and is written by the organization's two top honchos, what better place is there to gain info on the organization?

If you people wanna revert this article back to dry facts, and let readers think this is just some neutral "media research" organization, go ahead, ride your gelding off into the sunset.

Jstanley seems to be trying to goad me into a debate. Even though this article is not about me, it is about the organization for which I work, and Wikipedia's policy on autobiography states, "Editing an article about yourself or your organization is also generally considered improper and best avoided, on the same principle. Noting objections or corrections on the talk page may be appropriate." That's the policy I am trying to follow. In any case, I am certainly not under any obligation to edit this article directly, and I have better things to do with my time than get in a pissing match with a skunk. I am confident that other Wikipedians can do an adequate job of bringing the article about CMD back to something approximating a reasonable standard of accuracy and NPOV.

I will point out, again, that there is nothing in the passage quoted above from our book that that "likens" Republican policies to the policies of the Soviet Union or Hitler's Germany. In the quoted passage, the word "Republican" doesn't even appear. If anyone here cares to judge this point for themselves, I invite them to read the full excerpt from our book. (Better yet, read the full book, or at least the chapter from which this excerpt was taken.) I think fair-minded readers will conclude that Jstanley has taken a brief passage and is quoting it out of context so that he can misrepresent its meaning. (Or, more likely, he has mastered what Nietzsche once described as "the art of reading badly": his reading of our work is so strongly filtered through his own ideology that he doesn't even realize he is distorting its meaning.)

Finally, I should point out that although David Martosko is certainly critical of John Stauber and myself, his criticism was made before Banana Republicans was even written and relates to our earlier writings about the food industry. It is sloppy and misleading to present Martosko's comments as a critique of Banana Republicans. And if anyone here cares to know about the background of Martosko's organization, we have a profile of them on the Disinfopedia. --Sheldon Rampton 09:12, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Jstanley01 David Gerard's latest edits look good to me. It's disingenuous to pretend this organization is non-controversial. All I'm asking is that you Wikipedians hash through a NPOV handling of the controversy. Getting Rampton's goat is just icing on the cake.