# Talk:WFTV

I deleted a lot of words reading like ads. I took out words like "very popular newscast," and changed it to just "newscast." Also the trivia about Hurricane forecasting, that read like a commerical or ego trip for the meteorologist. Just present facts and statements. This isn't an ad.

I'd LOVE to see more articles of stations broadcasting HD newscasts with HD screenshots like that. Kitch, you rock! ViperSnake151 13:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The use of images not in compliance with our fair-use criteria or our policy on nonfree content is not appropriate, and the images have been removed. Please do not restore them. — Moe ε 04:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The following was added to the controversies section after WFTV was denied access to the Obama campaign due to a series of questions by Barbara West.  Although it appears to be factually accurate, it does not appear to be directly related to the controversy at hand as it pertains to Ms. West's personal rather than professional life.
"Barbara West is married to Republican strategist Wade West. Wade West is "a popular consultant for political candidates ranging from local elections, to more than 85 members of Congress and members of the President’s cabinet." In addition, West has made multiple campaign contributions to the Republican Party."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Advocate7x70 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC) 

It has everything to do with it, it is a conflict of interest. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 21:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
While I agree that it may present a conflict of interest, the information about Barbara West's marriage, her husband, and past campaign contributions SHOULD NOT belong in the WFTV article but on the Barbara West page, which it does.  As initially stated above, the paragraph in question pertains more to Ms. West personally rather than to WFTV and the controversy at hand.  I do feel that this last sentence (recently added): "This has led some left-leaning blogs to criticize the anchor for the potential of a conflict of interest in the interviews." should be able to stay.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rokead (talk • contribs) 23:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
We should check other news anchors (not only those from WFTV) and see if their spouses' political affiliations are also outlined before including this in Barbara West article too.  I would venture to guess there are many conflicts of interest out there in the news industry that have gone unnoticed for one reason or another. For example, Ted Turner was married Jane Fonda and both are very vocal democrats.  Should they be listed on the CNN wiki page as conflicts of interest? Advocate7x70 (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Advocate7x70 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
It is illogical to claim there's a "conflict of interest" because a reporter registered as a Republican asked tough questions of a Democrat. If you follow that logic, then reporters who are Democrats should not be allowed to question a Republican. (That would be a problem, since reputable studies indicate that close to 90% of reporters are Democrats.) As noted elsewhere on this page, Ms. West asked very tough questions of Sen. McCain in an interview the next day. That is the true test of a reporter's fairness. Her own party registration and her husband's should not be included in the description unless it is a factor for every other media person noted in Wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.150.142 (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC) 

User with the IP 75.36.150.142 is making the point I was trying to make, but doing so in a much clearer manner thank you. I do believe the controversy section as it stands is still somewhat biased against Ms. West, however.  Any suggestions on how to make it more balanced?  I'm afraid any additions I make would reflect my own bias.Advocate7x70 (talk) 02:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not particularly convinced by the hearsay - especially quoting that "reputable studies" show that 90% of media anchors are Democrats. There are several problems with statements like these - a) What is the underlying methodology? b) What makes THIS particular set of studies reputable? c) How was such a study evaluated by other think tanks et cetera? Unfortunately, there is a wide misconception amongst the public, peddled by interest groups, that the media have a devastatingly liberal influence on current affairs in the United States. If this is so, then how do the critics concerned explain to themselves that somehow the majority of Administrations has been Republican? I think we here at Wikipedia need to be particularly careful with weasel words and fabricated claims of "authenticity", as much as a pain this is. As for the West controversy: Of course it makes a difference that she has a conflict of interest. However, it should be her rabidly hostile questions towards Biden that should be the focus (particularly when compared to the interview with Senator McCain the day after - when she basically leaves McCain time to expand on his talking points and "lets him off the hook" halfway through the interview), not her party registration. There are Republicans who supported the President-elect, after all Prqc (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC). 

The "Controversy" section seems one-sided as it doesn't provide any arguments for Ms. West, but only comments that attack her. Tschow (talk) 02:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't listing other conflicts of interest be a given if a reporter would have behaved as Ms. West did? Is anyone disputing the fact that she displayed a conflict of interest, especially in regards to her quoting Marx?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.221.9.216 (talk) 06:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC) 
Yes, I dispute your "fact" that she displayed a "conflict of interest." Your comments indicate a thorough ignorance of journalistic ethics. The point is that Ms. West asked fair and valid questions. Her fairness is evidenced by the reasonable observation that the very next day she interviewed Sen. McCain and asked him very tough questions as well. Ms. West demonstrated her fairness regardless of her party registration, which is something many other media reporters do not do. If her party registration is reported, however, it would only be fair to report the party registration of every other prominent media reporter, which would indicate (as studies show) that 90% of them are liberal Democrats.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.150.142 (talk) 23:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC) 
My point is that other reporters behave as she did all the time.  It's what they do.  Ask tough questions and press for answers. If it's a conflict of interest for her, then it should be a conflict for other reporters too. Also quoting Marx is not the conflict of interest in question, as that is not a conflict of interest.  The quesiton was her spouse's relationship to the republican party.Advocate7x70 (talk) 21:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that the section on the Biden interview chould be cut down to a sentence or two.  This was an interview of a vice-presidential candidate on a local TV station.  Nothing illegal or scandalous was alleged by either side.  It also seemed to have had no effect on the outcome of the election.  On the other hand, if you feel it was that important start a new article on the interview itself. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Someone added a second paragraph about the interview.  I left it at that and took off the separate "controversy" section. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone want to me to obtain the names of the people or of the cleaning company that takes care of the newsroom at this station? I am willing to research this. I think it would be interesting.--Greg Starks (talk) 22:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

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:

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.
As per WP:V, we cannot include information in Wikipedia that is not verifiable and sourced.
WP:Source list 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.
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. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 02:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.corporationwiki.com/North-Carolina/Tryon/del-caribe-orlando-llc/28462127.aspx
Triggered by \bcorporationwiki\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 17:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)