Talk:CBS Evening News: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 21:57, 21 January 2010

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on September 2, 2004.

Television Unassessed Top‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

September 2

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maveric149 (talk • contribs) 6 September 2004.

Cronkite

Great article, the period the program is most famous for (Cronkite) has the least amount of text! Wasted Time R 15:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Wasted Time R (talk · contribs) — Walter Cronkite anchored this show during its heyday, a heyday it will be hard to resurrect in a world now offering dozens of cable news programs and millions of current event blogs (dozens of which are considered successes if they get a fraction of the viewership that Cronkite got on a nightly basis). The article should reflect this; as a matter for fact, I'd suggest fleshing out a separate CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite (it's a redirect at the moment), in order to give the topic the coverage it deserves.

I'll work on this article at some point but if someone else is up for the challenge here are a few cite-worthly sources to make use of:

Cronkite anchored the show during an era when comments from him could (and did, according to some of the sources listed above) affect U.S. presidential decisions (e.g. Lyndon B. Johnson).

— 69.3.70.78 17:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Couric's Ratings??

Is Couric still running in first place? Or does this need to be updated?Aronk

Couric has been consistently last in the ratings, garnering the lowest ratings for a media news cast in the history of the Nielson measures. This is a relevant fact and ought to be mentioned.

Mention of liberal criticisms

There has been a lot of criticism from the left - particularly strong from major bloggers and the watchdog group Media Matters - about the Couric version of the CBS Evening News. I included mention of this, with links. Vampington 04:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a lot better to see references for your new paragraph from somewhere besides Media Matters, preferably from a non-blog source, but even a regular blog would be better than Media Matters. Such "watchdog blogs" violate WP:RS and WP:N, partially because they essentially allow for a never-ending expansion of that article's "criticism" section, no matter how nitpicky and minor the points are; but mostly because they provide no evidence that the given criticism has gotten any real traction amongst the public at large (like, say, an article in the New York Times might), and that's the sort of thing we generally use to distinguish between the issues that are big enough to deserve coverage in a Wikipedia article, and those that should be ignored because they will quickly be forgotten. A link to a detailed post about the issue on a non-watchdog blog isn't considered all that great either, for the same reasons, but even that would be way better than a Media Matters link. --Aaron 04:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - I've replaced the Mediamatters links. In place of the first link, I've used two new ones: one from a site about broadcasting news that mentions the segment's controversial nature and possible abandonment, another from CBS itself, documenting the extensive criticisms. The second link has been replaced by a writeup at alternet, obviously not an unbiased source but a fair chronicling of liberal perspective on the show's bias. Generally, in my view, the criticism has already been loud enough to merit mention, particularly in an article that already deals with allegations of political bias against the show. Bill Oaf 06:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bill. I think all three of those are much better. --Aaron 06:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An interview related...

"An interview related to the Iran-contra affair with then-Vice President George H.W. Bush where the two engaged in a shouting match on live television did little to dispel those concerns." The one of us from the democratic part of the world (Europe), would call this "critical questioning" - it doesn't tend to be very common in the US.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.202.252.123 (talk • contribs) 8 November 2006.

Very strange

The language is very strange. The author makes an argument and then says "rather...." I urge an administrator to review this article.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.8.196.34 (talk • contribs) 13 December 2006.

The Couric Era??

Might be a bit early to label it as such. She's been at it for well under a year, and already there are rumors (Phila Inquirer, April 22, 2007) that CBS plans to replace her after the 2008 conventions. Bob Schieffer's tenure is labeled a "transition period"; the NBC Nightly News article doesn't even mention Roger Mudd (who lasted longer than Katie has so far) in the main text; so it seems like "The Katie Couric experiment" would be more consistent and appropriate. Taking a 'soft news' morning entertainment personality and making her the anchor of the hardest news program on the network certainly seems to merit the term 'experiment'. --Itsgeneb 03:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly, I hate the use of "era" altogether and would rather see specific dates on the section headers like what is on World News with Charles Gibson. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, "experiment" may be too premature when these reports are still regarded as rumors and not specific verified facts. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the title cards?

Does anyone know where the title cards went? I don't know why they would even be deleted, being as how a web resolution TV screenshot should qualify under fair use rationale. If there are no objections, I have both the new Couric card and the old Schieffer card I would like to put back in this article. Cs92 (talk) 05:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Studio Location

Everybody knows where NBC broadcasts from in NYC, where's the address of the CBS News studio? I came to this article specifically expecting such info. Bustter (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ah... 524 W 57th St ref http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/05-04-1999/0000925277 Bustter (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 ==Couric's Ratings??==
 Is Couric still running in first place? Or does this need to be updated?[[User:Aronk|Aronk]]
+Couric has been consistently last in the ratings, garnering the lowest ratings for a media news cast in the history of the Nielson measures. This is a relevant fact and ought to be mentioned.
 == Mention of liberal criticisms ==