Jump to content

Talk:NBC News/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Access Hollywood?

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)

History section

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)

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)


Severe problems

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)


Current and Past Anchors... section

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)

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)

Noted coverage

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)

Long lists

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)

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

Personnel Section

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)

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)

Bush Administration Controversy?

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)

Bureaus

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)

No Citation

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)

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)

Controversies and Criticisms?

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)

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

Something funny here.

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)

Infobox

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

Removed Correspondents and Contributors

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)

Adding unreferenced entries of former employees to lists containing BLP material

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)

Huntley Brinkley Era NPOV

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)

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)

political ideology

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)

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)

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

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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 18:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Correct misleading paragraph

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

I agree with you. I will dig into it a bit more this afternoon. JSFarman (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
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)
I agree with the version suggested by BC1278 since it provides more balanced coverage. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
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

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

References

  1. ^ Guthrie, Marisa (10 January 2018). "Ronan Farrow, the Hollywood Prince Who Torched the Castle". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 11 January 2018.
  2. ^ a b Koblin, John. "How Did NBC Miss Out on a Harvey Weinstein Exposé?". New York Times. Retrieved 10 January 2018.
  3. ^ Farhi, Paul (11 October 2017). "Why did NBC News let the Weinstein blockbuster get away? Once again, questions mount". Washington Post. Retrieved 11 January 2018.
  4. ^ a b Guthrie, Marisa (11 October 2017). "Why Ronan Farrow's Harvey Weinstein Bombshell Did Not Run on NBC". Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 10 January 2018.

Expanded info on Matt Lauer

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

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)
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)BC1278BC1278 (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)BC1278 immediately.BC1278 (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)BC1278
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)
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
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)

References

  1. ^ a b Pompeo, Joe; Jane Fox, Emily (7 December 2017). "Lauer's "Double Life": Inside NBC, the Network Is Trying to Expunge the Lauer Era". Vanity Fair. Retrieved 14 February 2018.
  2. ^ Strause, Jackie (29 November 2017). "Matt Lauer Accused of Sexual Harassment by Multiple Women". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 14 February 2018.
  3. ^ Evans, Gregory (10 February 2018). "Connie Chung Commends Quick Firings Of Matt Lauer & Charlie Rose". Deadline Hollywood.
  4. ^ a b Marcin, Tim (29 November 2017). "In the wake of the Matt Lauer firing, meet NBC News president Noah Oppenheim". Newsweek.
  5. ^ a b Koblin, John (1 December 2017). "After Firing Matt Lauer, NBC Executives Move to Control the Damage". The New York Times.

References

  • 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)

Discussion of HuffPost article on paid editing at the reliable sources noticeboard

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)

Liberal news outlet

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

Added section on COI editing

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)

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)

NBC News Capsule/Digest/At This Hour

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)

[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)

References

  1. ^ Attkisson, Sharyl (2020). Slanted : how the news media taught us to love censorship and hate journalism (First ed.). New York, NY. ISBN 0062974696.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

Review of NBC News/Farrow Matter

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)

References

  1. ^ Guthrie, Marisa (January 10, 2018). "Ronan Farrow, the Hollywood Prince Who Torched the Castle". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on January 11, 2018. Retrieved January 11, 2018.
  2. ^ Koblin, John. "How Did NBC Miss Out on a Harvey Weinstein Exposé?". The New York Times. Archived from the original on January 11, 2018. Retrieved January 10, 2018.
  3. ^ a b "Farrow details lack of enthusiasm at NBC for Weinstein story". AP NEWS. 15 October 2019. Retrieved 2019-10-19.
  4. ^ a b Guthrie, Marisa (11 October 2017). "Why Ronan Farrow's Harvey Weinstein Bombshell Did Not Run on NBC". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 10 June 2021.
  5. ^ a b Koblin, John (11 October 2017). "How Did NBC Miss Out on a Harvey Weinstein Exposé?". New York Times. Retrieved 10 June 2021.
  6. ^ a b c d e Johnson, Ted (14 October 2019). "NBC News President Noah Oppenheim Pushes Back On Ronan Farrow Book Claims". Deadline. Retrieved 11 June 2021.
  7. ^ a b c d Farhi, Paul (10 October 2019). "Ronan Farrow overcame spies and intimidation to break some of the biggest stories of the #MeToo era". The Washington Post. Retrieved 10 June 2021.
  8. ^ a b c d Battaglio, Stephen (31 August 2018). "NBC News denies that it tried to shut down Ronan Farrow's Harvey Weinstein reporting". The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 14 July 2021.
  9. ^ a b Guthrie, Marisa (9 October 2019). "Ronan Farrow Strikes Again: A New Book Targets NBC News and How Harvey Weinstein May Have Leveraged Matt Lauer". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 15 June 2021.
  10. ^ Battaglio, Stephen (31 August 2018). "NBC News denies that it tried to shut down Ronan Farrow's Harvey Weinstein reporting". The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 14 July 2021.
  11. ^ Cartwright, Lachlan; Tani, Maxwell (30 August 2018). "Sources: NBC Threatened Ronan Farrow if He Kept Reporting on Harvey Weinstein". Daily Beast. Retrieved 16 June 2021.
  12. ^ a b Koblin, John (30 August 2018). "Ronan Farrow's Ex-Producer Says NBC Impeded Weinstein Reporting". The New York Times. Retrieved 18 June 2021.
  13. ^ Folkenflik, David (11 November 2019). "NBC Leadership And #MeToo". NPR. Retrieved 15 July 2021. There was no draft of this story at NBC that had fewer than two named women...
  14. ^ Baier, Brett (16 October 2019). "Ronan Farrow on claims against NBC, Matt Lauer and Harvey Weinstein". Fox News. Retrieved 15 July 2021. "We had multiple named women in every draft of this story."
  15. ^ a b Smith, Ben (17 May 2020). "Is Ronan Farrow Too Good to Be True?". The New York Times. Retrieved 10 June 2021.
  16. ^ Pilkington, Ed (18 May 2020). "Ronan Farrow: master #MeToo reporter hit by surprise New York Times takedown". The Guardian. Retrieved 18 June 2021.
  17. ^ a b c Nast, Condé. ""Stand Down": Ronan Farrow's Producer on How NBC Killed Its Weinstein Story". Vanity Fair. Retrieved 2019-10-19.
  18. ^ Farhi, Paul (October 11, 2017). "Why did NBC News let the Weinstein blockbuster get away? Once again, questions mount". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 28, 2018. Retrieved January 11, 2018.
  19. ^ a b Guthrie, Marisa (October 11, 2017). "Why Ronan Farrow's Harvey Weinstein Bombshell Did Not Run on NBC". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on January 11, 2018. Retrieved January 10, 2018.
  20. ^ a b c Littleton, Cynthia (9 October 2019). "Ronan Farrow, NBC News Spar Over Explosive Accusations in 'Catch and Kill'". Variety. Retrieved 11 June 2021.
  21. ^ Kantor, Jodi; Twohey, Megan (5 October 2017). "Harvey Weinstein Paid Off Sexual Harassment Accusers for Decades". The New York Times. Retrieved 11 June 2021.
  22. ^ "Transcript of The Rachel Maddow Show". MSNBC.com. 10 October 2017. Retrieved 11 June 2021.
  23. ^ Tani, Maxwell (15 October 2019). "NBC News Chief Unleashes on Ronan Farrow in New Staff Memo". The Daily Beast. Retrieved 11 June 2021.
  24. ^ Ryan, Patrick. "Ronan Farrow says NBC's alleged cover-up of sexual misconduct is 'bigger' than Matt Lauer". USA TODAY. Retrieved 2019-10-19.
  25. ^ Bauder, David (15 October 2019). "Farrow details lack of enthusiasm at NBC for Weinstein Story". Associated Press. Retrieved 10 June 2021.
  26. ^ Ryan, Patrick (14 October 2019). "Ronan Farrow says NBC's alleged cover-up of sexual misconduct is 'bigger' than Matt Lauer". USA Today. Retrieved 18 June 2021.
  27. ^ Guthrie, Melissa (9 October 2019). "Ronan Farrow Strikes Again: A New Book Targets NBC News and How Harvey Weinstein May Have Leveraged Matt Lauer". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 18 June 2021.
  28. ^ Farhi, Paul (14 October 2019). "NBC News chief calls Ronan Farrow's book 'a smear' in lengthy new rebuttal". The Washington Post. Retrieved 14 June 2021.
  29. ^ Stelter, Brian (10 October 2019). "Ronan Farrow alleges Harvey Weinstein threatened NBC with Matt Lauer's secrets". CNN Business. Retrieved 10 June 2021.
  30. ^ Diebel, Anne. "The Good Guy". The New York Review of Books. No. 13 February 2020. Retrieved 11 June 2021.
  31. ^ Concha, Joe (18 May 2020). "Ronan Farrow responds to critical NYT column: 'I stand by my reporting'". The Hill. Retrieved 14 June 2021.
 Not done: The article is good as is, so any discussion or review is unnecessary. Quetstar (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
@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)
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)
@BC1278 its Quetstar, not Queststar. Quetstar (talk) 03:25, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:NBC_News/Archive_1&oldid=1243287611"