This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the NBC News article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Journalism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. New York City Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Television Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Television Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Ashley Feinberg (14 March 2019). "Facebook, Axios And NBC Paid This Guy To Whitewash Wikipedia Pages". HuffPost. Retrieved 12 October 2019.

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. BC1278 ( talk · contribs) has been paid by NBC News on their behalf. disclosed here

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 27 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tug44921.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 04:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply

</HTML>

Would Your News Agency be interested in a story about the U.S. Senate denying a general officer a promotion from one star to two stars based on a Department of the Army (DA) Inspector General (IG) investigation in Wiesbaden, Germany, if there is a cover-up?

Hi— I’m contacting your news agency because I’ve tried to provide this story to larger news organizations and I believe their postal mail, email, and text messages are being censored. A similar story about a Navy admiral took years to get in the news, so I’m not terribly worried. The basic story will eventually break (basic story: In 2016 the U.S. Senate denied a general officer a promotion based on an IG investigation and, wow, is U.S. Army Europe/USAREUR still doing a lot to cover it up). I used to work in Wiesbaden, and I was there when the general had his promotion denied. I sat in a session in which civilian employees were essentially asked if they were being forced to do things they didn’t want to do, and I am fairly certain that’s how the DA IG investigation report will read – once we get our hands on it (I've been trying to break this story for the past two years). If you can obtain a copy of the DA IG report, please post a PDF copy of the report online along with the story when you break it. I can expand on the story once it hits AP newswires. I’m sure it will be redacted, but I can fill in a lot of the blanks. Feel free to call U.S. Army Europe (USAREUR) Public Affairs Office (PAO) at this number: +49-611-143-537-0005 or 0006 Outside Germany, add your country's International Direct Dialing code plus "49" before the desired number. It’s usually 011, but some telephone carriers have different ones; so, normally dial the whole number like this: 011-49-611-143-537-0005 or 0006 Keep in mind that anything the USAREUR PAO says may be part of a cover-up. For instance, if they don’t confirm the basic story, they are perpetuating a cover-up that’s been ongoing since 2016. For some reason they really, really, really do not want the DA IG report to get in the news. Don’t know if this is Pulitzer-level stuff, but it might be.

Current Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request status and how-to: If you would like to be the first news agency to break the story:

• Email the DA IG FOIA Office here: usarmy.pentagon.hqda-otig.mbx.saig-zxl@mail.mil
• Ask for a copy of the “calendar year 2016 IG investigation report that caused the United States Senate to deny promotion to major general officer rank (O-8) for the Deputy Chief of Staff for U.S. Army Europe, headquartered in Wiesbaden, Germany (DA IG FOIA Records Release Office knows the name of the general officer, because I emailed them the name).
• An alternate method to obtain the IG report would be to re-initiate the FOIA request by going here and using a Department of Defense (DOD) IG FOIA account to request the report: https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/action/public/home
• I initially requested the Wiesbaden report through DOD IG FOIA, and they responded by re-directing me to the DA IG FOIA Office. That’s how I know the report is at DA.

I’ll contact your news agency to talk about the cover-up after the basic story finally gets in the news. -- The reason I’m asking for assistance in obtaining the IG report is because I believe my FOIA requests have been blocked as part of the cover-up. Whoever you talk to can say whatever they want, but the key to this story is the DA IG report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DF:9BD8:C141:81E1:A85E:A969:7ECD ( talk) 20:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Keith Olbermann has made his political views, and his hatred of Bush, very evident night after night after night. Olbermann has the right to his opinions, but then Olbermann appears on election nights with other NBC journalists who purport to be politically neutral. This combination of opinion and news has done a great deal to damage the once impressive reputation of NBC News. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.144.160 ( talk) 01:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC) reply

The simple fact is that NBC News has an obvious liberal bias. It don't take a genius to figure that one out. PokeHomsar ( talk) 03:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC) reply

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) reply

Why isn't there a section devoted to the political leanings / biasis of NBC news, if any exist? Gregasaurous ( talk) 18:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I think you answered your own question--or qualified it out of existence. Can you cite any authoritative source re: political leanings or biases at NBC News? If not, why do you suppose there should be a section on on the topic? RogerLustig ( talk) 04:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply

There have been popular books on the subject. ♠♥ Trickrick1985 ♦♣ ^{+2¢ :: wasted-time log} 06:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Below is the third paragraph from Fox News' Wikipedia entry:

"Many observers have stated that Fox News Channel promotes conservative political positions and biased reporting. Commentators, news anchors, and reporters at Fox News Channel have responded that news reporting and political commentary operate independently of each other and have denied any bias in news reporting."

The "authoritative sources" referenced in the paragraph include the movie "Outfoxed", and a segment done by MSNBC's Rachel Maddow. LOL

Using the same standard; I can Google, "NBC News liberal bias", and find pages of "authoritative sources" to support the existence of a liberal political leaning/bias section for this entry. Or would the liberals running Wikipedia not like that?! And is that why one exists for Fox News but not NBC? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.245.75 ( talk) 06:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply

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) reply

I say go ahead and add all the information you know! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewgu111 ( talk • contribs) 03:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Does anyone know what the font on the current logo of NBC News is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.67.173.240 ( talk) 22:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The NBC logo is a custom font, so it would not be available anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bg02445 ( talk • contribs) 00:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC) reply

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) reply

Frank Blair

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

Oops. Forgot a couple: Bachman, and "Fast and Furious". Aaaronsmith ( talk) 02:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC) reply

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) reply

Agreed. Pdcook ( talk) 03:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

I'm not sure who added that section, but I've included a statement on the accusations of bias, as well as NBC's response, in the opening section. Irishjpm153 ( talk) 20:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MPA ( talk • contribs)

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) reply

The extensive information on Shad Northshield, much of it about his time at CBS, is out of place here, and some of the information is wrong. (He had already left the Huntley-Brinkley Report by the time it ended, and he joined CBS several years later.) Set up an entry for him if you want to include this information. Compson1 ( talk) 19:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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

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) reply

LOVE IS LIFE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.52.157.111 ( talk) 17:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply

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:

1. 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.
2. As per WP:V, we cannot include information in Wikipedia that is not verifiable and sourced.
3. 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.
4. 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) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on NBC News. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{ cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{ nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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 {{ Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— ^{cyberbot II} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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. ^[1] After a 10-month investigation by Farrow and NBC producer Rich McHugh, ^[2] NBC reviewed a rough cut and decided it was not ready to broadcast. ^[2] 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. ^[3] 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. ^[4] Farrow's article in The New Yorker had multiple named accusers. ^[4]

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)BC1278 reply

I agree with you. I will dig into it a bit more this afternoon. JSFarman ( talk) 21:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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

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)BC1278 reply

 Done JSFarman ( talk) 00:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Right now, there's just a small mention of "criticism" of NBC for its handling of the Matt Lauer sexual misconduct allegations, at the tail end of the paragraph about Harvey Weinstein in the section "1995 onwards." I believe the present wording violates WP: NPOV because it does not summarize the opposing point of view. Guidance on how to handle criticism can be found at WP: CRITICISM Nor does the current mention give any context.

I am an experienced Wikipedia editor and I am a paid consultant to NBC News. As such, under WP: COI, I am seeking independent review for the following a proposed description.

• Today Show host Matt Lauer was fired in November 2017, about 36 hours after a formal sexual misconduct complaint was lodged against him. ^[1] Some said the issue was well handled because Lauer was fired swiftly and management began an organization-wide discussion of sexual harassment, ^{[1] [2] [3]} but others were critical of NBC for not knowing about Lauer's alleged behavior. ^{[4] [5]} NBC News' current management denied knowledge of any sexual misconduct by Lauer prior to the formal November 2017 allegations and rumored media investigations about his behavior in the immediate days prior. ^{[4] [5]}

Thanks for considering this suggestion. BC1278 ( talk) 22:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)BC1278 reply

I had been involved in editing the Sexual Misconduct section of Matt Lauer and believe that it provides an excellent summary of how the situation unfolded. And yes, that section should be expanded in this article. This is the key section to consider:

   On November 29, 2017, NBC News announced that Lauer's employment had been terminated after an unidentified female NBC employee reported that Lauer had sexually harassed her during the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, and that the harassment continued after they returned to New York.[41] 
   NBC News management said it had been aware that The New York Times and Variety had been conducting independent investigations of Lauer's behavior,[45] but that management had been unaware of previous allegations against Lauer.[46] Variety reported allegations by at least ten of Lauer's current and former colleagues.[47] Additional accusations went public in the ensuing days.[48][49]

Peter K Burian ( talk) 15:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC) reply

I agree that the summary above, from Peter K Burian, is well done, and it could suffice. You might also want to pluck the sentence from my version that says some opined the incident was well handled because he was terminated so swiftly and the organization-wide sexual harassment review began. And just to re-state WP: COI policy, 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) 20:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)BC1278 BC1278 ( talk) 20:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)BC1278 immediately. BC1278 ( talk) 20:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)BC1278 reply

I like that revision above from Peter K Burian and think it is the best. However, I disagree with BC1278 slightly because I do not think a sentence about praise of NBC's handling is necessary. Tfkalk ( talk) 00:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC) reply

I agree with Tfkalk that that sentence is superfluous. It's most important just to summarize the facts, as per the revision by Peter K Burian, and not necessary to engage in the criticism/praise reaction. BC1278 ( talk) 02:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)BC1278 reply

It appears we have a consensus re: expanding the section about Matt Lauer. I have done so. Could not find any other coverage re: Lauer here so I just added a paragraph. If it duplicates some content, please fix it accordingly. Peter K Burian ( talk) 21:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• 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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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 WP:RSN § HuffPost for paid editing at Axios (website), NBC News, Caryn Marooney, and other articles. —  Newslinger  talk 17:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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) reply

^[1] It should be noted that NBC News is substantively biased. They were called out for pushing the critical race theory by manipulating audio. They are selectively partisan biased in alignment with the democratic party. As pointed out by five time Emmy award winner & published author Sharyl Attkisson NBC News published false claims regarding President Trumps visit to military troops then instead of admitting their journalistic malpractice they continued to push the same narrative. Haddi Nuff ( talk) 20:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC) Haddi Nuff ( talk) 02:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC) reply

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined.

I believe there are a number of serious omissions, misrepresentations, severe inaccuracies and a lack of balance in the second paragraph of section NBC News#Sexual Misconduct and NBC News about Ronan Farrow’s reporting on Harvey Weinstein while at NBC News. Most of the problems stem from violations of WP: Due. I’d like to open this up to a discussion. Below, I detail the issues I see and have proposed, as a starting point for discussion, some alternate language. As I already declared above, I have a conflict of interest as a paid consultant to NBC News.

Background Note: since this article has been the subject of public attention by those who do not know Wikipedia policy, I’d like to explain Wikipedia’s Contact Us page instructs the subjects of article, or their representatives, to use this Talk page to leave requests if they feel the article be “incomplete, inaccurate, or biased.” This is a sanctioned Wikipedia process with many further details provided at WP: COI. Please also note that Wikipedia policy strongly encourages anyone with a COI to propose “replacement sentences” with citations and coding when asking for a correction - not just leave a generalized complaint. WP:Edit Requests, which is why I must go to the trouble of writing up detailed suggestions and possible new language. Also, in accordance with the Wikipedia policy for “appropriate notification.” WP:APPNOTE, to start, I will notify the WikiProject on Journalism, and perhaps other projects, of this discussion, so Wikipedia users potentially interesteded in the discussion can find it.

---

1. In the subsection “Sexual Misconduct and NBC News,” in the second paragraph, following “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. ^[1]” the second sentence currently reads:

After a 10-month investigation by Farrow and NBC Producer Rich McHugh, NBC chose not to publish it. ^{[2] [3]}

Problems:

-The investigation at NBC News was 8 months, not 10 months. [1]

-There is no explanation as to why NBC says it did not publish his reporting. This statement requires substantial context in order to represent the opposing representations of events by Farrow and NBC News. WP: Due. The dispute has been widely covered in the media, with many major publications like the LA Times, The New York Times, and The Washington Post writing balanced stories representing both accounts. The opposing views should be more thoroughly detailed here.

As a stating point for discussion, here is some draft language with suitable context:

After eight months of investigation and several rounds of vetting by senior editors, executives, and lawyers, ^{[4] [5]} NBC News declined to publish Farrow’s reporting, in the form of a draft script he turned in July 25 2017 (which he continued to revise until August 8 2017) ^[6] citing its lack of on-the-record sources and numerous claims unsupported by the reporting to-date. ^[7] A scheduled on-the-record interview with actress Rose McGowan had been called off by McGowan, and her lawyer sent a cease and desist letter to NBC demanding a previous interview with her (in which she did not explicitly name Weinstein) not be used because she did not understand how the interview would be used or that she would be named. ^[8] In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, McGowan “took credit for keeping the story off the network. “I started a cease and desist at NBC,” she said. “It was me that spiked it. It wasn’t the place for it.”’ ^[8]

Farrow contended that model Ambra Gutierrez (who had already publicly accused Weinstein of sexual assault) and Emily Nestor, a former employee in The Weinstein Company, were willing to go on the record but NBC News executives interfered with his investigation. ^[9] NBC denied this: “The assertion that NBC News tried to kill the Weinstein story while Ronan Farrow was at NBC News, or even more ludicrously, after he left NBC News, is an outright lie.” ^[10] But Farrow’s producer at NBC News, Rich McHugh, says he was told to “stand down” in reporting. ^{[11] [12]} NBC replied that “McHugh was told to stand down because Farrow had chosen to leave the previous day.” ^[6]

Farrow also said he had at least two on-the-record sources in all NBC drafts. ^{[13] [14]} But Ben Smith of the New York Times reported he obtained the final draft script prepared by Farrow and it contained no on-the-record sources, though it had a “strong piece of reporting” that included an audio recording that appeared to have Weinstein admitting that he had groped an Italian model. ^[15] After the Ben Smith story appeared, Farrow said that he “misspoke” and that the women were “named or willing to be named.” ^[16]

On August 17, NBC News says Farrow asked to take his reporting to a “national magazine that he claimed was ready to publish immediately” ^[6] and NBC News agreed to let him take his reporting elsewhere. ^[12]

---

2. In the same paragraph (paragraph two) of the same section, the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth sentences currently read:

The story, with very few changes, was published a few weeks later in the New Yorker Magazine instead. ^[17] A story on the subject of Weinstein's alleged behavior also appeared several days earlier in The New York Times. ^[18] 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. ^[19] Farrow later disputed this characterization, saying that he had multiple named accusers willing to come forward and that the version ultimately published in the New Yorker had very few changes from the version that NBC News rejected. ^{[17] [3] [19]}

Problems

-No reliable source here or elsewhere, including Farrow in his book, contends the reporting in the New Yorker had “very few changes” from his work at NBC News. This is not in the sources. Farrow said his investigation at NBC News was “explosively reportable” when he left, not that the story was the same as The New Yorker. In fact, according to The New York Times, the final NBC script draft by Farrow from August 8, 2017 had no on-the-record interviews with alleged victims. [2] whereas his New Yorker story named seven alleged victims. [3]

-Farrow has backed off the assertion that all his drafts at NBC News had at least two named sources, saying he “misspoke. Farrow corrected the record to say he had victims “named or willing to be named.” ” [4]following reporting by Ben Smith at the New York Times that the final draft script Farrow turned in had no named accusers. [5] But Farrow does say NBC News executives interfered with his reporting [6], and it remained “explosively reportable” when he left. [7]

For the purpose of discussion are suggested replacements sentences that follow the chronology of events and providing more context:

The New Yorker editor David Remnick said Farrow had the “building blocks” for a story already in place when he came to the magazine ^[5] and that the reporting was advanced but not ready for publication. ^[7] Oppenheim said the story that appeared in The New Yorker was not “the story that we were looking at when we made our judgment several months ago.” ^[20] On October 5, 2017, The New York Times published its investigation detailing accusations of serial sexual assault or misconduct committed by Weinstein, naming several alleged victims. ^[21] The New Yorker ran Farrow’s Weinstein story on October 10, 2017. ^[6] Farrow’s piece in The New Yorker named alleged Weinstein victims including Asia Argento, Mira Sorvino, Rosanna Arquette, Lucia Evans, Emma de Caunes, Jessica Barth and Sophie Dix. NBC contends that none of the women named by Farrow in The New Yorker were willing to speak on the record or be identified on camera. ^[8] After the release of his New Yorker story, Farrow said that his investigation at NBC News had been “explosively reportable,” and that “there were multiple determinations it was reportable at NBC.” ^{[4] [22]} Rich Greenberg, executive editor of the investigative unit at NBC News, said “The standard [for publication] would be, at a bare minimum, a credible person making an allegation on the record — willing to be identified by name — ideally on camera. We never quite got there.” ^[8] NBC News came under heavy criticism, including among NBC News journalists, for letting a story that later shared the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service “walk out the door.” ^{[6] [23]}

---

3. In the same second paragraph of the same section, the final sentence reads:

A former NBC News executive has said that the story on Weinstein was killed because NBC News was aware of the sexual misconduct by Lauer; in Catch and Kill: Lies, Spies, and a Conspiracy to Protect Predators, Ronan Farrow cites two sources within American Media, Inc stating that the story was killed in response to an overt threat from Weinstein to out Lauer. ^{[17] [24]}

Problems

-This version only gives the allegations, which not only have been characterized by NBC as “smears” (Washington Post) but challenged in The New York Times CNN and The New York Review of Books, among other media outlets for failing to establish the alleged conspiracy between Weinstein and NBC News management. The allegation is hotly contested and WP: Balance and WP: Undue require Wikipedia not choose a POV in a debate given the high quality and significant number of sources on each side.

-The version leaves out that many NBC employees were angered by the failure to run the story and the fallout at NBC.

Here are is some language as a starting point for discussion:

In his 2019 book, Catch and Kill, Farrow suggested NBC News executives ‘killed’ the reporting as part of a ‘corporate coverup’ ^[7] of the Lauer scandal ^{[25] [20]} and due to threats from Weinstein to publish AMI’s information on Lauer. ^{[9] [26]} Farrow cited anonymous sources within AMI and NBC News to back up his claim that Weinstein leveraged the Lauer scandal to kill the story. ^[27] NBC News executives explicitly denied knowledge of the Lauer sexual misconduct allegations at the time of Farrow’s reporting ^{[20] [28]} and said external pressure from Weinstein, including multiple phone calls to NBC News executives, did not affect their editorial decisions. ^[7] CNN’s media reporter Brian Stelter, ^[29] the New York Times media critic Ben Smith, ^[15] and Anne Diebel in the New York Review of Books ^[30] said the book failed to establish the alleged conspiracy between Weinstein and NBC News management. Farrow replied that he stood by his reporting. ^[31]

---

4. The title of this subsection - Sexual Misconduct and NBC News - does not describe most of the second paragraph, which is about an investigation, specifically Farrow’s reporting on Harvey Weinstein while he was at NBC News. I would suggest creating another subsection called something like “Harvey Weinstein investigation”. I’d ask that if there is a new title that editors please try to be especially neutral and not adopt the POV of either Farrow or NBC News. Both sides say the other is lying about whether Matt Lauer had anything to do with the Weinstein investigation. Even having a giant photo of Lauer next to this paragraph assumes the POV that Farrow’s allegations are true.

---

Thanks.

BC1278 ( talk) 18:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

 Not done: The article is good as is, so any discussion or review is unnecessary. Quetstar ( talk) 18:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply

@Queststar. This is intended as a multi-editor discussion because it involves contentious matters - it is not a simple update request and cannot be treated as such. A single editor cannot close an entire discussion of a contentious matter with a blanket rejection, without even bothering to engage in discussion of the individual issues. I have removed the "Request Edit" template to avoid further confusion. BC1278 ( talk)

I have restored the Request Edit template, as this is for all intents and purposes a request. Quetstar ( talk) 19:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Even with a Request Edit template, since this is a contentious matter, it should have been kept open for discussion, not closed by a single editor without discussion or without response to each individual request. Request Edits can have discussion, too, when contentious. However, rather than fight with Queststar, I am simply separating out the issues and have posted an RfC to start. BC1278 ( talk) 15:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

@ BC1278 its Quetstar, not Queststar. Quetstar ( talk) 03:25, 20 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Should the statement in NBC News#Sexual Misconduct and NBC News that Ronan Farrow's story about Harvey Weinstein in The New Yorker had "very few changes" from his reporting while he worked at at NBC News be:

• kept
• changed
• other

BC1278 ( talk) 20:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• changed, with further explanation. This is not in the cited sources. No reliable source cited in this section, or elsewhere, including Farrow's book, contends the reporting in the New Yorker had “very few changes” from his work at NBC News. In fact, Farrow said his investigation at NBC News was “explosively reportable” when he left NBC News, not that the story was the same as The New Yorker. [8] The editor of The New Yorker, David Remnick, said Farrow had the "building blocks" of a story when he came to the New Yorker -- not a story ready to publish. [9]. In fact, according to Ben Smith, the media columnist at The New York Times, the final NBC script draft by Farrow from August 8, 2017 had no on-the-record interviews with victims. [10] whereas his New Yorker story named seven alleged victims. [11] Farrow has since has backed off the assertion that all his drafts at NBC News had at least two named sources, saying he “misspoke." Farrow corrected the record to say he had victims “named or willing to be named.” ” [12]]. For the purpose of starting a discussion only, here is a draft language to replace the "very few changes" statement beginning in graph two, sentence three. The actual disagreement here about Farrow's sourcing and the state of the story at NBC has generated a great deal of press coverage over several years. It warrants a more detailed explanation. I have attempted to fully represent both sides of dispute where each has credible media sources in the disagreement. WP: Balance. I have a WP:COI, declared and explained in full in the section just above, as a consultant to NBC News.

The New Yorker editor David Remnick said Farrow had the “building blocks” for a story already in place when he came to the magazine ^[1] and that the reporting was advanced but not ready for publication. ^[2] Oppenheim said the story that appeared in The New Yorker was not “the story that we were looking at when we made our judgment several months ago.” ^[3] On October 5, 2017, The New York Times published its investigation detailing accusations of serial sexual assault or misconduct committed by Weinstein, naming several alleged victims. ^[4] The New Yorker ran Farrow’s Weinstein story on October 10, 2017. ^[5] Farrow’s piece in The New Yorker named alleged Weinstein victims including Asia Argento, Mira Sorvino, Rosanna Arquette, Lucia Evans, Emma de Caunes, Jessica Barth and Sophie Dix. NBC contends that none of the women named by Farrow in The New Yorker were willing to speak on the record or be identified on camera. ^[6] After the release of his New Yorker story, Farrow said that his investigation at NBC News had been “explosively reportable,” and that “there were multiple determinations it was reportable at NBC.” ^{[7] [8]} Rich Greenberg, executive editor of the investigative unit at NBC News, said “The standard [for publication] would be, at a bare minimum, a credible person making an allegation on the record — willing to be identified by name — ideally on camera. We never quite got there.” ^[6] NBC News came under heavy criticism, including among NBC News journalists, for letting a story that later shared the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service “walk out the door.” ^{[5] [9]} Farrow told NPR and Fox News that he had at least two on-the-record sources in all NBC drafts. ^{[10] [11]} But in May 2020, Ben Smith of the New York Times reported he obtained the final draft script prepared by Farrow and it contained no on-the-record sources, though it had a “strong piece of reporting” that included an audio recording that appeared to have Weinstein admitting that he had groped an Italian model. ^[12] After the Ben Smith story appeared, Farrow said that he “misspoke” and that the women were “named or willing to be named.” ^[13] Erik Wemple, the Washington Post media critic said "As any journalist knows, “willing to be named” sources are not the same as “named” sources." ^[14]

---

• I am not well-versed enough in news reporting or the coverage of coverage of the report to make a detailed comment, but I do agree that the assertion that there were very few changes made to the piece indeed does not seem to be in the cited Vanity Fair piece—unless I missed it while reading it—and thus is inappropriate to maintain in the article. I note that the above does appear to be as balanced as it attributes comments to each source, and it is not (at least not obviously) undue. Given the extensive coverage as to what the state of the piece was when it was at NBC, it does feel appropriate to add summary of that. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 16:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Kept, at least in its essence; strenuously oppose the proposed substitution, which places grossly WP:UNDUE weight on one side (citing numerous sources overtly hostile to Farrow at length, and countless sources within NBC, coupled with comparatively few sources disagreeing with them.) The cited source for the existing sentence says He also insisted that there was a “consensus” across the organization that Ronan and I never had enough reporting to support a story that Weinstein was a serial predator—a laughable claim, given that it had taken Ronan only six weeks to finish our investigation and publish it in the New Yorker, where it went on to win the Pulitzer Prize. That could be more cautiously-worded and attributed, but the massive paragraph suggested above is utterly unworkable out of hand - this is the main page for NBC News as a whole; devoting an entire paragraph to going over talking points-and-counterpoints on the status of the story isn't reasonable. Some elements of it (eg. using differences that various sources have alleged between the versions to argue they were distinct) are clear WP:SYNTH as well, especially the numerous "but..." bits where it overtly tries to cast doubt on various claims and counterclaims. -- Aquillion ( talk) 08:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply

What's there now ("very few changes") needs to be corrected, even if it's not with the language I provided as a starting point for discussion. BC1278 ( talk)

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) reply

During Kate Snow’s explanation of the Colorado Springs Q nightclub mass shooting, she said the killer used a “long gun” in the attack. Let’s call it what it is… a semi automatic assault weapon. Describing it correctly might make a difference in how the public reacts to these atrocities. Thank you. 47.205.41.41 ( talk) 23:54, 20 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

Ronnia McDaniels, bad move... 2601:188:C77F:68F0:9C5B:C471:2683:32DA ( talk) 00:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply