Jump to content

Talk:NBC

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 76.246.235.134 (talk) at 15:37, 12 June 2011 (Undid revision 430718942 by Oknazevad (talk)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

United Plates of America

NBC recently ordered a culinary competition to be called "United Plates of America". The premise of the show is that would-be-restaurateurs compete against each other for the prize of launching a chain of restaurant with the judges being the investors. The same production company as Top Chef and Project Runway is creating the show, which will offer one of the biggest prizes in reality TV. I'd like to add this to the programming section under the schedule where it mentions upcoming shows. The source is Reuters. Should I add it? Rosestiles (talk) 07:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)rosestiles[reply]

If you've got a source, no reason not to, I'd say. oknazevad (talk) 08:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

revisionist history

Yikes, the main article doesn't even give a hint of there being much of a controversy in this Leno VS all other NBC Comedians debacle and the discussion is nearly empty. Are NBC sockpuppets cleaning house? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.26.205.253 (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Future Shows Page?

Someone should create a page of pilots/future shows that will appear on NBC. I'm kinda too lazy...or at least pages for the shows.....thefutoncritic.com has a good list of upcoming shows for all networks. Here's the link: (http://www.thefutoncritic.com/devwatch.aspx?series=&network=nbc&daycode=&statuscode=1&genre=&studio=) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachattack002 (talkcontribs) 21:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we got rid of those not too long ago, as many of them are pilots that may never air (not uncommon, actually), and therefore are not particularly notable.oknazevad (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History of ownership

I think the article does not make clear who owned NBC between 1930 and 1986. Was it RCA? -- Seelefant (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. oknazevad (talk) 19:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

I have included a well-referenced statement twice now about perceived bias on NBC- not an statement accusing it, but a sentence stating that a large group of people, including a study by UCLA, found bias on NBC. I am adding this statement for the third time- it is highly relevant, and deleting it to present a positive bias of NBC is strictly against Wikipedia's policies of conflict of interest and neutrality. Irishjpm153 (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(New comments go on the bottom of the page). I was the one who removed it previously and moved it now. My concerns were multiple, but I felt tht it's inclusion in the lead was a severe case of undue weight and recentism. Frankly, between the poor placement and the "sorely needed" (which indicates strong agreement with the criticism) in the edit summary, it seemed to me that the edit simply wasn't NPOV. As the article can not be said to have been lavishly praising of NBC before (it seemed pretty straightforward before), it actually serves to skew the article slightly.
And it really only applies to the news division, which has it's own article, so any inclusion of such criticism belongs at that article, making it's inclusion here unneccessay, in truth. oknazevad (talk) 19:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

slightly.

Not to mention of the three bias links, one is to NewsMax, one lists Brit Hume as 'centerist' and the other one deals specifically with Obama, not a generic 'liberal bias'. It would be like using Obermann as a statement about Fox News's impartiality when coupled with a report that says Fraken is a centerist and a statement from Beck about how great Palin is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.119.154.37 (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the addition was pertaining to perceived bias, not proven, and the citations reflected the fact that those on the right tend to find bias with it. Many of the criticisms of Fox news from the left are cited as perceived bias, because that is what they are and a proper article would mention them. I said the statement was sorely needed not because I agree with it but precisely because it had gone unmentioned for so long, and the placement was not poor, as other articles on news networks (again, see Fox) have statements about perceived bias at the beginning of the article. Having said that, Oknazevad is correct in stating it belongs on the page of the news division, so I apologize for placing it here and will move it to that article instead. Irishjpm153 (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fukishima Nuclear Plant

I wonder if the reason NBC news would rather talk about Oprah Winfrey, the Royal Wedding, and Bin Laden is because they are owned by GE which incidentally built the reactors at Fukishima? Leaking nuclear reactors are no longer news?76.246.235.134 (talk) 00:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]