Talk:2010 Tonight Show conflict/Archive 1

Title choice
The Tonight Show host and timeslot conflict = would not this title naturally refer to and imply that the article therefore must encompass ALL conflicts relating to hosts of The Tonight Show??? Cirt (talk) 05:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The article should be renamed to "The 2010 Tonight...", and another article could be written about the 1992/3 shuffle with Dave Letterman/Jay, unless the main article be put into a subsection called "2010 Host conflict" with another called "1993 Host conflict". --Mistakefinder (talk) 09:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Jay Leno in 2004: "In '09, Conan, it's yours"
Jay Leno in 2004: "In '09, Conan, it's yours" - a most interesting analysis. Has some text info from Jay Leno's original announcement in 2004 about planning to leave The Tonight Show in 2009. Cirt (talk) 08:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Where's the part where it says Leno was forced by NBC cause Conan threatened to walk if they didn't give him the Tonight Show? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weenator (talk • contribs) 09:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Leno as the bad guy
This page is definitely being camped by supporters of O'Brien. Just look at the caption under the picture. No offense, but this reads like the title page of the "I'm with COCO" Facebook page, and its kind of a joke, and it needs to be fixed IMO. --173.46.231.33 (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I reduced the size of the "Coco" image and moved it down to the O'Brien support section. I moved the image of the protesters up to the top of the page instead. The image is still of O'Brien supports, but is more of a news image, less likely to make the page look slanted towards one side. Equazcion  ( talk ) 00:34, 21 Jan 2010 (UTC)

Wow, nice unbiased work there on the picture you selected of Leno, only missing horns? That's pretty bad, you have smiling picture of Conan and a horrible picture of Leno. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.111.189 (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That bothered me too. Unfortunately there aren't many good Leno pics available. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Jay_Leno. If anyone thinks one of those would better suit the section I'll replace it (or you can do it yourself if you know how). Equazcion  ( talk ) 02:05, 22 Jan 2010 (UTC)

If the majority of people and things involved in the situation out in the real world are slanted towards O'Brien's favor, then it would make sense that the article would seem to have a bit of a "slant". Most columnists, comedians, as well as other television show hosts have shown either neutrality or contempt with NBC Universal and Jay Leno. The article reflects this. Just like Conan fans shouldn't come in here and make this article completely biased towards their hero, Leno fans shouldn't come in here and hide what the reality of the situation is concerning their hero. Right now, this wikipedia article is a great resource to show someone who has been out of the country and has no idea about this situation. Changing the article because you feel Leno is getting too much hate is not only hiding the truth, but it is doing a disservice to those who come to Wikipedia to find out information.Supia (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thats crap. Im sorry but people arent coming to wikipedia to read a biased view of what "most" people are thinking. They are at this page to get information about what happened up to this point for their own general knowledge. The article clearly points out the public support for O'Brien in its text, and anything more than that goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. --173.46.231.33 (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Haha yea we can say "people have disliked Leno because x y and z" (things which still have only been partially clarified to me and I think due to the fact that Conan's supporters tend to be very vocal, perhaps why the perceived popularity of a Late Night show with him was higher than how it eventually turned out; a weak lineup from NBC in general didn't help things) but we certainly can't have a purposeful bias just because there's animosity towards Leno. Wikipedia isn't a column - it's an encyclopedia. 88.83.102.0 (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if you misunderstood. I was referring to the fact that this article is only "unbalanced" in the sense that public support for the two is unbalanced. This article is primarily concerning a controversy, and unlike many encyclopedic articles, a controversy is about thought and opinion. People are concerned about Leno being portrayed as "the bad guy"; however, Leno being portrayed that way is not a result of the personal bias of any of the editors here, but because that is where things stand in the current controversy. Your claim that people aren't coming to read this article to find out what people are thinking is silly, because that is the backbone of controversy.Supia (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I understand there isn't much Leno support or Conan criticism to report; but if there is, it should be all be included. A separate issue was the placement and choice of photos, which alone made the article look biased. I think we've remedied that though. Equazcion  ( talk ) 21:11, 22 Jan 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems perhaps more that you misunderstood. I didn't start this thread because I feel Leno is improperly presented in a negative light. I started it because this article never really explains why, exactly, people feel animosity towards Leno. It's fine that there is animosity and that we are covering it, but only after more than one person replied to my query could I even come up with a semblance of why these negative feelings exist. 88.83.102.0 (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

People feel animosity towards Leno because of his perception as a big-jawed indian-giving bully who relies on the over 50 demographic to get his ratings. That is not my personal opinion, it's just the facts about why people feel animosity toward him. Now, if you are asking for 'solid evidence' that Leno has 'done something' to make the crowd 'turn against' him, then you are barking up the wrong tree: there isn't any. People have 'hunches' and 'general feelings' about who the 'good guy' and the 'bad guy' is, in a conflict like this. They have chosen Leno as the bad guy. There doesn't need to be a solid reason for this, or any 'smoking gun' that shows Leno did the wrong thing: if the people feel that way, then they feel that way. You can't go hiding it on here just because you can't find some neat little reason to explain their feelings. 115.64.28.195 (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Try this: Leno retired, in his own words. Then he chose to un-retire, which is what led to the Jay Leno Show.

If the NBC option to move the show (back to) 11:35 was hardwired in Leno's contract (the article suggests the move was allowed by the contract, although the citation is weak), Leno must have been aware at the time he signed it that the possibility existed to take back his old time slot. He is certainly smart enough to have spotted the possibility if it existed. And now -- if such a clause exists -- he has demonstrated that he had originally been willing to sign such a contract regardless of how it domino-affected others, especially his Tonight Show post-retirement replacement.

(It is not impossible that he suggested the option or deliberately left it open. It is known that he was having second thoughts about retiring: hence the existence of the Jay Leno Show. The truth may never be known but the action is not unlikely: and should this turn out to be the case, he becomes actively complicit.)

On the other hand, if the possibility of a to-11:35 move was not hardwired into his contract, then Leno had the option to say "no" when such a move was proposed. By agreeing to the move, Leno chose his own security regardless of how it domino-affected others.

In both cases, Leno would have the greater negotiating power. In both cases, Conan's own power to choose comes only when Leno's previous choices have already backed him into a corner: and then Conan's only remaining choice is to follow Leno indefinitely at a 12:05 timeslot, or to try to take a stand, knowing that it probably means the end of his Tonight Show tenure.

Conan also was aware that his choice would impact upon others, such as Jimmy Fallon. At least in his public statement, he took that into account in making his choice. Leno never once mentioned that his own choices affected anyone other than Conan, and even that was mentioned only after the public backlash began.

Given this situation, published, citable psychology theories on such subjects as empathy and attribution easily explain the predominant audience reaction. (It goes into OR to make a further connection which ties in the two major age-related unemployment spikes: youth and the too-young-to-retire, too-old-to-hire late 40s/50s age group; and a perceived related role of seniors choosing to keep working after retirement, thereby reducing the budget for entry-level jobs and blocking higher-level promotion. Remember: I said "perceived".) There should be consensus, however, before adding any section to this article attempting explanation. - Tenebris


 * Post-Oprah addition - Leno seems to have redefined the conflict as "NBC forced me" plus "who wouldn't say yes?" (Conan didn't.) The truth is starting to seem somewhat malleable here. Nothing I have said previously here is invalid, except perhaps the level of Leno's own intelligence and judgement. So the question now is, did Leno choose not to say "no" because he wanted the show back, or did he "just say yes" because it never entered his head to say "no" -- even after Conan demonstrated it was possible? Both are a "just following orders" argument. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.156.77 (talk) 05:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to add on here, if this article is claimed to be so unbiased, how come there isn't a section for Leno in media coverage and reaction, just a section for criticism of Leno? Casual T .30-06 (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ive removed the "criticism of" name there twice and someone keeps putting it back in... --173.46.231.33 (talk) 05:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Not me doing it. I think you have a point. At the same time, when something like 90% of all coverage is strongly in one direction, the "criticism" title is also not inappropriate. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.72 (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Text removed from article for discussion
I've moved this recently added text to the talk page for discussion as to appropriateness for this article... it may be OK, but needs reworking to put it in context and avoid coming across as our own analysis and interpretation of events, especially given that one of the primary cites predates the January events by almost half a year. It also needs to be rewritten to reduce the profiling of the author and focus it on the events. Thoughts? --Ckatz chat spy  19:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is the removed text:

"'The introduction of Hulu in March 2007 was a factor in ratings for O'Brien's greatest strength, the 'young men' demographic. Although Pulitzer Prize-winning critic Tom Shales has pointed out that O'Brien was 'in much better shape than Leno was at the beginning,' this same demographic is the most net-savvy to date, which is reflected in the strong online support in the days following the switch announcement. However this has been troubling as NBC was interested in shifting it's audience to skew more older and more female. '" "'''O' Brien was also becoming very popular among low income inner city viewers, whom are less likely to own cable television, much less Internet access, and were less likely to buy anything advertised on the network. It is a demographic NBC themselves weren't interested in, because they exclusively wanted the middle class suburban audience." My thoughts exactly, Ckatz. I was just about to do exactly the same thing. I wrote some of it and adapted some that others had written because I think this reason for the ratings fall is notable (as the most visible symbol to date of a greater trend) and relevant to the topic.

The current cite predates the current controversy simply because it looks at the background issue of ratings, which also goes back a year. Conan's core audience from both shows can be verified. Many of the support rallies were held on campuses (which campus was it that held the mass "string dance"?), which speaks directly to the "common setting" aspect of ratings.

Mind if I add my own previous version? The one you quoted restores several style and grammatical issues I had tried to improve and also brings back the one outright misspelling ("it's") I had removed. I also brought in the Booker example because it is a clear statement by a fan who would not be included under ratings, although I dislike the word "typical". - Tenebris "Although Pulitzer Prize-winning critic Tom Shales has pointed out that O'Brien was 'in much better shape than Leno was at the beginning, NBC had shifted its target demographic to include more women. O'Brien's greatest strength was in the 'young men' demographic. O' Brien was also very popular among low income inner city viewers, another less desirable audience because they had less disposable income and thus were less likely to respond to advertising." "The introduction of Hulu in March 2007 was also a factor in ratings. Conan's core audience is highly net-savvy, which is reflected in the strong online support in the days following the switch announcement. Typical is Mayor Cory Booker, who, during the episode which ended the two week Cory Booker feud, admitted that he is a big Conan fan and often tapes shows to watch the next day or watches them on the website Hulu. Neilson ratings do not include Hulu watchers or streaming video on some of the networks' own websites, do not account for time-shifted programming, and do not account for taped programming. They have no system for measuring television audiences in environments outside the home, such as college dormitories, transport terminals, bars, and other public places where television is frequently viewed, often by large numbers of people in a common setting."

I assume the last paragraph isn't that interesting, but the first paragraph is pretty relevant. This is because it talks about O' Brien not only getting low ratings, but he was getting audiences that NBC didn't want, and it gives another reason why he was kicked out.

New reference relevant to the above: O'Brien Undone by His Media-Hopping Fans (NYT business section) http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/25/business/media/25conan.html - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.38 (talk) 00:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Opening paragraph: "Though not a breach of either host's contract..."
Actually this is disputed. Zucker said on Charlie Rose that Conan's contract didn't have a time slot guarantee, (ref name="deadline.com-zucker-threatens-to-ice-conan") but Conan's team disputes this. (ref name="thewrap.com-team-conan-responds")

"If there hadn't been [a time slot guarantee], do you think NBC would be paying him almost $40 million?" (ref name="deadline.com-zucker-threatens-to-ice-conan") --Keith111 (talk) 11:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Under certain circumstances, implicit guarantees are accepted in court as the equivalent of written ones, usually when the point of contention had been the standard practice going far back, with no reason to expect that this would change. The timeslot clause for the Tonight Show that we know of allows for shifts to 12:05 for sports delays and (presumably) major newscasts, but has never been used for a permanent timeslot move. As such, tort law might have accepted it as an implicit guarantee of a standard 11:35 timeslot. It would probably come down to a battle of precedents and presentation, but all lawyers being equal, it might have come down in Conan's favour ... after a protracted legal mess which would have helped no one. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.72 (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Bill Maher?
The support for Jay Leno by Paul Reiser, Oprah Winfrey, and Jerry Seinfeld are well sourced. Where is the source for Bill Maher's support? I can't find a single source anywhere that shows he is in support of Jay Leno, unless one chooses to infer that his appearance on Jay's show in early February somehow signals support. Has Mr. Maher actually said he supports Jay Leno over Conan O'Brien? If so, I think that source needs to be included. 68.200.186.70 (talk) 08:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Bias in Article
When I first saw this article in the summer, I was surprised at the level of bias it contained. I've checked on this article periodically since then, hoping to see a more neutral, straight facts article or at least a Wikipedia note seeking more neutrality. But the use of caveats for Conan's poor performance and against Leno's successes are only increasing. From this reader's perspective, it looks like a lot of work to discount those facts that aren't supportive of a pro-Conan perspective. I have looked to Wikipedia as a fairly reliable source of information, but the fact that I haven't seen this article under review by Wikipedia for too much bias (even when it was more of a current event) makes me question that reliability.Conferred86 (talk) 03:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

O'Brien's final week of shows in this part certain facts require verification
In this part where it says and I quote "The episode did not air internationally." It's wrong because I'm Portuguese and I saw this particular episode in the channel Sic Radical with a two week delay from the date of original broadcast. My advice to the author of the page verify this and perform the required changes. Or if you don't mind I can edit page to reflect this bit of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odnan (talk • contribs) 02:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2010/04/13/conan-obrien-revives-edgy-late-night-vibe-at-first-live-show/
 * In Jimmy Vivino and the Basic Cable Band on 2011-05-10 22:36:00, 404 Not Found
 * In 2010 Tonight Show conflict on 2011-06-18 15:42:23, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.kansascity.com/238/story/1691791.html
 * In Jay Leno on 2011-05-04 01:30:03, 404 Not Found
 * In 2010 Tonight Show conflict on 2011-06-18 15:43:57, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality in Ratings section
Tagged the Ratings section for lack of neutrality. Too many weasel assertions ("it was widely theorized that," "by all accounts") and original claims that do not cite any sources with regards to affiliates' beliefs, Letterman's sex scandal, etc.. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)"

Leno-Fallon
So... shouldn't this have a note about the upcoming Leno-Fallon transition? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 09:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://purchase.tickets.com/buy/TicketPurchase?organ_val2883&pid=6728241
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 20:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Edits
I recently revised this article significantly, adding new sections and heaps of new information. The article, from its inception to now, gave no background on who the hosts are/were and was significantly outdated. I've added several new sections detailing the background of the late-night lineup, the conflict itself, the ratings situation, the conflict's immediate impact, and the aftermath for all involved. Thardin12 (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Illustration
To assist in comprehension/understandability, this article really needs a time-graph illustrating the various shows, cancellations, contracts, debacles etc. zzz (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)