Talk:The ½ Hour News Hour/Archive 1

message: Should the metacritic link be on the page?  I mean, there's only 10 votes.. hardly a large enough group to be considered a real poll.
--cs302b
:Metacritic isn't a "vote", it's an average of scores given by professional reviewers. Redxiv 10:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metacritic

message: Yeago, regarding that criticism on being origional research.. do I need to go poll people on the street?  or does every other post in this message board thread count?
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=408348
Or how about common sense.. Spoof news show that is admittidly partisan on a cable news channel.
:Yeah. I hear you about common sense. However, Wikipedia has been going through a witchhunt this past year over 'original research'. Basically, you're not allowed to just say ducks have bills. You need to cite a reputable source that says that ducks have bills. 
:Message board posts really don't work for this sort of thing. What you're looking for is a critical review from a popular, unbiased source. Could be a newspaper, could be a criticism magazine, could be a notable website. I can guarantee you that what you've put into the article will not last very long until you've done this sort of thing. Its a pain in the ass, but its the way things are.Yeago 01:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL. Update. As I was writing the above, someone removed your input due to no citation of sources. Toldja. =) If you have any further questions, please ask!Yeago 01:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I removed the edits (which unfortunately I don't know how to link to).  The first revolved around what the opening skits for the first two episodes were parodying.  We've only seen one pilot so far, and any relation to an FDR fireside chat was thin at best unless supported by an inside source.  The other edit regarding the ratings of the second week of the pilot would be very notable, but we'd need a source.  If can get a source (hint hint, person who knows how to use mediabistro) we would use just the rating and its rank, not the fact that Rush Limbaugh said it on his radio show). Mykll42 23:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I found a link on mediabistro but it was a post and I'm not sure if the ratings are accurate.  According to the link it WAS the highest rated show on cable that night... going up against the Oscars.  I'll put this in the reception section with this link.  Mykll42 23:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The Hater is written by the staff of the AV Club.  I would consider it notable, but it's not a review of the show, it's a review of the Youtube clip.  I'm removing it.  Mykll42 23:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism

message: User 'Yeago's editing of this site appears to lean heavily in the vandalism / POV area (the show IS atrociously unfunny so far, but this guy's clearly a partisan hack) could someone with experience in 'bots' and whatnot possibly sanction the guy from further editing (check the history for proof). Thank'ya kindly.
:I've actually removed and blunted a lot of the very biting and obviously rhetorical statements against the show/conservatives. You really ought to explore my edits a bit more. I never injected the 'atrociously unfunny' phrase, and I even added the Washington Post quote which is very positive toward the show. Yeago 21:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yeago 

message: I think that putting "Terrificallt unfunny Show" is abit harsh, seeing as the show hasn't aired yet.
Now that it has indeed "aired", even blatant conservatives (e.g. "The Young Turks") are sorely disappointed with the finished product... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJr0l3dr2Fc
(yes, I know the 'Turks are blatant "liberals"; I was trying to be funny ... but seriously, their criticisms are just as valid as those expressed by others such as in this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwCR4EyajBQ
Just thought I'd put it out there -- the idea was lame, but *sigh* so appears the execution of same. 68.149.190.31 05:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrifically Unfunny? 

message: IMDB lists Brian Unger as a member of the cast, but I didn't include him because Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Bulletin boards, wikis and posts to Usenet notes that IMDB is probably not a reliable source in this case.  Everyone else currently listed seemed to be verified by more reliable sources though.  --Interiot 20:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cast/Crew 

message: I just did an overhaul of the reception section. I added several new references, and reorganized the ones that were already there.
I have no doubt that someone will note that all the links I added were highly critical of the show. Well... that's because the show has pretty much bombed. I'd love to see the "not everyone thought it was shit" line get a few more sources on it, but my search (using Google News) turned up largely negative reviews. So be it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception changes 

message: What does Stephen Colbert have to do with this show?  Colbert is a liberal who makes fun of "conservative" opinion shows.  This show is a fake news show with a conservative bent.--JML
    Stephen Colbert portrays a consevative, I thought. I did not think he made fun of conservatives, only religion.
Arodfan 01:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colbert Comparisons 

message: "Reception to The 1/2 Hour News Hour by most publications has expectedly been largely, negative by the large majority of media critics that generally praise anti-conservative comedy. The following are examples of the predictable negative response from the left leaning media, with one or two cherry picked critiques from conservative sources:".  THIS is NPOV ?  COME ON!
Stone cairn 05:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The material you're complaining about was added very recently by an anonymous editor; repaired, the article is very even-handed.  Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 05:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not disagree -- perhaps I did bare a little too much tooth earlier. Stone cairn 05:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE NPOV ????!!! 

message: I edited when the second episode is to be aired to March 4th.  Tonight was intended to be a reairing of the 1st episode.Mykll42 06:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2nd Episode 

message: This just aired last night on Fox News's UK stream and it was pretty terrible.  It's hard to do successful satire when the president and the last 12 years of Congress are both off limits.  Over here, we tend to satirise whoever's in political office a little more, and it works better.
It looked to me like they put right-wing totems Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter in the first sketch only so that Fox viewers could know whether to agree with its excruciatingly obvious political slant.  (I believe this tactic is known as "closed captioning for the hard of thinking".)  Worth seeing whether they bother doing a second edition, but this being Fox, they'll insist that it's "first and fair" despite all evidence to the contrary.
Don't start speculating about what you don't know.  Rush Limbaugh always mentions on his show how he is friends with the 24 writers.  The 24 writers are the creators of the 1/2 Hour News Hour.  Now why do you think Rush was in the first sketch? -JML
All barbs aside, I think this article would benefit from a more focused look at the critical response.  At the moment, it seems a bit plus/minus throughout.  Could we agree that there ought to be a separation in this respect?  Positive reviews could all go in one section subheading, whilst negative reviews could go in another.
Is that a fair suggestion?  Stevecov 12:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I had made such a division a few days ago but the revert tornado destroyed it.Yeago 14:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, be careful.  A lot of the reviews are just reviews of the 2 minute clips leaked onto Youtube.  There are comparatively few reviews of the show as a whole.  I would welcome any reviews from established television reviewers.  I see that Bob Ceska's review was removed, presumably because he's a blogger.  I guess that means we'll be looking at old media reviews of the show.  I haven't seen many mainstream reviews that have gone above a tepid response. Mykll42 01:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  I removed the slate quote because it referred to the Youtube clip only.  Everything else there appears to be about the show's premiere episode.Mykll42 09:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the line about the reception generally being negative.  That could be considered POV and original research. Mykll42 03:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Are bulleting nine negative reviews necessary?  There are plenty of critics out there -- can we filter for the most illustrative reviews?  Rephrased, I knew the ninth review would say after I read the third one.  Thanks, GChriss <always listening><c> 14:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical response: currently a weak section 

message: A WP:Admin wants to remove the links to the videos. Where was the original video 'leaked'? If anyone could dig that up, that'd be great.Yeago 17:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Yeago -  the parody of the show is not relevant to the show and is a youtube link.  That is being removed in good faith.  Please don't restore it. Mykll42 23:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Videos and links 

message: I'm not really good at editing pages yet, so I thought I'd posts these links here for you guys to look into.  The show was first premiered at Liberty Film Festival, where it was first seen by Fox who later picked it up.  Liberty Film Festival has a blog called Libertas that takes a conservative look at film.  They exclusively previewed and reviewed both of the two pilots before they aired and I believe their opinion should be articulated on this page; they had a very postive reaction to the show.  Including their review will help bring a more balanced POV to this page; especially in light of the leftist slant this page already takes.  Also, the second link shows the Nielsen ratings from the first episode and and shows that it beat Colbert and fell just short of beating Stewart.  This is relevant information for this page.  Thanks.Jordancda 23:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The rating itself is relevant, but I would say that comparing it to a show on a different timeslot on a different day is relevant.  I'll check out the reviews. Also, if you have a problem with the POV, which we've been very careful about (removing reviews from blogs or about the clips instead of the show), please, at least don't call it leftist.  That word doesn't mean what you think it means.  Mykll42 03:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry.  That's a conservative blog.  We removed links to blog reviews because they are not a reputable source for reviews (I disagree about that, personally, but not my call).  Blogs are also not a reputable source for cable ratings.  The site you gave linked to another site www.seraphicpress.com which linked to a San Francisco chronicle article which was published before the show aired.  The SF Chronicle, a reliable source, did not provide the ratings information.  I don't know where the ratings information came from.  Can't print it without a source. Mykll42 03:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here are better and unopinionated links to the viewer numbers (first run and rerun). . On the page they just call the show "Half". Gdo01 03:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's a good link for the total viewership.  I moved this section to the bottom where new content is supposed to go so people can find it. Mykll42 03:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mykll42 - thanks for looking into the links I posted.  Like I said, I didn't want to just start editing when I don't really know the rules.  Thanks Gdo01 for researching the ratings and getting a source for that.Jordancda 23:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libertas/Liberty Film Festival/Ratings 

message: I'm a liberal (if that matters). I know I should be happy that this article has an anti-conservative bias, but you know what? It's just plain unfair. There has had to have been someone in the media that gave the show a positive review. As it stands the article's implied consensus is, "The 1/2 Hour News Hour is The Daily Show for conservatives and it sux." I have a sincere doubt that NO ONE who watched the show liked it. Take a page from the networks, folks, look for more sources so you can be Fair and Balanced. Indiawilliams 01:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Washington Post, a paper not known for its conservative bias, gave the show a decent review and we have it linked.  We also include the positive ratings figures (without noting that it was being counterprogrammed against the Oscars (which is why no one was watching cable). The truth is, there are far more negative reviews in the MSM than there are positive reviews and to keep them balanced for balances sake would end up being unbalancing, if you follow me.  Some may argue that this is the result of the MSM having a liberal bias, though I would say it has to do with having a pro-funny bias.  But, for balance's sake, I will link to the Miami Herald article which is the only other MSM review which wasn't really bad.  OK... the metacritic link is broken and I can't find it in the archives. Metacritic said the reviewer gave it a six if any one else can find it.  If we could include blogs, there would be more positive reviews, but there would also be more negatives.  Maybe you could help us find some? Mykll42 02:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By this logic, the factual statement "Mussolini's Italy did more to protect the Jews than France ever did" would also be ignored in favor of the widely-reported but provably incorrect opposite perspective. Yes, reviews are largely negative, but that doesn't make those negative reviews any more relevant than the positive ones. Furthermore, I see a lot of liberal editors essentially saying "conservative news citations don't count. Only liberal and moderate news citations do." I'm not saying we should even out the reviews completely, but there are surely a lot more positive or neutral reviews for this show than are being represented here. Pellucid 08:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are "surely a lot more positive or neutral reviews for this show than are being represented here," then you should be able to find them easily. Use Mr. Google, see what you can find, and come back with the citations! That would be far better than simply asserting your widely held belief that there must be a bunch of positive reviews. Wikipedia is not the place for faith-based editing.--HughGRex 10:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may or may not have noticed, but I didn't edit anything in that section. Ergo, I have not engaged in any faith-based editing. Pellucid 10:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: (Lack of) NPOV

message: Please don't put anything up about cancellation without a source.  The show's fate is apparently still up in the air (I can't find anything) but if it doesn't go on, it would not be a cancellation.  These two episodes were just pilots.  The temptation to make a joke about the show being cancelled 3/4 of the way through the second episode is strong, but inappropriate.  Seriously, why was it only 22 minutes long (minus commercials)? Mykll42 19:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cancellation 

message: Mediabistro just reported that FOX has picked up the show for 13 episodes; it will remain in its current time slot.  Anyone have a corroborating source?  198.187.233.40 23:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picked Up 

message: If you read about the reviews you can see the liberal bias in newspapers. If you read about you can also see it did well, and a lot of people watched it.
:Which is what makes the "liberal media bias" argument so gosh darn useful.  Whenever anyone says anything that conservatives disagree with, it's "liberal media bias."  Whenever conservatives say anything liberals disagree with, it's "telling it like it is." Funny how that works. Mykll42 19:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's not what liberal media bias is about. I don't think this show was very good myself, but most of the reviews I've seen for it are grossly unfair. It's at least as funny as half of the incredibly crappy sitcoms currently on the air, and yet it received such ridiculous reviews as ONE out of ten. This was not "Henry Kissinger Reads the Dictionary," but if you read the reviews for it you'd think it was about as good. Liberal media bias definitely exists; the only people who don't think it exists are people who are as left or further left than the media is. Pellucid 06:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can honestly say that I did rate it a 1 out of 10, and would give similar ratings on any number of other shows. As comedy, it was weak. As satire, it apparently was deliberately crippled so that it wouldn't mock the people in power. As a conservative version of the Daily Show, it was an absolute failure: the Daily Show was far more effective at mocking the same subjects for the same reasons. I wanted it to succeed. It failed on every count that I can conceive. I hope that it does better from here, but I hold no such illusions. -76.186.133.90 08:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but anyone who rates it a 1 out of 10 hasn't ever watched an episode of "Mystery Science Theater 3000" and tried to imagine it without the commentary. There are FAR worse shows that have aired and are still airing. If there are worse shows and 1 is the minimum rating, then it by default cannot be a 1. No, it's NOT good, but it's not 1 out of 10 bad. It's more like 3.5 out of 10 bad. Pellucid 08:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Pellucid, you just described how I felt about the show perfectly. It did feel like MST3K without commentary. Thank you. --76.186.133.90 15:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Manos: The Hands of Fate. I rest my case. Pellucid 02:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's hilarious in and of itself. Unintentionally, I'll grant you, but it's still more entertaining than this show was. -76.186.133.90 04:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not when MST3K isn't doing it, it's not. Did you watch the entirety of both shows? It had about two or three moments that made me chuckle (no "el oh el" moments, though). That's better than one out of ten. Pellucid 10:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...while we're getting WAY off subject here, I must point out that the Manos entry kind of affirms my statement. According to that, the director and cast left the theater early due to embarassment from the laughter. As for the shows, I saw as much as I could stand. I'd initially written them off as humorless writers trying to do edgy, but Limbaugh's response to the cricisms of the show was reasoned and insightful (two words I'd never even considered using with regard to Limbaugh before). I won't deny that others might've fired off minimum reviews due to some sort of bias, but I also think the show set itself up for that by comparing itself to the Daily Show out of the gates. I think that the show's creators may have been gunning for negative publicity here, especially given the tepid material. If so, it worked in their favor. For my part, I hope that they branch out to mocking conservatives who have it coming (yes, I did get Ann Caulter's self-depreciating joke in the second episode), and get funnier with time. --76.186.133.90 13:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a minor note. I finally registered, and I'm the above user. --San Diablo 14:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IT DID WELL!!!