Talk:KTVU

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the KTVU 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.

Article policies

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

Archives: 1: 730 days

California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Television: Stations Low‑importance

	Television portal 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 is supported by the Television stations task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Baseball Low‑importance

	Baseball portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball 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.BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject BaseballTemplate:WikiProject BaseballBaseball articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Distinctive adverts[edit]

I think there should be a section on KTVU's distinctive features in the 1980s that people may remember fondly even now, such as the ethnic public-service announcements ("I'm proud to be a __-American" while some kid walks around in some ethnic neighborhood).

Prank about pilots names[edit]

I tried to edit this and removed some code. Thanks for helping me. --Malerooster (talk) 03:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the incorrect names be spelled exactly as they were shown on-air instead of an approximate phonetic transcription? Pygmypony (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There currently is a consensus at Asiana Airlines Flight 214 that no mention is made of the prank in that article. If that changes, it will not be a transclusion from this article, as the requirements for each article are different. I would encourage keeping this article up to date with any news of who created the prank and what the fall out is. All of that information, though, is really only relevant to the station, and this article, and has no bearing on the accident. It was an unfortunate prank played by someone though. I suspect that the owners of the station would prefer that there was no mention here, instead. Apteva (talk) 08:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are we subject to the lawsuit? http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/07/youtube-newscast-asiana/?mbid=social10035694 Hcobb (talk) 01:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no DMCA lawsuit. WP does not provide a copy of the video. The station probably would fail to block fair use by anyone reporting news about the prank anyway. This WP article certainly can state that the prank occurred and how it came about. (Whether it should be recorded is another matter.) 75.208.105.97 (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the passage of time would tend to suggest, the 'controversy' about the prank pilot names was a notable news story for a few days, and now doesn't even register on the radar. I realize the section on it is very well sourced, but unfortunately it all amounts to WP:UNDUE about a tempest in a teapot. I suggest it be trimmed down to a sentence or two - if it even merits that. Anastrophe (talk) 06:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. This was a major shake-up at KTVU which resulted in the firing of several producers, including an executive producer, and sparked a debate on TV journalism ethics and procedures. It was also reported globally and changed media relations at the NTSB. I'd say it's noteworthy.

–– amanisdude (talk) 04:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Screwups have happened at countless TV stations all around the country over the last fifty years or so. A new anchor on a tiny station swore at himself not realizing they were live, it went viral, it was reported worldwide, the anchor was fired, and was on the Letterman show. While google searches in and of themselves aren't proof of anything, it's worth doing a google search on "KTVU NTSB". You'll find it's not been notable since about two weeks after the incident occurred. It was a flash in the pan. In terms of the long history of the station, giving a paragraph to a semi-recent event that is no longer newsworthy constitutes WP:UNDUE. It's just another example of WP's failure at perspective wrt recentism. It may be worthy of a brief mention, but in the bigger scheme of an encyclopedia article about a TV station that's been around for 56 years, it's a blip. Anastrophe (talk) 05:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that what this section used to be was unorganized and containing much unnecessary information, cutting out the entire section doesn't seem to be an appropriate way (at least, until the discussion reaches somewhere). As the Asiana Airlines Flight 214 guys decided not to mention it in their own article because it was nothing to do with airplane crash itself, then this topic have to go either here or NTSB. For I'm not US resident, I don't have idea which the section should stay or move.

In regard to noteworthiness, I believe the news was and still is worth to mention (except those workers' names) in its own right, as well as compared to how, say, similar news headlines on the same day is treated now inside Wikipedia. In spite of Anastrophe's own underrestimation, the Google search result of "KTVU NTSB" is the very proof of the importance, too. アヲガネ (talk) 11:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cutting the entire section is certainly not the way forward. Binksternet (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no investment in this. Whatever you all decide is fine with me. I was just following policy and best practices for editing. It constitutes WP:UNDUE by my estimation, but I'm just one editor. Anastrophe (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious if this incident became a factor in Cox becoming more receptive to Fox's repeated offers to buy KTVU, as if the station became "damaged goods". When the sale was eventually announced, there was a headline that read "Asiana Flight Fiasco Station KTVU-TV Unloaded in Fox and Cox Swap".[1] Zzyzx11 (talk) 11:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. However, I disagree. I believe it was because Fox bullied KTVU into pulling it's Fox affiliation. William8288 (talk) 00:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes WP:NOTFORUM, but I was really more looking for reliable sources to prove it because that headline seemed to imply this. All the RS I have seen say, as you implied, that it was more of Fox doing whatever it could do to get an O&O in the Bay Area market so it could grab all that local ad revenue during San Francisco 49ers games. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I took a stab right now at trimming down the verbiage in the section, which was excessive regardless of whatever importance/relevance it still has. Details of names involved are pointless - they can be found in the references. For the most part it's just a pass at increasing readability and eliminating a lot of duplicate refs while retaining those specifically addressed. Anastrophe (talk) 03:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This still seems relevant as it is widely remembered, and is as high profile as any other silly news station screw up of the last few decades. Surely worthy of remaining in a list of controversies about the particular station, especially so given the fallout. In effect, I'm saying both Anastrophe and Amanisdude have valid points. In reality, a silly incident of no real-world consequence in itself, but one that was high profile, is still remembered a decade later, and had secondary consequences in terms of political and professional fallout that make it relevant in a discussion of the history of the station or in discussions of either media scandals in general or overblown scandals in particular.

One thing I do notice as of 20240120 is that the relevant para doesn't actually explain the origins. Are they known? This account starts with an NTSB summer intern [Good Lord] "confirming the spelling" of the names for some KTVU staffer. It emphatically does not give the origin of the list and names in the first place. The NTSB intern? The KTVU staffer? Someone else at the NTSB or KTVU? Not at all clear. If anyone actually knows this from a source, that would be a useful and clarifying addition. I'm certainly curious about ultimate responsibility. That doesn't excuse the idiocy of anyone down the line who didn't immediately recognize the list as bogus, but still. Random noter (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Callsign Meaning[edit]

I recall the infobox stating that the callsign meant "TV for yoU", but now it says otherwise. Was this changed? Transitmatt (talk) 06:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]