Talk:NBC News

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 27 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tug44921.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 NPOV but also 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)

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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on NBC News. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140201191529/http://www.nbcuniversal.presscentre.com/content/detail.aspx?ReleaseID=14606&NewsAreaId=2 to http://www.nbcuniversal.presscentre.com/content/detail.aspx?ReleaseID=14606&NewsAreaId=2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk 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. After a 10-month investigation by Farrow and NBC producer Rich McHugh, NBC reviewed a rough cut and decided it was not ready to broadcast. 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. 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. Farrow's article in The New Yorker had multiple named accusers.

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

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

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. Some said the issue was well handled because Lauer was fired swiftly and management began an organization-wide discussion of sexual harassment,   but others were critical of NBC for not knowing about Lauer's alleged behavior. 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.

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)

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)

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. —  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)

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)

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)

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 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. ” the second sentence currently reads:

Problems:

-The investigation at NBC News was 8 months, not 10 months.

-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:

2. In the same paragraph (paragraph two) of the same section, the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth sentences currently read:

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. whereas his New Yorker story named seven alleged victims. 

-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.” ”following reporting by Ben Smith at the New York Times that the final draft script Farrow turned in had no named accusers. But Farrow does say NBC News executives interfered with his reporting, and it remained “explosively reportable” when he left.

For the purpose of discussion are suggested replacements sentences that follow the chronology of events and providing more context:

3. In the same second paragraph of the same section, the final sentence reads:

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:

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)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg 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)

Request for Comment NBC News Farrow Reporting
Should the statement in NBC News that Ronan Farrow's story about Harvey Weinstein in The New Yorker had "very few changes" from his reporting while he worked at at NBC News be:


 * kept
 * changed
 * other

BC1278 (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * changed, with further explanation. This is not in the cited sources. No reliable source cited in this section, or elsewhere, including Farrow's book, contends the reporting in the New Yorker had “very few changes” from his work at NBC News. In fact, Farrow said his investigation at NBC News was “explosively reportable” when he left NBC News, not that the story was the same as The New Yorker. The editor of The New Yorker, David Remnick, said Farrow had the "building blocks" of a story when he came to the New Yorker -- not a story ready to publish. . In fact, according to Ben Smith, the media columnist at The New York Times, the final NBC script draft by Farrow from August 8, 2017 had no on-the-record interviews with victims. whereas his New Yorker story named seven alleged victims.   Farrow has since 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.” ”]. For the purpose of starting a discussion only, here is a draft language to replace the "very few changes" statement beginning in graph two, sentence three. The actual disagreement here about Farrow's sourcing and the state of the story at NBC has generated a great deal of press coverage over several years. It warrants a more detailed explanation. I have attempted to fully represent both sides of dispute where each has credible media sources in the disagreement.WP: Balance.  I have a WP:COI, declared and explained in full in the section just above, as a consultant to NBC News.


 * I am not well-versed enough in news reporting or the coverage of coverage of the report to make a detailed comment, but I do agree that the assertion that there were very few changes made to the piece indeed does not seem to be in the cited Vanity Fair piece—unless I missed it while reading it—and thus is inappropriate to maintain in the article. I note that the above does appear to be as balanced as it attributes comments to each source, and it is not (at least not obviously) undue. Given the extensive coverage as to what the state of the piece was when it was at NBC, it does feel appropriate to add summary of that. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  16:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Kept, at least in its essence; strenuously oppose the proposed substitution, which places grossly WP:UNDUE weight on one side (citing numerous sources overtly hostile to Farrow at length, and countless sources within NBC, coupled with comparatively few sources disagreeing with them.) The cited source for the existing sentence says He also insisted that there was a “consensus” across the organization that Ronan and I never had enough reporting to support a story that Weinstein was a serial predator—a laughable claim, given that it had taken Ronan only six weeks to finish our investigation and publish it in the New Yorker, where it went on to win the Pulitzer Prize.  That could be more cautiously-worded and attributed, but the massive paragraph suggested above is utterly unworkable out of hand - this is the main page for NBC News as a whole; devoting an entire paragraph to going over talking points-and-counterpoints on the status of the story isn't reasonable. Some elements of it (eg. using differences that various sources have alleged between the versions to argue they were distinct) are clear WP:SYNTH as well, especially the numerous "but..." bits where it overtly tries to cast doubt on various claims and counterclaims. --Aquillion (talk) 08:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * What's there now ("very few changes") needs to be corrected, even if it's not with the language I provided as a starting point for discussion. BC1278 (talk)

Nbc news now as separate page
CBSN (CBSC News' streaming channel) and ABC News Live (ABC News' streaming channel) both have their own Wikipedia page but NBC News Now (NBC News' streaming channel) does not have its own page. I have all three on my smart TV and it's the only news I watch. Seeing as how infinitely long the NBC News page is its makes since to break some of that up into different pages. 2600:6C47:BF3F:7EFC:C642:2FF:FE67:D3D7 (talk) 21:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

NBC news
NBC news logo 2603:6010:D203:810F:E43:F9FF:FE36:7C5C (talk) 01:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)