Jump to content

Talk:CBS Evening News

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

September 2[edit]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maveric149 (talk • contribs) 6 September 2004.

Cronkite[edit]

Great article, the period the program is most famous for (Cronkite) has the least amount of text! Wasted Time R 15:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Wasted Time R (talk · contribs) — Walter Cronkite anchored this show during its heyday, a heyday it will be hard to resurrect in a world now offering dozens of cable news programs and millions of current event blogs (dozens of which are considered successes if they get a fraction of the viewership that Cronkite got on a nightly basis). The article should reflect this; as a matter for fact, I'd suggest fleshing out a separate CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite (it's a redirect at the moment), in order to give the topic the coverage it deserves.
I'll work on this article at some point but if someone else is up for the challenge here are a few cite-worthly sources to make use of:
Cronkite anchored the show during an era when comments from him could (and did, according to some of the sources listed above) affect U.S. presidential decisions (e.g. Lyndon B. Johnson).
— 69.3.70.78 17:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Couric's Ratings??[edit]

Is Couric still running in first place? Or does this need to be updated?Aronk
Couric has been consistently last in the ratings, garnering the lowest ratings for a media news cast in the history of the Nielson measures. This is a relevant fact and ought to be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.193.225.70 (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of liberal criticisms[edit]

There has been a lot of criticism from the left - particularly strong from major bloggers and the watchdog group Media Matters - about the Couric version of the CBS Evening News. I included mention of this, with links. Vampington 04:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It would be a lot better to see references for your new paragraph from somewhere besides Media Matters, preferably from a non-blog source, but even a regular blog would be better than Media Matters. Such "watchdog blogs" violate WP:RS and WP:N, partially because they essentially allow for a never-ending expansion of that article's "criticism" section, no matter how nitpicky and minor the points are; but mostly because they provide no evidence that the given criticism has gotten any real traction amongst the public at large (like, say, an article in the New York Times might), and that's the sort of thing we generally use to distinguish between the issues that are big enough to deserve coverage in a Wikipedia article, and those that should be ignored because they will quickly be forgotten. A link to a detailed post about the issue on a non-watchdog blog isn't considered all that great either, for the same reasons, but even that would be way better than a Media Matters link. --Aaron 04:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - I've replaced the Mediamatters links. In place of the first link, I've used two new ones: one from a site about broadcasting news that mentions the segment's controversial nature and possible abandonment, another from CBS itself, documenting the extensive criticisms. The second link has been replaced by a writeup at alternet, obviously not an unbiased source but a fair chronicling of liberal perspective on the show's bias. Generally, in my view, the criticism has already been loud enough to merit mention, particularly in an article that already deals with allegations of political bias against the show. Bill Oaf 06:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Bill. I think all three of those are much better. --Aaron 06:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An interview related...[edit]

"An interview related to the Iran-contra affair with then-Vice President George H.W. Bush where the two engaged in a shouting match on live television did little to dispel those concerns." The one of us from the democratic part of the world (Europe), would call this "critical questioning" - it doesn't tend to be very common in the US.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.202.252.123 (talk • contribs) 8 November 2006.

Very strange[edit]

The language is very strange. The author makes an argument and then says "rather...." I urge an administrator to review this article.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.8.196.34 (talk • contribs) 13 December 2006.

The Couric Era??[edit]

Might be a bit early to label it as such. She's been at it for well under a year, and already there are rumors (Phila Inquirer, April 22, 2007) that CBS plans to replace her after the 2008 conventions. Bob Schieffer's tenure is labeled a "transition period"; the NBC Nightly News article doesn't even mention Roger Mudd (who lasted longer than Katie has so far) in the main text; so it seems like "The Katie Couric experiment" would be more consistent and appropriate. Taking a 'soft news' morning entertainment personality and making her the anchor of the hardest news program on the network certainly seems to merit the term 'experiment'. --Itsgeneb 03:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly, I hate the use of "era" altogether and would rather see specific dates on the section headers like what is on World News with Charles Gibson. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, "experiment" may be too premature when these reports are still regarded as rumors and not specific verified facts. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The tone of this section is quite biased. It reads as a defense of her tenure as anchor. There is no mention of her dismal ratings history or criticism. The references are purely to defense and her apparent successes. Kevin.j.hutchison (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree this section is quite biased. I actually love Katie Couric and she is a good addition to CBS, but the article reads like it was written by a PR firm for CBS. It really needs to be more neutral. In addition, after trying to add a short sentence about her producer being fired for a plagiarism incident, it was arbitrarily removed despite being relevant and verifiable from a number of neutral sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pudding30 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reintroduced the double plagiarism incident with proper references. Pudding30

What happened to the title cards?[edit]

Does anyone know where the title cards went? I don't know why they would even be deleted, being as how a web resolution TV screenshot should qualify under fair use rationale. If there are no objections, I have both the new Couric card and the old Schieffer card I would like to put back in this article. Cs92 (talk) 05:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Studio Location[edit]

Everybody knows where NBC broadcasts from in NYC, where's the address of the CBS News studio? I came to this article specifically expecting such info. Bustter (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ah... 524 W 57th St ref http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/05-04-1999/0000925277 Bustter (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced Comment[edit]

Saw this and figured I'd mention this before deleting this text.

Couric will depart from the show at the end of 2010, and newscaster Joseph Rogers from Pittsburgh will resume anchoring duties.</

Being that I cannot find anything about a Joseph Rogers working for any of the Pittsburgh stations (combined with the fact that had this proven true, it would definitely be at or near the top of this morning's newscasts), I figured I'd delete it since it appears to be a junk edit. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal bias[edit]

I noticed that Fox News channel has a section saying that it has been criticized for having a conservative bias...but nowhere in this article does it mention that out of all media outlets examined in one particular study, this was found to be the most liberal and left of center. http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

Numerous sources have charged Fox of having a conservative bias. You cite one study, which is 2005 was about to be published...). It doesn't say what you claim it says. It says the news pages of The Wall Street Journal were the most liberal. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Earth Quake[edit]

My friend and I were sitting in Showmars in Mint Hill. Outside Charlotte, N. C. also South West of Charlotte and we felt for approximately 30 seconds like a massage in our booths and I made a statement that it must have been an earthquake and low and behold there was one. Just wanted you to know how far it was felt.

Sincerely, Judith Stamey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.157.116.135 (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:CBS Evening News logo.jpeg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:CBS Evening News logo.jpeg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Connie Chung.jpeg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Connie Chung.jpeg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Harry Smith.jpeg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Harry Smith.jpeg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Russ Mitchell.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Russ Mitchell.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Douglas Edwards with the News logo.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Douglas Edwards with the News logo.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on CBS Evening News. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on CBS Evening News. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pelley/Mason/Glor[edit]

if pelley's ratings were so spectacular, why did he get sacked?! holding out for more money?

and was mason supposed to be "temp" all along?

never even HEARD of glor! i'd assumed mason was there for good now. 209.172.23.115 (talk) 23:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CBS EVENING NEWS - DISRESPECTFUL - President should be called "PRESIDENT Trump" NOT MR Trump[edit]

TRYING TO WATCH CBS EVENING NEW AND I GET SOOOO ANGRY AT THE CONTINUED DISRESPECT FOR THIS COUNTRY!!

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS "PRESIDENT TRUMP" and should be called PRESIDENT TRUMP..... it is DISRESPECTFUL to constantly call him Mr Trump

YOU ARE INTENTIONALLY BEING DISRESPECTFUL and whether you like him or not, HE IS THE PRESIDENT and should be addressed accordingly!

GET REAL AND SHOW SOME RESPECT FOR THIS COUNTRY!!!!

Angry Citizen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.114.192.252 (talk) 01:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think if there are so many taps across America videos they should show one every night at the end of the show for one year. We talk about remembering until the day after.

Vaccines[edit]

Tonight Norah said health care workers that work in a place that receives federal aid have a mandatory vaccine order. Does this also mean that anyone on welfare or other federal aid are mandated to get vaccinated too? Just wondering. 2600:2B00:8813:B900:4524:7B45:53F1:8040 (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:CBS_Evening_News&oldid=1200715536"