Jump to content

Talk:A Current Affair (Australian TV program)

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

Neutrality

[edit]

Without sources the article isn't neutral. There has been an edit by an Anon who changed poor ratings to the strong competition win. Both are unsourced and are not neutrally worded. Bidgee (talk) 12:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This program is highly controversial in what it chooses as subject matter, and yet there isn't even a Criticisms section? Wampusaust (talk) 04:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any detail on this program is immediately removed as unverifiable if it has negative connotations; as its neutrality is totally compromised the article should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashtonstreet01 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have dug up plenty of reliable sources, to wants to work them in?

  • A Current Affair inaccurate and unfair reporting

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23399847-7582,00.html

  • A Current Affair rapped over 'one-sided' report

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/articles/2008/06/12/1213283196702.html

  • A Current Affair in breach of industry code: ACMA

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/18/2193234.htm

  • Everything on ABC's Media Watch:

http://www.google.com.au/search?&hs=npR&q=+site:www.abc.net.au+%22media+watch%27+%22a+current+affair%22

  • All ACMA television operations investigations

http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=PC_91717

Wongm (talk) 02:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, Wongm. However I suspect any attempt to add this information would result in an instant deletion, for whatever other spurious reasons. On the basis of the arguments against my edits, easily-verifiable information (verifiable merely by viewing the show), even if provided by someone with a background in professional media analysis (which I have) is less relevant to an article than a so-called "sourced" claim, even if taken, for example, from a website or an obscure newspaper. Myriad other articles on Wikipedia show that such "verifications" are not required ... but here they apparently are. As I see it the far-reaching power of media organisations is too great for Wikipedia to handle at this point in time. Ashtonstreet01 (talk) 07:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is supposed to happen is that content should be Verifiable against reliable sources, and you can't do any original research. They are the main content policies, and even though a lot of pages don't meet them, if you are a new person and you don't follow them exactly then stuff gets removed. Wongm (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is most objectionable about all this is how regular users reinforce their "authority" by stating rules, regulations and policies which are entirely arbitrary, wholly manipulable and more or less unworkable. For instance, in this instance you have an entry on ACA which is over 700 words of supposed facts with not one citation, however not one person has objected to this. Then suddenly someone comes along with some equally incontestable facts (for instance, can someone disprove that ACA reporters manipulate interviewees by using leading questions - of course not; can this information be "verified" from a so-called source - only in the highly unlikely event that some academic decides to do peer-reviewed research on the issue) that just happen to highlight truths unpalatable to the program's creators, & they are deleted within hours. Naturally Wikipedia's success as a source of information means that media organisations are going to monitor their own entries & ruthlessly dispatch any details that might show them in a bad light. & thus Wikipedia's quality standard as a media product is dragged down to the same level as the likes of ACA - i.e. lightweight propaganda. Ashtonstreet01 (talk) 06:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; this is a highly controversial show which time and time again presents populist, sensationalist stories with obvious bias as proper editorial content. They also frequently air poorly disguised advertisements (sometimes you see the same one twice in a week) and yet there is no mention of this whatsoever in this page, I smell something fishy - Drthatguy (talk) 10:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Air dates

[edit]

There is somebody out there that keeps changing the dates of presenters on this page. They insist that the show was around in Australia in 2005 (and I have previously seen that the show was rested in December? 2007/2008 Summer Period). A Current Affair never was on the air in Summer 2007-2008!!! I will change these dates back unless I have evidence that prooves me wrong (which I doubt!) --Darijoe 06:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC) —Preceding incorrectly signed comment added by 121.217.106.9 (talk) 07:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ACA has only ever been "rested" in the summer of 2005-2006. I can quite clearly remember that ACA did air over the summer of 2007/2008 so your information is incorrect. --Brad F 89 (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, I did some research, and infact it was not the whole summmer of 2005/06, only four weeks. Brad F 89 (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Common Themes

[edit]

Given that ACA always follows such a prescribed formulae for the stories it runs, I think we should draw up a table of the most common ones - My initial list follows:

  • Miracle Diet
  • Shonky Builder
  • Aussie Battler Ripped Off
  • Supermarket Rip Off
  • Survive the financial crisis
  • State the obvious
  • Someone think of the children
  • This man is evil
  • Sea change
  • Welfare cheat
  • Dead Beat Dad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.35.82.136 (talk) 04:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt a table is needed, but possibly some of these could be mentioned under "Content". Of course you would need to add a source for that... --Brad F 89 (talk) 10:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Facebeef Vandalism - Attacks will continue

[edit]

Please be aware of a popular Facebook trolling page inciting the vandalism of this page. Please be careful when reverting and keep an eye on cunning vandalism attempts. Cheers.

TheJoshy (talk) 06:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of IPs and users who participated

[edit]

Here's a list of the IPs and users who participated in the coordinated vandalism attempt, which was initiated via Facebeef on Facebook. This list may be useful to anyone who wants to track down coordinated vandalism attempts by the same group in the future.

YuMaNuMa Contrib 06:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 May 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: disambiguate. Consensus is that there is no primary topic. (closed by non-admin page mover) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Current Affair → A Current Affair (Australian TV series) – No primary topic for this term – more WP:PRECISE and unambiguous title needed to distinguish from A Current Affair (U.S. TV series). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). -- AlexTW 15:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I would argue the Australian program is the primary topic. Its page views are higher long-term, remains in production (as opposed to the long-gone U.S. version), is among the most-watched programs on Australian television (and has been over its history), is a flagship news program, and is a far more likely search term than the defunct U.S. version, all of which I think qualifies it as PRIMARY. I see the PRECISE argument, but the U.S. version is already clearly distinguished, and the Australian version has a hatnote to it, which I think is more than enough. -- Whats new?(talk) 01:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The page views shows the Australian show experiences rhythmic spikes which seem to correspond to its airing schedule (weekdays), but in the weekend lulls, it is barely above the US version. We can assume that some number (no way to know how many) of views to the primary title are in error, and readers click through to the US article. I would say that the difference in views is not dominating enough to warrant WP:PRIMARYTOPIC status to either one. We can clean up the links, establish the AUS article at a disambiguated name, and in a few months we can have a more accurate picture of the relative levels of usage. -- Netoholic @ 03:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:ASTONISH – I doubt anybody outside of Australia has heard of this program, so it's needs to be fully disambig'ed from the U.S. program. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Missing Reporter (18/02/2021)

[edit]

I am currently unable to edit this article, but someone who can please add Ben Fordham to the list of reporters. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by DreamlessGlare (talk • contribs) 00:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gained privileges to edit, so I fixed this now DreamlessGlare (talk) 23:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

[edit]

Why do we need a separate disambiguation page titled A Current Affair, as it only has 2 topics? We could delete that disambiguation page, move this article to A Current Affair, and just use a {{For}} hatnote, on this and the A Current Affair (American TV program) articles, for vice versa see article. From Bassie f (his talk page) 02:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Current_Affair_(Australian_TV_program)&oldid=1220987764"