Talk:Campbell Brown (TV program)

Untitled discussion

I was asked to give a reason for {{notability}} tag I put. Well, it wasn't apparent to me if a TV program concerning a single event is automatically or inherently notable. We don't have an article on a TV special about Japanese general election, 2005; there were several such TV specials if I recall. (Needless to say, American elections should be given any special treatment just because this edition of wikipedia is in English.) I think this basically surfers from Wikipedia:Recentism. I bet this article would look quite out of place, say, 10 years from now. -- Taku (talk) 08:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed the {{notability}} tag. It's not a tv special but a five night a week ,hour long show available to 93 million U.S. households. I would say however i'd support it being merged with whatever Campbell Brown's new show is called come November.--Vintrino (talk) 01:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• So would an article for any television program that is canceled 10 months after it's initial release. But we would likely keep the article. For example, Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip was cancelled after 10 months, we still have the article.--Ac1983fan 23:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a horrible page

This page is horrible, and I dont know how to download pictures, and edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.92.32.168 (talk) 04:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Accused of Bias?

Campbell Brown has been mostly accused of liberal bias based on previous incidents including heavy criticism of Sarah Palin[1], Hank Paulson[2] and President Bush[3].

These three references support that she was critical of these people, but has anyone accused her of bias as the sentence maintains? I am deleting the sentence if there are no references to any accusations. If someone wants to rephrase the sentence so it is supported by the references, I would welcome that as well. --Alex Barrow (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hold on! I got evidence of references that actually say Campbell Brown is liberal.--Mapple001 (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The References currently accusing Ms. Brown of liberal bias are all 3 in the form of blogs, which as I understand it are not reliable sources. I agree it should be deleted unless properly sourced JoakimLemche (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Jerzeykidd (mapple001) apparently reverted the removal of the criticism section , stating it is important, and that there is evidence. Please bring evidence that she is biased from reliable sources (not blogs) personally I didn't watch her, didn't care, but, the current sources are: 3 blogs: Despite the "no bias" title, Campbell Brown has been accused of liberal bias.[5][6][7]. No source: She has praised President Obama An interview with Tucker Bounds really not doing a good job for Sarah Palin: and criticized Republicans Sarah Palin[8], A video which says Bush, Paulson and several democrats were wrong about the economy Hank Paulson[9], A transcript, where she wants to see more of Palin: John McCain [10] and A video that was removed, but honestly with his approval ratings at that time it would be bias not to at some point criticise him: President George W. Bush[11]. Whether or not the clips show liberal bias, basing an accusation of liberal bias on videos from the show is original research, when not backed up by a reliable source.JoakimLemche (talk) 13:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how Bush is unpopular, if Campbell criticizes him she could be liberal. But youtube videos show along with criticism of Bush, she also criticized Palin and Paulson. Whether you agree with her or not, she stated her opinion on specific politicans. Are youtube videos not reliable sources?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

A journalist is supposed to critcise, that in itself is not a case of being biased, and a youtube video alone only proves the criticism, not that it was either unfounded criticism, nor that she does not criticise liberals, any such statement based on a youtube video would be original research. Just find a reliable non blog source stating she has liberal bias, it should be possible. And again,the video criticising Paulson also criticises Barney Frank, so if it was to be taken as evidence of anything it would be non-bias...JoakimLemche (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest when you find sources accusing the show of liberal bias you also take a look at a place like mediamatters.org accusing her of the opposite, or stating she unjustly criticises democrats. If you have criticism from both sides, it could be a good sign the show is somewhat close to the middle.JoakimLemche (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality standards template

It seems that in the past, there was some dispute about the quality of this article. Having looked at the discussion regarding this apparent dispute, it seems that those issues no longer apply. I will keep the template there for the meantime, but it would be my intention - if there are no objections - to remove that from the article. It is by no means the perfect article - and it possibly warrants having an "additional citations for verification" tag added - but it doesn't really require a rewrite. 118.209.26.108 (talk) 14:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll remove the template in lieu of any objections. Cyril Washbrook (talk) 02:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)