Talk:The ½ Hour News Hour

message: Should we put a "FAIL" tag in there somewhere?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.9.68 (talk) 09:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tag 

message: I don't care whether you like or dislike this show, opinions don't belong here. If you want to review and discuss the show, go to TV.com. The article is supposed to be NPOV, and it desperately needs work. First, since the show has been picked up, is it really necessary to have all the reviews for the pilots? Second, can someone with editing experience get the search engine to redirect searches for "the half hour newshour" to the article. I made the mistake of combining "news hour" into one word and could not find this article for a long time. I'm new to Wikipedia and don't know how to do this yet. Thanks.
Citadel18080 03:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed the redirect, the half hour newshour redirects to The 1/2 Hour News Hour. - Mike Beckham 03:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is a war zone 

message: Lots of shows get negative reviews by the self-proclaimed critics, but that doesn't mean it isn't popular or enjoyable to millions of people. I've watched every episode and happen to like the show. Of course, I didn't laugh at every joke, but there are entire Jon Stewart episodes I watch where I don't laugh, either.
I looked up a number of other shows on Wikipedia, like the O'Reilly Factor, and TDS and found no such list of reviews masquerading as information. I think a more neutral way of putting it is by saying that the show was "panned by critics, but had more viewers then the Colbert Report and almost as many viewers as TDS, suggesting that there is a market for conservative comedy unmet by current shows."
Anyone who thinks that a list of 10 negative reviews is worthy of Wikipedia is showing a bias.
Please understand that if you are not a conservative, you might not like the show, but you need to step outside yourself when you are working on this article.
Note that I looked around and couldn't find any positive reviews of this show, but that doesn't really surprise me. Find one positive thing said about Rush Limbaugh in the Chicago Tribune or the New York Times, yet he has 20-25 million listeners a week.
KeithCu 11:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't see why 5 negative quotes are any more information than 1 negative quote. And I don't see any explanation for why it did so well when it got so many bad quotes, but anyway, the show is on every week, so we've got time to improve it.
It seems like the MetaCritic review basically sums up the views of the most prominent media outlets, many of which were among the quotes in dispute. I'm going to remove the quotes but leave the MetaCritic mention in. That way, readers can decide for themselves whether to read the bad reviews.
Citadel18080 04:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have removed the list of 10 negative reviews and propose we keep them removed. 

message: Why are the viewership numbers comparing the show to cable news networks. The show is on cable news but it is not a news show shouldn't its numbers be compared to other entertainment shows on air at that time. Who cares if it did better than whatever CNN was showing, CNN was showing news not comedy. Better to compare it with all the entertainment shows on. Saj29 11:50, 8 August 2008(UTC)
An unregistered user removed the viewership numbers from the Reception section. There is no reason to do this, as viewership ratings are commonly found in Wikipedia articles about TV shows. I'm going to restore them and ask that they not be removed again without discussion.
Citadel18080 02:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet another reason to have this article protected. Unregistered users have turned this article into a circus.Yeago 06:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viewership Numbers 

message: The quotation you added still doesn't address the Colbert Report and is sketchy as it relates to the Daily Show. Does it refer to the hosts or the show itself? Using the word we makes me believe that it refers to the hosts. Lets try to make a compromise version before changing the page again. Thanks. Turtlescrubber 12:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the question that was posed that SC answered. There is absolutely no question about it; the show is intended to be liberal. "Some critics have accused 'The Daily Show' of being liberal;" not "some critics have accused the commentators on the Daily Show of being liberal." Furthermore, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert themselves are both openly liberal, so nobody needs to "accuse" them of anything; why would he feel the need to answer a completely different question than the one that was asked and, furthermore, to answer a question that didn't need asking because everyone knew the answer anyway? Pellucid 13:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, when he responds he uses the word "we" and not "the show". In all honesty, I think alot of assumptions are being made for a relatively pointless statement. Because there is so much disagreement on this topic, why don't we try to find a more npov version that everyone can agree on? Turtlescrubber 15:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. And instead of either side claiming they are "objectively true" we really ought to settle on a solution that is subjectively agreeable. I am for your solution of simply saying that this show is a "response to" the daily show, which makes no accusations of bias.Yeago 15:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colbert Report isn't liberal? 2 

message: This article is about The 1/2 Hour News Hour, not the Daily Show or Colbert. Please move this discussion either to the articles about those shows or off Wikipedia entirely. The fact that this whole argument stems from one sentence in the article is ridiculous. Citadel18080 18:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but only if one is too young to know about Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In, The Smothers Brothers, Mort Sahl, George Carlin, All in the Family…etc.--HughGRex 21:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dig the crusty-old-coot thing you're going for, but All in the Family?  Don't inflate your claims.  The show commented sharply on the issues of the day, via its fictional storylines, but that doesn't make it a news satire show.  Oh, and last I checked, George Carlin and Mort Sahl aren't shows at all.  --63.25.245.12 04:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The Daily Show is a comparable show to both this one and Weekend Update, while Colbert is not. I agree that we shouldn't go on and on about it, I feel that 1/2 Hour News Hour has a lot more in common with TDS. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah. Kinda of a weird solution, especially since the producer made so much mention of TDS.Yeago 19:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, honestly, this is one of those situations where almost everybody pretty much knows that the Daily Show and the Colbert Report are liberal, but nobody in authority over the issue has admitted it in a direct enough way for all parties to be satisfied with the proof. This is an acceptable compromise for now, but if I find more evidence I will bring it up again. Pellucid 01:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say your link suffices, actually.Yeago 04:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hah, the people who primarily edit The Daily Show seem to disagree. Pellucid 07:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its primarily just Turtlescrubber.Yeago 12:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow! Turtlescrubber 13:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd just add that I found a quote by Rolling Stone, referenced above, which says that TDS and Colbert Report "clearly" have a liberal bent, but a number of people here want to ignore the obvious, so this is our compromise. TDS is relevant here because it was created in response to TDS, not SNL, but anyway.KeithCu 04:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is not about Colbert or the Daily Show 

message: I've created a list of the episodes and their contents on a seperate page. Please review and edit at your convenience. Citadel18080 06:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode List is Up 

message: I'm getting extremely tired of the subtle digs people are adding about THHNH. Cenestrad recently added the line, "Despite the overwhelmingly bad reviews the show has continued to dominate it’s time slot among cable news networks." Can anyone provide a reasonable basis for keeping this line in the article? The reviews are not about the show, they are about the pilot. The viewership ratings are not about the show, they are about the pilot. The reviews and ratings give the complete picture. You would never see a line like this in a professionally written encyclopedia.Citadel18080 16:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we need to list the ratings for every single show but that it cont. to do well despite the bad reviews seems to me to be notable. --The Emperor of Wikipedia & Protector of  Wiktionary 17:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, but mentioning that the ratings continue to be good despite bad reviews could be a good thing to add to the article as long as it's written in a more strategic manner. --Pellucid 16:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should add all post-pilot ratings information to the episode guide instead of the main article, as that is where it is generally displayed in Wikipedia TV articles.Citadel18080 01:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Nobody has suggested that, you have misread Citadel's problem. If you don't plan on joining genuine debate--and that does include making an attempt provide a balanced perspective to this article--you're going to find yourself ignored. Citadel isn't some partisan axe-grinder, he deserves a legitimate response, not victim-playing.Yeago 09:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enough with the attacks! 

message: Hey there. Just letting you all know I'm leaving this article. Its been good feuding with you all. As someone who tends to lean left(ish) I encourage all lefties not to dismiss outright conservative vantage, even when it only manifests itself in frequent vandalism (ahem, the constant removal of "perceived" from "perceived liberal bias"). When I stepped away from my personal opinions I saw the vandalism as a sign that the article needs to move a bit more to the right. Now that it is, viola, the vandalism stopped.Yeago 03:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: See ya article!

message: I just reverted a post about the “Guy White” sketch on the show because it was poorly placed. I do think this article needs a section on recurring sketches.  --The Emperor of Wikipedia 14:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the new section.  Let me know what you think. Eseymour 17:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cenestrad, I disagree. This article needs more substance than just a couple of sentences describing the show and how well it was received. Citadel18080 20:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think you have misread. I was advocating adding a new section on the shows sketches. I would also like to add a section for the shows format. --The Emperor of Wikipedia 04:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, I was reading too fast. Sorry. Citadel18080 05:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recurring sketches

message: Hi folks. I've been busy with a particularly nasty content dispute elsewhere on Wikipedia, but I'm trying to spend some time here as well. I've noticed that a sentence was added about the ratings "shrinking considerably" with the Aug. 5, 2007 airing. Unfortunately, Mediabistro does not give complete ratings info, only the 25-54 demographic. This has been a problem before and, if someone has an alternate source that provides complete ratings, it should be used instead. Citadel18080 03:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ratings 

message: I removed the tag. Every line and every fact was cited. I have no idea why anyone would have tagged it.--The Emperor of Wikipedia 05:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reception

message: I see someone's removed any mention that the show used a laugh track.  If true, this is relevant.  The show attempted to compete with The Daily Show (by the producer's own admission) and emulate Weekend Update.  By using a laugh track (while TDS and WU must succeed with its live audience or fail), they attempted to stack the odds, or give themselves a boost in the competition.  Despite this, they failed.  This is a relevant and interesting thing to know about the show.
--63.25.245.123 04:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if you have reliable sources that say they use a laugh-track and make the conclusion you do. JoshuaZ 21:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm looking.  Of course, outside of the realm of Wikipedia, in the real world where my television resides, it's so freakin' obvious.  It's a shame embarassed conservatives and FNC employees would challenge this very, very obvious, but so-far-unverified fact.  --63.25.29.106 00:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Go ahead and include it with a "citaton needed" tag if you want. Please don't draw your own conclusions about why the laugh track was used, however. Laugh tracks can be used for any number of reasons and, like you say, it would have been "very, very obvious" if they were attempting to use a laugh track to enhance thier audience reactions. Citadel18080 00:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of laugh track is relevant. 

message: I think changing the opening line to "the half hour news hour was" form "the half hour news hour is" is not yet appropriate as the show is still on the air. Just because Grandma has terminal cancer doesn't mean you start saying "Grandma always was found of blackberry brandy" or "Grandma would have just loved the departed" before the old woman gives up the ghost. By the way, Has anyone figured out how Bill Clinton  can be blamed for the shows cancellation? --The Emperor of Wikipedia 18:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I've changed it back to "is" a couple of times myself. Citadel18080 00:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is to Was

message: Why is there an also see section that only includes The Colber Report?  There should be an Also See section with all/many similar satires of news show or no section at all (not a section with just one show). 74.253.2.40 17:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See also sections are for relavent topics not mentioned in the article itself.  The article already mentions several similar shows, there is no need to add these to the See also section. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Also See

message: I thought we had reached a consensus about the reception section of this article. --The Emperor of Wikipedia (talk) 04:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: why are we having this fight again?