Talk:Center for Media & Democracy

User Telemakh0s referred to "we" when discussing a change made to the ActivistCash.com article in SourceWatch. On May 4th Telemakh0s wrote : "We file regular statements with the Internal Revenue Service, which are open to public inspection." Now that Telemakh0s has identifed him/herself as officially with Activistcash.com, Telemakh0s should use a real name and drop the alias. SourceWatch has a policy that individuals and organizations who are contributing information to articles about themselves actually use their real names. Please abide by this policy.

User 207.44.148.204 created an article about the CMD, which included the following passage:

They liken the conservative Republican's domestic agenda to the cultural revolution in China, and to the economic plans implemented in 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.

Many of the organization's critics have labeled such claims both untrue and ridiculous. They also argue that the organization's assertion that its Wiki-style website SourceWatch is nonpartisan "is a sham."

The reason I've moved this passage is that it really doesn't accurately characterize what we say in the book. We don't liken the Republican party's domestic agenda to the cultural revolution in China or the economic plans implemented in the Soviet Union. We don't compare its foreign policy to those of Napoleon or Hitler, except to point out that the "incestuous amplification" which comes from only listening to like-minded thinkers can lead policymakers to make disastrous decisions. In the passage in which we discuss the disastrous policies of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, we make it clear that we are not saying that the situation in the United States is equivalent to the situation in those countries.

It is also inaccurate to say that "Many of the organization's critics have labeled such claims both untrue and ridiculous." Evidently this is what 207.44.148.204 thinks, but barring some evidence that someone other than this anonymous individual thinks this, it isn't accurate to say that "many ... critics" hold this opinion. Likewise, the fact that 207.44.148.204 happens to think the SourceWatch "is a sham" doesn't justify attributing this opinion to "many critics."

Actually, we have never claimed that SourceWatch is "nonpartisan," so it would be rather absurd for someone to say that this claim is a sham. However, it is nonpartisan, according to the dictionary definition of that term, which defines nonpartisan as "based on, influenced by, affiliated with, or supporting the interests or policies of no single political party." The SourceWatch is a collaborative effort written by numerous individuals, not all of whom agree. It is not affiliated with any political party. Moreover, the Center for Media & Democracy, which sponsors the SourceWatch, is also unaffiliated with any political party. During the 2000 elections, Rampton and Stauber endorsed Ralph Nader's campaign for president as a candidate of the Green Party, but during the current election cycle they have criticized Nader's alliance of convenience with conservative groups such as Citizens for a Sound Economy. They have criticized Democratic party politicians on numerous occasions in the past, and they have also criticized Republicans.

There is a difference between being "nonpartisan" and being "neutral." CMD and the SourceWatch are nonpartisan according to the dictionary definition of that term, but they have never claimed to be neutral or unopinionated about the issues that they discuss. The stated editorial policy of the SourceWatch does not call for a "neutral point of view" like the Wikipedia. Instead, it calls for "fairness and accuracy."

--Sheldon Rampton 03:07, 16 Jul 2004 (EDT)

ActivistCash.com

To explain my recent edits to this article -- I removed more detailed discussions of what ActivistCash.com is and what its goals are, as this is information that should be on the ActivistCash.com article, not the CMD article.

Diane Farsetta 10:24, 4 May 2006 (EDT)