Talk:CBS/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Does Goldberg really deserve mention here? If he does, can it not be so circumspect? I personally don't think "Bias" was at all a significant occurance (mostly because I find the argument really hard to swallow), and I think it's a bit extreme to call it a "major falling out". CBS is a huge organization that has a million things happen to it every year. This is a minor incident. Graft 21:05 Aug 8, 2002 (PDT)

Page title

Why is this article at CBS instead of Columbia Broadcasting System, when ABC is at American Broadcasting Company, NBC is at National Broadcasting Company, and "CBS" means other things (currency board system, concrete block system) just like ABC and NBC do?

In addition to this, the page was cut-and-pasted from the full name to CBS when it should have been moved properly. Would an admin please merge the histories if possible?   –radiojon 19:27, 2004 Aug 11 (UTC)

Actually, NBC is at NBC. I suspect the only reason ABC is not is because it requires disambiguation. The networks are by far more commonly known by the letters, and I think that may actually be the official names used. As for the cut and paste, it happened a long time ago. I'm not sure it'd be worth the effort to merge (and I think at this point may actually be impossible to truly merge). olderwiser 21:36, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

CBS ≠ Columbia Broadcasting System

I'd like to point out that CBS has not been Columbia Broadcasting System since 1974. Officially, the letters no longer stand for anything (see servicemark registration). I would make these changes but there is another problem.

According to Britannica ([1]) and Encarta ([2]) Westinghouse bought CBS and renamed itself to CBS Corporation. Sometime after that it became CBS Broadcasting, Inc. while Viacom is renaming itself to CBS Corporation. Scary, huh? I can't find enough sources to clarify the changes, so for now I'll just make it say "formerly Columbia Broadcasting System") and not include the other names or exact dates. --Foofy 00:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

A few days ago, I went into the external link above and it said nothing about the full name no longer being official. Georgia guy 18:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Joe 00:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Some key books were missing from the list, including Ben Bagdikian's famous study of media, so I added them in. Other major additions that I have read were Three Blind Mice and The Evening Stars, the first a serious study of the networks and their impact on democracy and popular culture, the second a solid look at the role of TV anchorperson in the heyday of Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, and Peter Jennings. I have not read Bias, and Regenery is known for publishing political attacks from the right, but there's no point in not letting people know that such criticism exists. Nor have I read Over the wire, but it focuses on the critical 1980 presidential campaign, where Jimmy Carter was up against Ronald Reagan, and it was later found in the Iran-Contra hearings that Reagan appeared to have manipulated the Iranian hostage crisis in order to win the US election. That election resulted in a lot of changes, including the media becoming more conservative, and greatly accelerated the concentration of the media. Book titles and date information double-checked on [[User: jfdunphy}JF Dunphy]] 00:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC).

== User:JKPrivett The following statement may refer to local affiliate programming and has been removed:

In the early 1990s, CBS abandoned the children's programming lineup on weekday afternoons, relegating the lineup to Saturdays only.

Definitely. My affiliate has never shown cartoons on weekday mornings.--Attitude2000 20:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Call for help

I've started apage at List of broadcast stations owned by CBS Radio in an attempt to get that information off of the CBS template, much like the Clear Channel template. If anybody is willing to help, that would be great. Thank you! Lambertman 15:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Split CBS Eye Logo Discussion

  • Split -- support moving these historical images to a separate article. -- MrDolomite 05:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Split — in support as there is a similar article for NBC's logo. — SterlingNorth 04:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    Before splitting, please make sure there is good text to accompany it as in PBS idents, not just a gallery of logos like the former ABC idents article that Tregoweth deleted. Georgia guy 16:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Split - but as regards the accompanying text, I doubt if there is much to be said about the CBS eye since the succeeding logos after the 1950's are just variations on the original one. —SunKing 12:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    Well, if you put the logo gallery into its own article and don't put much accompanying text, the new article will very likely get put on Afd within a year. Check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ABC idents, which first got a consensus to keep, but was later deleted by Tregoweth, and then check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logos of the Walt Disney Company, which got a consensus to delete; no articles that are simply image galleries. Georgia guy 14:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


In at least the early 1980's, whenever CBS would air anything outside of its usual programming during prime time, particularly holiday specials such as A Charlie Brown Christmas, it would introduce the show with a spinning text graphic of the word "special" and this very weird kind of flat-sounding drum roll punctuated at the end by horns. The Homestar Runner cartoon "The Best Decemberwe'en Ever"[3] appropriately starts with a parody of this, using what sounds very much like the actual "music" as I remember it, but not the original graphic. Anyone else have any memory of this, or an explanation of it? I still find the music rather inexplicable. Finding the actual graphic would be great too. Postdlf 18:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Dis-ambiguation problem

Both this page and the dis-ambiguation page have interwikis to Norwegian title CBS. This is weird. Georgia guy 15:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


I propose the CBS anchor list be added into the main CBS article 04:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)ratherhaveaheart

As literally every single detail of the entire CBS evening news anchors article is already contained in the CBS Evening News article, I'm going to go ahead and WP:PROD it. --Aaron 05:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)}


This article is beginning to increase, but I don't know what the best section to split into its own article is. Any good idea?? Georgia guy 21:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Some more eyes to look at

Messy Thinking 20:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)This page has several good representations of the ident with the CBS reference in the pupil (and outside since 1990). A few more were briefly shown at YouTube before copyright policies forced them out.

Add most-watched programs of the network per season since 2001-2002?

I recently added a table of the most-watched programs of the network of the 2001-2002 season. I meant to include the TV seasons following 2001-2002, up until the present. However, another Wiki user had deleted it shortly thereafter. My question to anyone here is should tables of the most-watched programs per season since 2001-2002 be included? I believe that such an addition is informative and an interesting read. Let me know what you think. -- Dechnique23 00:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Accusations of Bias

I believe that it should be noted somewhere that many conservatives consider CBS and its local affiliates to have a liberal slant in the way that they report. The MSNBC and FOX News articles both contain allegations of bias, and CBS has been accused ever since the Vietnam War of being biased. --JBladen 22:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It is true about some conservatives complain about an alleged "liberal bias" to CBS News--the roots of which can probably be traced back to Edward R. Murrow's broadcast challenges of Senator Joe McCarthy (who called CBS "the Communist Broadcasting System") and, later, Walter Cronkite's anti-Vietnam commentaries. However, to say "and its local affiliates" is incorrect. Most of the stations carrying CBS television programs are not owned by CBS, but are owned by many diverse groups which (I am sure) represent varying political biases. (DS) --- 2 June 2007


A channel entitled "CBS" with more than 800 videos uploaded at YouTube has the most video views of all time on that site. I'd consider that notable. Phoenix2 21:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

save the trivia..

Someone ripped the trivia section out wholesale saying iit was not referenced, and could not be saved. All the items have been discussed in the press, and so references could probaly be found. cmacd 12:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

- ==Trivia==

  • The first telecast of MGM's classic The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) took place on CBS. As of 2006, CBS still holds the record of televising the film more times than any other network.


  • William Golden was planning to introduce a new logo shortly after creating the now-famous eye, but Frank Stanton wanted to keep his original idea (“just when you’re beginning to be bored by what you’ve done is when it’s beginning to be noticed by your audience.”).


  • CBS was the first network to telecast the historic Horowitz in Moscow concert. It was first shown live, on April 20, 1986, at 9:00 A.M, E.S.T. (4:00 P.M. Russian time).
  • Leonard Bernstein made his first television appearance on CBS, and had a series of 54 Young People's Concerts on that network, telecast between 1958 and 1972.
  • The historic Kennedy-Nixon presidential debate of 1960 occurred at CBS's Chicago studios at 630 North McClurg Court. This debate marked the emergence of TV as an important tool in presidential elections in the United States.
  • Shortly after the death of Ed Bradley, a cartoon appeared in newspapers across the country depicting the CBS eye shedding a tear, with the words "ED BRADLEY 1941-2006" underneath. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cmacd123 (talkcontribs) 12:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

No Image?

Why is there no image of the CBS logo? All of the other major networks have an image of the logo and it seems like you could use the same fair use rational for a CBS logo. It seems really necessary for this article since every other network has it and not having it makes it seem like CBS is somehow less important (this is just how still learning wikipedians such as myself might see it).--Kyle(talk) 02:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [4]. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 01:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Liberal Slant

I think it is time for the liberal slant that CBS has undertaken, to be mentioned within this article. Networks such as Fox News and MSNBC as previously noted on this page, have been given criticism for their conservatism. I think it is only fair to include something about the liberalism of Fox News. If you have any ideas or any suggestions on how this can tactifully be undertaken, I'd be very appreciative. I will be posting something in 4 weeks (which can be edited, etc) that sort of underlines the liberalistic slant of CBS.

--DiamondElusive (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Electronic origin of CBS eye logo?

Hi, All. I have heard that some of the inspiration for the eye logo came from an image that can be seen when the human visual system's persistence of vision interprets a certain pattern on the screen of an oscilloscope. Can anyone shed any light on this? President Lethe (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I seems to recall from my college broadcasting courses that the eye represents news, and is made up of a basketball, football, and baseball, to represent sports. ― Brianary (talk) 01:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


CBS was a radio network for 40 years, longer than it has been a major television network. Shouldn't this be reflected or mentioned in the first sentence or lead paragraph? Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 01:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

List of affiliates articles

I just noticed that there are two separate article/lists of CBS affiliates, one sorted by state, and one sorted by market size. Disregarding the fact that disambiguators are imporoperly used in the names of both, I don't think both are needed.

Wikipedia has the ability to host sortable tables, where clicking inthe header of a column sorts the entire table either alphabetically or numerically based on the criteria stated. While I, alas, don't know how to actually construct said tables, I wanted to state that I think Wikipedia would be improved if the two lists were merged into a single sortable table, with columns for market (the default sort), city, state (allowing for the sort to show the second list's order), call letters and channel number.

I ask, if anyone reading this has any experience with sortable tables, and the time and inclination to assist, to give it a shot. Then we can place the table at a single List of CBS affiliates and do away with the redundant lists. (PS, I think the same may apply to NBC.) oknazevad (talk) 03:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Lineup table?

Has there been any change in the project guidelines that would disallow the program grid? I think the grid presents the current lineup more clearly and succinctly than a long prose section would. —C.Fred (talk) 01:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I wouldn't want one for every single TV station in the country, as Wikipedia is not TV Guide. For the national networks, however, it's absouotely neccessary to include their primetime lineups, which are the same across the country and define the networks more than any other programming. Presenting thst info in the familiar, compact grid form makes the most sense, compared to other options.oknazevad (talk) 19:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
It's still an online schedule. It's still promotional, and it's contrary to guideline against online schedules. Why should a "big" network be allowed to do what a small one or a single station is not? Piano non troppo (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I thought the program grid was acceptable as it was just as a general overview of their programming. The grid wasn't updated for special airings, double episodes, etc. I believe there was a huge discussion about these type of guides and I thought the outcome was that they are acceptable just as long as they weren't updated with every little change. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 21:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
This is an issue that's under yet another discussion at the Village Pump.[5] This has been a problem for me for months, and I'd like to reach a resolution and move on. Unfortunately, it's a type of problem that the Wikipedia community has difficulty resolving. The base of the problem, to my mind, is that once any scheduling information is included, there's no reason not to include all of it. Various people want historical schedules, and future schedules. And ... playing the devil's advocate ... What use is a schedule of program names without the stars, the length, a short summary, whether it's a rerun. (The way "TV Guide" does it.) The playing times -- in a way -- seem among the *least* interesting information about scheduling decisions. Is it really very interesting what hour something plays? Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 23:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

To your question, Piano, when a show airs can be a critical part of a shows success, or lack thereof, as lead-ins, shows airing opposite it and appropriateness of the material to the time slot are major factors in the shows ratings. That said, what Alucard shouldn't happen is exactly what has been happening, namely someone coming to update the schedule grid every single day to reflect whatever unique changes have occurred from week to week (really annoying to have my watchlist cluttered with those changes when a dud series is cancelled and the network plugs the gap with a differen rerun every week.) Frankly, my opinion on their inclusion has soured and I believe they should be left off. Major scheduling decisions affecting the whole network can be covered in appropriate text, while ones affecting just one or two shows should be left to those shows' individual articles.oknazevad (talk) 05:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I have the same problem with my watchlist. It's easy to catch vandalism this way, but changes to TV schedules (like updates to sports scores) end up mostly being noise.
Yes, there's no question that a show's ratings or even cancellation might be affected by its slot. That might be interesting, if cited. (There's a interesting comment about canceling the original "Star Trek": That it based on a ratings mistake, because the source used didn't account for its high popularity as a *color* show.) But the raw data schedule data itself, without interpretation is about as encyclopedic as an almanac. And it really belongs someplace — outside of Wiki — comprehensive and suitable for research, with search and sort tools, etc. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 16:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Fake news reports "Under the Bush administration, at least twenty federal agencies have spent $250 million creating hundreds of fake television news segments that are sent to local stations.' State Department official Patricia Harrison (she became president of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in 2005) told Congress in 2003 that the Bush administration considers its "good news" segments to be "powerful strategic tools" for influencing public opinion." Could you summarize this into this article? Stars4change (talk) 17:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

As the linked article has nothing to do with CBS in particular, no, this isn't the right place for it. (I also changed the title of this section, as it was a wildly inaccurate summary of the linked article.) oknazevad (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:CBS/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

12 images, 170 citations. Lacks sources. JJ98 (Talk) 00:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Last edited at 00:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC). Substituted at 14:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

CBS game shows

oh, my go, I screwed up I added changed the dates on most of the daytime game shows page, cause I was think PRODUCTION continued to tape at CBS thinking this was the CBS television city page, you can change it back, sorry, gang. nextbarker

yOU'LL SEE IT SAYS $10/100,000 pYRAMID, OR Family Feud 1988-1995 (talk) 13:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Big article

This is a big article (over 110KB.) I split the history section (nearly twice the size of the entire article out of this section) into its own article, but someone reverted me. Any discussion?? Georgia guy (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I am the someone who reverted you. I'm not quite sure of the argument you're making in your paranthetical note (nearly twice the size of the entire article out of this section), but I'd like to hear the reasons in favor splitting the article up. I'd also like to hear the reactions of the 150-some watchers of the page, some of whom are quite opinionated and tenacious in putting those opinions forward. I happen to agree with you — it is almighty long — but perhaps the answer is a trim. In any event, I'm eager to see what consensus brings. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I think, following WP:SUMMARY, splitting the article is a good idea. I've had some concerns about the history section for a while now, anyway. It's not just to long, it's also too broad. That is, some of the material is not about the TV network, but the corporation's other activities, and so has always been unsuited to this article, which is about the TV network, not the company as a whole. Likewise, some of the radio history likely belongs at CBS Radio, though that's a fuzzier line as the distinction between the TV and Radio ops evolved over time.
I donwant to mention, though, that if the history is split out, make sure that the remaining section here is a genuine summary, not too short, or just a see also link; that's the proper way to do summary style. The version completely absent the history was lacking context and looked disjointed. oknazevad (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
There hasn't been any discussion in 2 weeks. We need some consensus on what to do. Georgia guy (talk) 13:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Non-free images in this article

Please see discussion here (or if archived, see the "CBS" heading in this version). To get to the issue, who feels the images do or do not satisfy WP:NFCC#1 in that the new free images[6] "serve the same encyclopedic purpose" as the old ones, or that "the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text" instead? Who feels that the images do or do not satisfy WP:NFCC#8 in that they "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic"? - Wikidemon (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Leading questions and links to the wrong policy. That's the way to ensure we have a reasoned and open discussion. J Milburn (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I believe you've raised NFCC#1 and #8 as the two objections to the images. I've now corrected the link to #8, quoted them verbatim, and asked if people have opinions on either side. I haven't presented my own opinion here and I'm not sure how I could be any more neutral than that. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
The images substituted for the originals are preposterous. What is the point of showing Bing Crosby squatting with a box of golf balls years after he left CBS? Editor J Milburn even admitted the disingenuousness of his editing motives when he wrote: "yes, maybe the images I used were less appropriate, but, frankly, I don't care..." I'm not sure someone who doesn't care about an article should be making editorial decisions affecting its well-being. The subsitution of a John Garfield credit frame from a trailer for a 20th Century-Fox movie (no connection to CBS) shows a similar contempt for the goals of the article; the caption of the original image made the point that "many stars like John Garfield" reprised film roles in CBS radioplays — the point being the CBS radio role, not the film role. The Jack Benny substitution out on the street has no CBS connotation whatsoever, nor do the stacked shots of Murrow and Shirer years after their dismissals/resignation from the network. Furthermore, stacking the latter two images creates a large gash of unsightly whitespace (at least on my widescreen monitor).
To make these inappropriate substitutions and not even pay the article the respect of fixing the captions to reflect the new images — or repairing the disruption to the layout — calls into question either the editor's intent or his editorial judgment. Unlike J Milburn, I do care about the cogency of this article and the reading experiences of the visitors to the page; if we can't have the originals that do "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic," then please remove the admittedly "less appropriate" substitutions that only telegraph contempt for our readers. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 05:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree completely with Harrington on this. Just because an image is of the same person does not make it an equivalent image at all. To state such shows a complete lack of understanding of photography as a form of expression. Or, to use an absurd example, would a picture of OJ Simpson at his infamous trial be an appropriate illustration of him during his playing days with the Buffalo Bills. Not in the least. There's more to a photograph than the person that is in it. It's called context. oknazevad (talk) 05:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
HarringtonSmith, you are taking my words completely out of context. Rather than sitting here and saying "are the replacements better than the originals" (that was my "I don't care" point) we need to assess whether the non-free images meet the non-free content criteria, as, if they do not, they may not be used. Decorative free images which are just "here's a picture of someone related to the subject" are frequently used in a number of articles; if you don't want them in this article, that's fine, I'm not going to fight for their inclusion. That's why I added those "here's a pic of a related person" pictures. However, again, we have to look at the use of the non-free images. Let's take, for instance, File:BingCrosbyCBS1933.jpg, which has been twice reinstated. How does an image of Crosby holding a CBS microphone "significantly increase reader understanding of the topic"? Why is it needed? Would reader understanding of the article be lower if it was not there? Would a reader at some point go "hmmm, I can't really understand this without a picture of Bing Crosby holding a microphone". These questions sound ridiculous, but that's what's required by the non-free content criteria. If you don't want to use an alternative image of Crosby, so be it, but that does not mean that this one is required. Looking at File:MurrowAndShirerCBS.jpg, again ask yourself the same question- is a reader's understanding of the topic significantly increased by seeing a non-free image of these two people next to CBS microphones? Is it impossible to understand the issue of actors returning to the network without seeing File:JohnGarfieldCBSPubPhoto.jpg? If all these images were free, it would be completely reasonable to throw as many of them at the article as you wish, but they are not, and so their use must meet our deliberately strict non-free content criteria. J Milburn (talk) 10:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Need to add Boston JUly 4th Fireworks Controversy


I think you need to add the recent controversy regarding CBS faking its video coverage on the 2011 July 4th fireworks in Boston.

Thank You, D. Perry — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


I think a note about CBS' backing of SOPA should be added to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Envelopery (talkcontribs) 02:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned references in CBS

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of CBS's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "BarberaAutoBio":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 01:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)