Talk:NBC News

message: 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)
thread_title:  Access Hollywood? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  History section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Current and Past Anchors... section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Frank Blair 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Severe problems 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Oops.  Forgot a couple: Bachman, and "Fast and Furious".Aaaronsmith (talk) 02:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies and Criticisms? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Agreed. Pdcook (talk) 03:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long lists 

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Bureaus

message: 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)
thread_title:  No Citation 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Personnel Section

message: 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)
thread_title: Noted coverage

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bush Administration Controversy? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Huntley Brinkley Era NPOV 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Something funny here. 

message: What about using Infobox broadcast?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninniuz (talk • contribs) 14:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed Correspondents and Contributors 

message: 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: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. 
#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)
thread_title:  Adding unreferenced entries of former employees to lists containing BLP material 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on NBC News. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140201191529/http://www.nbcuniversal.presscentre.com/content/detail.aspx?ReleaseID=14606&NewsAreaId=2 to http://www.nbcuniversal.presscentre.com/content/detail.aspx?ReleaseID=14606&NewsAreaId=2
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.  After a 10-month investigation by Farrow and NBC producer Rich McHugh, NBC reviewed a rough cut and decided it was not ready to broadcast. 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.  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. Farrow's article in The New Yorker had multiple named accusers.
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)
replies: text: I agree with you.  I will dig into it a bit more this afternoon. JSFarman (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: I agree with the version suggested by BC1278 since it provides more balanced coverage. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Correct misleading paragraph 

message: * 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)
thread_title:  References 

message: 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)
replies: text: I think it's pretty important to note it and go over anything that was touched by that with a fine-toothed comb given recent revelations. --Aquillion (talk) 04:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added section on COI editing 

message: There is a discussion of the reliability of Ashley Feinberg's HuffPost article "Facebook, Axios And NBC Paid This Guy To Whitewash Wikipedia Pages" on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at . — Newslinger talk 17:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of ''[[HuffPost]]'' article on paid editing at the reliable sources noticeboard 

message: Shouldn’t nbc be called a liberal need out let like msnbc? Wpow (talk) 23:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberal news outlet 

message: I would like to see an expansion of this article to include brief discussion of "NBC News Capsule," "NBC News Digest," and "NBC News at This Hour."  These generally were one-minute miniature newscasts in the 1980s.  In the mid-1980s, "NBC News Digest" aired at least three times on weekdays, at approximately 2:58 p.m. ET, 8:58 p.m. ET, and at 9:58 p.m. ET.  Apparently on rare occasions it was a two-minute broadcast, as this YouTube clip from May 5, 1985 tends to demonstrate.  "Digest," which aired in prime time on most NBC stations, probably was the most-watched NBC News production in the 1980s. "Digest" became "At This Hour" on or about August 1, 1988 and was dramatically expanded to air at the top of the hour at most hours during NBC's daytime schedule. (For viewers in the Pacific time zone, a live version covered over a taped version, which sometimes resulted in Pacific time zone viewers seeing a tiny bit of the end of the taped version.)  I don't think that this program merits its own Wikipedia article, but maybe others could make the case for that. Jab73 (talk) 09:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  NBC News Capsule/Digest/At This Hour 

message: CBSN (CBSC News' streaming channel) and ABC News Live (ABC News'  streaming channel) both have their own Wikipedia page but NBC News Now (NBC News' streaming channel) does not have its own page.  I have all three on my smart TV and it's the only news I watch.  Seeing as how infinitely long the NBC News page is its makes since to break some of that up into different pages. 2600:6C47:BF3F:7EFC:C642:2FF:FE67:D3D7 (talk) 21:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nbc news now as separate page 

message: NBC news logo 2603:6010:D203:810F:E43:F9FF:FE36:7C5C (talk) 01:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  NBC news