Jump to content

Talk:Naomi Robson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 203.56.22.126 (talk) at 05:16, 4 February 2010 (→I THINK SHE IS HOT.... BY JON MICHAEL: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Mediaa tell me where you get your information that Naomi Robson is the producer of Today Tonight? Neil Mooney is always quoted as the National Producer of the show.

Apart from that, I still question the need for it to be on her wikipedia page. If there was a complaint about 7News having "abysmal reporting standards" (as you so objectively put in) would we go about putting it on all 7News reporters/presenters/producers wiki pages?

Although I definately think a mention could be made about her upcoming appearance at the court case, thus I left in this time, of course with the 'after' part unbolded as it doesn't fit in with the required neutral tone sought after here at wikipedia.

Slj 11:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I should have said "presenter" for the east coast but let's not get pedantic. The article on Robson speaks in glowing terms - there is clearly another side. She has decided to be involved in a program that attracts over one third of all ABA judgements against a television station. In the television trade it is known as the trashiest programme in Australia and Robson is not admired or even liked - you don't have to look far to find evidence supporting this statement. Check out: http://forum.australian-media.com.au/index.php?showtopic=533

Her court case is a classic case in point the Magistrate sent a notice to Today Tonight in Melbourne warning them not to cover the story. Robson would have seen that letter but went ahead with the story anyway.

I am surprised to hear that 7News reporter and presenters have enough sbstance to appear on Wikipedia - I thought there were minimum standards for individuals to be listed here. Clearly most of them, including Robson, do not meet them.

Personally I hope she lands up in the clanger - it's about time someone brought her to heel.

[Mediaa]

is this her real blog?

I have recently been reading this blog: http://ivegotkarmatoburn.blogspot.com/

which has Naomi's photo as the owner of the blog - any insight as to whether it is really her writing?

Thanks

I did a Google Image Search for Naomi Robson. The first result was a larger, uncropped version of the picture used in the blog. Given that, I'd say this person just did as I did and picked that picture for their profile. DynaBlast 16:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Court Case

I removed the information about the court case. My reasoning behind this was that it was simply a copy of Media Watch's transcript (http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1473150.htm) and added POV to the article. None of the other articles on journalists named in the court case had this mentioned on their WP articles, so it appears someone tried to find whatever material possible to try and make Naomi look bad. This is supported by the ridiculous link encouraging people to look up Naomi Robson in the Magistrate's Court list (which yields no results).

If someone wants to add in this information once more in a tasteful way, here's a source to get you started: [1] To my knowledge, the court case concluded with the people involved having to give an apology. DynaBlast 23:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current Autocue Reader

Really? ~ Trisreed my talk my contribs 12:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, she makes it up as she goes along.--143.92.1.33 06:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does this woman need an article dedicated to her?

She is a former host of a tabloid current affairs program.

Can't this be deleted?

POV Problems

The "Controversy" section reads like tabloid journalism. I've tried to tone it down a bit, but it need more work to get neutral POV. RJ4 (talk) 09:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note the following from the WP:DR guidelines :-

"When you find a passage in an article that you find is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not easily possible, and you disagree with a point of view expressed in an article, don't just delete it. Rather, balance it with what you think is neutral."

"Always explain your changes in the edit summary to help other editors understand the reasoning behind them. If an edit is potentially contentious, explain why you made the change and how it improves the article. If your reasoning is complex, add a section to the talk page of the article to explain it and refer to that section in the edit summary. If your edit gets reverted, you can discuss the reversion with other editors on the talk page."

RJ4 (talk) 12:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Date of birth/controversial stuff

Hi, My name is Max Markson and I am Naomi Robson's manager. I am trying to correct her date of birth which is 31 August 1963 and also remove the libelous material on this BLPMaxmarkson (talk) 13:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Maxmarkson[reply]

Are you officially denying, on behalf of your client, the accuracy of all the content that you have deleted ? RJ4 (talk) 03:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THat is correct RJ4.If you'd like to speak to Naomi directly to go through all the deleted material line by line i am happy to put you directly in contact with her? Maxmarkson (talk) 12:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Maxmarkson[reply]

Thanks for the offer Max, but that would constitute "original research", which is frowned upon by Wikipedia. For my 2 cents worth, I think the entire section could be replaced with a summary along the lines of :
"During her long tenure as host of Today Tonight, rival news organisations ran many stories critical of Robson on points ranging from her hair and wardrobe, to people she met socially, but continued ratings performance meant that she retained the post for a decade."
I don't have access to a list of Seven's current affairs hosts, but I am fairly confident that a ten year run in prime time is a rather unusual accomplishment. However, it is important to retain the references to the original media reports, as this is just a summary.
RJ4 (talk) 05:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]



Max: If you believe the references in the 'Controversy' section are libellous, you should take it up with the people who wrote and broadcast the ostensibly libellous material, and the publications and television networks they appeared in and on. You can't remove legitimate references from a Wikipedia article simply because you don't like them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.137.76.75 (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the deleted controversy section. While there are parts of this section that should be rewritten, there are sources to back up the instances and the section should not be completely removed. FYI, the edits on this page have come under some media scrutiny here and here. Gobonobo T C 02:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard the audio of that is allegedly of Naomi Robson swearing. Does she or Max deny it is not her? If so then state that unequivocally and put the honesty of that statement to the test.

Similarly for the other allegations, unequivocally deny the accuracy of truth of the statements and be prepared to defend those assertions. Otherwise this is censureship of valid public discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petergal1958 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary block

I've blocked the article for new and unregistered editors for 1 day. Max, be aware that when removing sourced content you should have a good reason. Please editors from all side go through why they think a specific section should be kept/removed on this Talk page. Slac speak up! 03:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war mentioned in the news

Naomi Robson in Wikipedia edit war --60.242.159.224 (talk) 06:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You guys made it on Conservapedia as well today. I just had to see for myself if it was true. 65.90.138.150 (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Section added to striesand effect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobMattson (talk • contribs) 01:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'd think that somebody in the Media and entertainment industries would have learned about that by now. In the unlikely event someone becomes famous, that should be one's first question to a prospective agent - "Do you know what the Striesand Effect is?" Second question - "Do you know how to best avoid invoking it?" If they either say no or waffle in response to either question, remove them from your consideration immediately. Churba (talk) 02:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COI tag

It seems the edits of both User:Maxmarkson and User:Marksonsparks have been mostly reverted. Who is the major contributor with a close connection to the subject? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 06:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Max Markson is Naomi Robson's manager. -- Boing! said Zebedee 07:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
His edits have been mostly reverted, therefore he is no longer a "major contributor", unless he has edited with accounts other than the two I mentioned. Is someone claiming that he edited before 21 January 2010? If not, I don't see the point in the COI tag. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 08:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I get what you mean, sorry. And yes, I agree with you, I don't see any other evidence of COI -- Boing! said Zebedee 08:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I THINK SHE IS HOT.... BY JON MICHAEL

SHE IS SEXY - LEAVE HER ALONE..!!

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Naomi_Robson&oldid=341834756"