Talk:NBC News

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

Senate Denies General Officer Promotion[edit]

Would Your News Agency be interested in a story about the U.S. Senate denying a general officer a promotion from one star to two stars based on a Department of the Army (DA) Inspector General (IG) investigation in Wiesbaden, Germany, if there is a cover-up?

Hi— I’m contacting your news agency because I’ve tried to provide this story to larger news organizations and I believe their postal mail, email, and text messages are being censored. A similar story about a Navy admiral took years to get in the news, so I’m not terribly worried. The basic story will eventually break (basic story: In 2016 the U.S. Senate denied a general officer a promotion based on an IG investigation and, wow, is U.S. Army Europe/USAREUR still doing a lot to cover it up). I used to work in Wiesbaden, and I was there when the general had his promotion denied. I sat in a session in which civilian employees were essentially asked if they were being forced to do things they didn’t want to do, and I am fairly certain that’s how the DA IG investigation report will read – once we get our hands on it (I've been trying to break this story for the past two years). If you can obtain a copy of the DA IG report, please post a PDF copy of the report online along with the story when you break it. I can expand on the story once it hits AP newswires. I’m sure it will be redacted, but I can fill in a lot of the blanks. Feel free to call U.S. Army Europe (USAREUR) Public Affairs Office (PAO) at this number: +49-611-143-537-0005 or 0006 Outside Germany, add your country's International Direct Dialing code plus "49" before the desired number. It’s usually 011, but some telephone carriers have different ones; so, normally dial the whole number like this: 011-49-611-143-537-0005 or 0006 Keep in mind that anything the USAREUR PAO says may be part of a cover-up. For instance, if they don’t confirm the basic story, they are perpetuating a cover-up that’s been ongoing since 2016. For some reason they really, really, really do not want the DA IG report to get in the news. Don’t know if this is Pulitzer-level stuff, but it might be.

Current Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request status and how-to: If you would like to be the first news agency to break the story:

  • Email the DA IG FOIA Office here: usarmy.pentagon.hqda-otig.mbx.saig-zxl@mail.mil
  • Ask for a copy of the “calendar year 2016 IG investigation report that caused the United States Senate to deny promotion to major general officer rank (O-8) for the Deputy Chief of Staff for U.S. Army Europe, headquartered in Wiesbaden, Germany (DA IG FOIA Records Release Office knows the name of the general officer, because I emailed them the name).
  • An alternate method to obtain the IG report would be to re-initiate the FOIA request by going here and using a Department of Defense (DOD) IG FOIA account to request the report: https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/action/public/home
  • I initially requested the Wiesbaden report through DOD IG FOIA, and they responded by re-directing me to the DA IG FOIA Office. That’s how I know the report is at DA.

I’ll contact your news agency to talk about the cover-up after the basic story finally gets in the news. -- The reason I’m asking for assistance in obtaining the IG report is because I believe my FOIA requests have been blocked as part of the cover-up. Whoever you talk to can say whatever they want, but the key to this story is the DA IG report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DF:9BD8:C141:81E1:A85E:A969:7ECD (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

How Can NBC News Portray Itself as Unbiased When Keith Olbermann Appears Next to Purportedly Neutral NBC Journalists?[edit]

Keith Olbermann has made his political views, and his hatred of Bush, very evident night after night after night. Olbermann has the right to his opinions, but then Olbermann appears on election nights with other NBC journalists who purport to be politically neutral. This combination of opinion and news has done a great deal to damage the once impressive reputation of NBC News. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.144.160 (talk) 01:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The simple fact is that NBC News has an obvious liberal bias. It don't take a genius to figure that one out.PokeHomsar (talk) 03:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Access Hollywood?[edit]

I don't think that Access Hollywood is a series produced by NBC News. Sure, it is produced by NBC, but the series is not labeled as produced by NBC News. This should be removed from the article immediately. --Jonyyeh 20:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

political ideology[edit]

Why isn't there a section devoted to the political leanings / biasis of NBC news, if any exist? Gregasaurous (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you answered your own question--or qualified it out of existence. Can you cite any authoritative source re: political leanings or biases at NBC News? If not, why do you suppose there should be a section on on the topic? RogerLustig (talk) 04:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

There have been popular books on the subject. ♠ Trickrick1985 +2¢ :: wasted-time log 06:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Below is the third paragraph from Fox News' Wikipedia entry:
"Many observers have stated that Fox News Channel promotes conservative political positions and biased reporting. Commentators, news anchors, and reporters at Fox News Channel have responded that news reporting and political commentary operate independently of each other and have denied any bias in news reporting."
The "authoritative sources" referenced in the paragraph include the movie "Outfoxed", and a segment done by MSNBC's Rachel Maddow. LOL
Using the same standard; I can Google, "NBC News liberal bias", and find pages of "authoritative sources" to support the existence of a liberal political leaning/bias section for this entry. Or would the liberals running Wikipedia not like that?! And is that why one exists for Fox News but not NBC? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.245.75 (talk) 06:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

History section[edit]

This section seems to omit some important information - such as the milestone dates when NBC Nightly News expanded from 15 min. to 30 min. format and went to color from b&w. Also, it doesn't go back any farther than 1956, omitting the pre-Huntley/Brinkley era, eg. John Cameron Swayze (1949-1956) and the early pioneering TV-radio NBC News simulcasts by Lowell Thomas beginning on February 21, 1940 (as recounted in Thomas' book, So Long Until Tomorrow, pp. 17-19).

Unless there's a particular reason why the article doesn't delve into these aspects, I'm going to expand the History section along these lines. JGHowes talk - 23:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I say go ahead and add all the information you know! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewgu111 (talkcontribs) 03:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


Font[edit]

Does anyone know what the font on the current logo of NBC News is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.67.173.240 (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The NBC logo is a custom font, so it would not be available anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bg02445 (talkcontribs) 00:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Current and Past Anchors... section[edit]

On the NBC News page under the section "Current and Past Anchors..." the link for Peter Alexander incorrectly leads to European singer/actor Peter Alexander. Hopefully, someone will be interested correcting this inaccuracy. There doesn't appear to be an article for the anchor Peter Alexander to redirect the link. Scooter1969 sf (talk) 12:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Frank Blair[edit]

The link to Frank Blair is to the Civil War figure. Even links to "Frank Blair (journalist)" are to the Civil War Blair. Jerry (talk) 13:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Severe problems[edit]

This article makes some serious claims with almost no sourcing. The current article is a terrible mess of original research, full of weasel and peacock words, and currently fails our requirements that statements be neutrally presented and reliably sourced. Whilst many of the points raised are factually sound (gas tank incident, for instance), we need to either source the claims made or remove them entirely. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


Controversies and Criticisms?[edit]

This network has been around for a long time. Why is it there are no controversies listed for it? Why does the FOX News Channel article have such, but this article does not. Not even a mention of its liberal bias? That's being extremely liberally biased right there.PokeHomsar (talk) 03:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, well it has a section now, but I can't figure out why the anthrax scare is a controversy'. I will delete that one. Pdcook (talk) 03:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I hate ad hominem, but Boy, you edit as well as NBC. Why do you seem confused about the The anthrax scare? It was NOT controversial. But, by pretending to not understand, you completely avoid mentioning the long list of things that ARE controversial. Unless you are "out of touch w the common man" (recognize that quote?), you really should know about little things like: Rick Perry, dynamiting a truck, Aiden Delgado, Bush scanner, Zimmerman, and Wawagate.Aaaronsmith (talk) 02:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Oops. Forgot a couple: Bachman, and "Fast and Furious".Aaaronsmith (talk) 02:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Has NBC News Transformed into the Pro-Obama News?[edit]

As the long presidential campaign proceeded into 2008, NBC News gradually lost any hint of political neutrality and transformed itself into almost an arm of the Obama campaign.

Long lists[edit]

The list of current and former contributors is excessively long and ugly. We should either columnize it or split it into a "List of" daughter article. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Pdcook (talk) 03:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Bureaus[edit]

In Denver KUSA-TV is there bureau & assignment desk but KDEN-TV serves as the satellite up-link center for NBC NEWS. What should be put down for Denver???

KUSA is the NBC affiliate, so it would make more sense to put it down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bg02445 (talkcontribs) 00:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

No Citation[edit]

There is a heading that says Liberal Bias with no corresponding text. If you have something to say, say it and cite it. Until then, its gone. --MathewBrooks (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure who added that section, but I've included a statement on the accusations of bias, as well as NBC's response, in the opening section. Irishjpm153 (talk) 20:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Personnel Section[edit]

I strongly believe that you might want to organize the personnel section into columns. I strongly believe it is better to read. See CBS News as a template. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 11:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Columnize or create a new article with that content. It's terrible the way it is now. Pdcook (talk) 03:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Noted coverage[edit]

The first sentence of this section is poorly worded and the section as whole is borderline trivia. If there are no objections, I might fix these things. Pdcook (talk) 03:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Bush Administration Controversy?[edit]

Why isn't there any mention of Bush's refusal to appear on any NBC networks, while the article about Fox News mentions Obama extensively? MPA 14:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MPA (talkcontribs)

Huntley Brinkley Era NPOV[edit]

The end of the third paragraph in the section "The Huntley-Brinkley Era" appears to show the uncited personal opinions of the author. This would seem to be an issues for not only Wikipedia:NPOV but also Wikipedia:Original_research. I believe this should be rectified, however, I having minimal knowledge of the subject, have no idea of how to do it properly.

Northshield always thought the relatively unwatched CBS Morning news was the "best damn news show on the air". And so when Huntly/Brinkley ended he allowed Bill Paley to woo him over in order to create and produce the weekly eleagnce of that network's; "Sunday Morning" originally hosted by Charles Kurault, now hosted by Charles Osgood. The ending moment of nature was the program's weekly tribute to the rough-hewened man who created much of the best quality news division programming ever seen.. After being aired free of sponsorship for decades, it became first sponsored, then abruptly ended without notice.


It further has some stylistic flaws and seems to use present tense for a past event.

Gillesp (talk) 00:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The extensive information on Shad Northshield, much of it about his time at CBS, is out of place here, and some of the information is wrong. (He had already left the Huntley-Brinkley Report by the time it ended, and he joined CBS several years later.) Set up an entry for him if you want to include this information. Compson1 (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Something funny here.[edit]

Is it just my paranoid imagination, or have all references to NBC's unethical practices (long list, should probably be 7 or 8 paragraphs to really cover it) been quietly removed?Aaaronsmith (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Infobox[edit]

What about using Infobox broadcast? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninniuz (talkcontribs) 14:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Removed Correspondents and Contributors[edit]

Why did someone remove Persons from NBC News Personnel? and what is up with the new way they are shown? ACase0000 (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

LOVE[edit]

LOVE IS LIFE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.52.157.111 (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Adding unreferenced entries of former employees to lists containing BLP material[edit]

Hello, Please do not add unreferenced names as entries to the list of former employees in articles. Including this type of material in articles does not abide by current consensus and its inclusion is strongly discouraged in our policies and guidelines. The rationales are as follows:

  1. WP:NOT tells us, Wikipedia is "not an indiscriminate collection of information." As that section describes, just because something is true, doesn't necessarily mean the info belongs in Wikipedia.
  2. As per WP:V, we cannot include information in Wikipedia that is not verifiable and sourced.
  3. WP:NLIST tells us that lists included within articles (including people's names) are subject to the same need for references as any other information in the article.
  4. Per WP:BLP, we have to be especially careful about including un-sourced info about living persons.

If you look at articles about companies in general, you will not find mention of previous employees, except in those cases where the employee was particularly notable. Even then, the information is not presented just as a list of names, but is incorporated into the text itself (for example, when a company's article talks about the policies a previous CEO had, or when they mention the discovery/invention of a former engineer/researcher). If a preexisting article is already in the encyclopedia for the person you want to add to a list, it's generally regarded as sufficient to support their inclusion in list material in another article. 70.48.216.22 (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on NBC News. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Correct misleading paragraph[edit]

The following paragraph is in the section "1995 onwards":

  • Ronan Farrow's story about the Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations was developed at NBC News in 2017; the company chose not to publish it and Farrow took the story to The New Yorker which published it after the New York Times broke the story, scooping both NBC and the New Yorker. The NBC News organization was criticized for not publishing the Weinstein story and were further criticized when news broke of the sexual harassment claims against Matt Lauer.

The paragraph is misleading and incomplete in several ways. While I am an experienced Wikipedia editor, I am a paid consultant to NBC News, so under WP: COI, I'd ask that independent editors review this question. I believe this paragraph is now unbalanced criticism, and falls short of WP: NPOV. Here is a more balanced approach:

  • NBC News President Noah Oppenheim suggested an investigation into alleged sexual misconduct by Harvey Weinstein after NBC contributor Ronan Farrow pitched a general idea to report on sexual harassment in Hollywood.[1] After a 10-month investigation by Farrow and NBC producer Rich McHugh,[2] NBC reviewed a rough cut and decided it was not ready to broadcast.[2] After several months of additional reporting, a story by Farrow about Weinstein's alleged misconduct appeared in the New Yorker Magazine. A story on the subject of Weinstein's alleged behavior also appeared several days earlier in The New York Times. [3] Following criticism for missing a major story it had initiated, NBC News defended the decision, saying that at the time Farrow was at NBC, the early reporting still had important missing necessary elements. The Hollywood Reporter reported that the actress Rose McGown had withdrawn her consent for an on-air interview with NBC, and Farrow had no other named accusers on-the-record.[4] Farrow's article in The New Yorker had multiple named accusers.[4]

I think the reasons for the changes above are largely self-explanatory. But in short, unlike the current paragraph, it clarifies that the investigation while Farrow was at NBC was not at all the same "story" as what was published at The New Yorker. Using "the story" without clarifying the difference is like a Wikipedia article stating "Publisher A" turned down publishing "the novel", but "the novel" was later published by "Publisher B" - and leaving out that "the novel" at the time it was reviewed by "Publisher A" was only a half complete manuscript. It would mislead readers to not explain the difference.

The revised version, above, gives NBCs defense of its decision rather than just simply stating there was criticism of NBC. It's therefore balanced, as per WP:NPOV and the suggested approach of WP: CRITICISM

Regarding Matt Lauer, this was an important event for this article and should be handled separately, not just a tag at the end of the Weinstein issue. I will start another section about it.

Thank you for helping to review this. BC1278 (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)BC1278

I agree with you. I will dig into it a bit more this afternoon. JSFarman (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I think this revision works better and is line with the stated Wikipedia policies. Open to hear others' opinions though. Tfkalk (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the version suggested by BC1278 since it provides more balanced coverage. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for reviews so far. Just to re-state, I can't be the one to make the edit on the article since I have a declared COI here, above. So when satisfied there's been enough input, could someone make the change?BC1278 (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)BC1278

 Done JSFarman (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Expanded info on Matt Lauer[edit]

Right now, there's just a small mention of "criticism" of NBC for its handling of the Matt Lauer sexual misconduct allegations, at the tail end of the paragraph about Harvey Weinstein in the section "1995 onwards." I believe the present wording violates WP: NPOV because it does not summarize the opposing point of view. Guidance on how to handle criticism can be found at WP: CRITICISM Nor does the current mention give any context.

I am an experienced Wikipedia editor and I am a paid consultant to NBC News. As such, under WP: COI, I am seeking independent review for the following a proposed description.

  • Today Show host Matt Lauer was fired in November 2017, about 36 hours after a formal sexual misconduct complaint was lodged against him.[5] Some said the issue was well handled because Lauer was fired swiftly and management began an organization-wide discussion of sexual harassment,[5][6][7] but others were critical of NBC for not knowing about Lauer's alleged behavior.[8][9] NBC News' current management denied knowledge of any sexual misconduct by Lauer prior to the formal November 2017 allegations and rumored media investigations about his behavior in the immediate days prior.[8][9]

Thanks for considering this suggestion. BC1278 (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)BC1278

I had been involved in editing the Sexual Misconduct section of Matt Lauer and believe that it provides an excellent summary of how the situation unfolded. And yes, that section should be expanded in this article. This is the key section to consider:
   On November 29, 2017, NBC News announced that Lauer's employment had been terminated after an unidentified female NBC employee reported that Lauer had sexually harassed her during the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, and that the harassment continued after they returned to New York.[41] 
   NBC News management said it had been aware that The New York Times and Variety had been conducting independent investigations of Lauer's behavior,[45] but that management had been unaware of previous allegations against Lauer.[46] Variety reported allegations by at least ten of Lauer's current and former colleagues.[47] Additional accusations went public in the ensuing days.[48][49]
Peter K Burian (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the summary above, from Peter K Burian, is well done, and it could suffice. You might also want to pluck the sentence from my version that says some opined the incident was well handled because he was terminated so swiftly and the organization-wide sexual harassment review began. And just to re-state WP: COI policy, I can't be the one to make the edit on the article since I have a declared COI here, above. So when satisfied there's been enough input, could someone make the change?BC1278 (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)BC1278BC1278 (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)BC1278 immediately.BC1278 (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)BC1278
I like that revision above from Peter K Burian and think it is the best. However, I disagree with BC1278 slightly because I do not think a sentence about praise of NBC's handling is necessary. Tfkalk (talk) 00:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Tfkalk that that sentence is superfluous. It's most important just to summarize the facts, as per the revision by Peter K Burian, and not necessary to engage in the criticism/praise reaction.BC1278 (talk) 02:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)BC1278
It appears we have a consensus re: expanding the section about Matt Lauer. I have done so. Could not find any other coverage re: Lauer here so I just added a paragraph. If it duplicates some content, please fix it accordingly. Peter K Burian (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

References[edit]

  • I ran IABot's Analyze a page on it for you, to archive some weblinks.
  • Below are some results from User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck. Note that just because a warning is displayed doesn't mean there's really any problem.. but I'm listing errors in case there's something we can improve:
  • 26 instances of Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.)\
  • 2 instances of Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC
  • 5 instances of Missing ISBNs; Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Added section on COI editing[edit]

I have BOLDly added a section on the COI editing on this page as reported by HuffPost per WP:BOLD. If you deem it fit, feel free to revert this edit. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

  1. ^ Guthrie, Marisa (10 January 2018). "Ronan Farrow, the Hollywood Prince Who Torched the Castle". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 11 January 2018.
  2. ^ a b Koblin, John. "How Did NBC Miss Out on a Harvey Weinstein Exposé?". New York Times. Retrieved 10 January 2018.
  3. ^ Farhi, Paul (11 October 2017). "Why did NBC News let the Weinstein blockbuster get away? Once again, questions mount". Washington Post. Retrieved 11 January 2018.
  4. ^ a b Guthrie, Marisa (11 October 2017). "Why Ronan Farrow's Harvey Weinstein Bombshell Did Not Run on NBC". Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 10 January 2018.
  5. ^ a b Pompeo, Joe; Jane Fox, Emily (7 December 2017). "Lauer's "Double Life": Inside NBC, the Network Is Trying to Expunge the Lauer Era". Vanity Fair. Retrieved 14 February 2018.
  6. ^ Strause, Jackie (29 November 2017). "Matt Lauer Accused of Sexual Harassment by Multiple Women". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 14 February 2018.
  7. ^ Evans, Gregory (10 February 2018). "Connie Chung Commends Quick Firings Of Matt Lauer & Charlie Rose". Deadline Hollywood.
  8. ^ a b Marcin, Tim (29 November 2017). "In the wake of the Matt Lauer firing, meet NBC News president Noah Oppenheim". Newsweek.
  9. ^ a b Koblin, John (1 December 2017). "After Firing Matt Lauer, NBC Executives Move to Control the Damage". The New York Times.