Talk:The ½ Hour News Hour

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

Reception

Are there any positive reviews for this show?

It's been a while since I searched for reviews at all, but I remember the Washington Post review being not bad. There are a few blog reviews which are positive, even glowing, but that is not a box either side should want to open. Mykll42 16:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a real surprise though; the show kind of sucked, probably why its taken so long to make more episodes. Titanium Dragon 16:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC) I hate wikipedia so much that i'm on the site.[reply]
I'm a conservative and I thought this show sucked, so I'm not surprised the vast majority of the media slammed it. I do understand what the producers are trying to do, matching the left-leaning Daily Show (and it is left-leaning, Jon Stewart has never made any bones about that) with a right-leaning show of the same type. But it's too stilted, not nearly biting enough. They really need to take a hard look at SNL's Weekend Update for a model -- that long-running program is highly topical (with bits often written mere moments before air-time), all-insulting (they're pretty equal in their slamming of liberals as much as conservatives, and everybody in-between), and pretty darn funny most weeks. It also doesn't belong on a real news network -- FX or regular broadcast Fox, but not on Fox News. And it couldn't hurt if they let Janice Dean (the weather machine) host it - that woman was a hoot when she was on Red Eye.

Tag

Should we put a "FAIL" tag in there somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.9.68 (talk) 09:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a war zone

I don't care whether you like or dislike this show, opinions don't belong here. If you want to review and discuss the show, go to TV.com. The article is supposed to be NPOV, and it desperately needs work. First, since the show has been picked up, is it really necessary to have all the reviews for the pilots? Second, can someone with editing experience get the search engine to redirect searches for "the half hour newshour" to the article. I made the mistake of combining "news hour" into one word and could not find this article for a long time. I'm new to Wikipedia and don't know how to do this yet. Thanks. Citadel18080 03:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the redirect,
- Mike Beckham 03:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks for fixing the redirect. I also see that someone identified the reviews as being for the pilot. That's good, but I don't see why they should be on the page at all. The only thing they do is cause discord on this page, and they don't really serve any purpose to the average viewer looking for info on the show. Also, why is there a review from The Onion on there? Isn't that a satirical news source? The most this section needs is a sentence or two saying that the show got initially bad reviews. I'm hesitant to delete them myself because they would probably be restored quickly. Does anyone agree or disagree? Citadel18080 16:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the list of 10 negative reviews and propose we keep them removed.

Lots of shows get negative reviews by the self-proclaimed critics, but that doesn't mean it isn't popular or enjoyable to millions of people. I've watched every episode and happen to like the show. Of course, I didn't laugh at every joke, but there are entire Jon Stewart episodes I watch where I don't laugh, either.

I looked up a number of other shows on Wikipedia, like the O'Reilly Factor, and TDS and found no such list of reviews masquerading as information. I think a more neutral way of putting it is by saying that the show was "panned by critics, but had more viewers then the Colbert Report and almost as many viewers as TDS, suggesting that there is a market for conservative comedy unmet by current shows."

Anyone who thinks that a list of 10 negative reviews is worthy of Wikipedia is showing a bias.

Please understand that if you are not a conservative, you might not like the show, but you need to step outside yourself when you are working on this article.

Note that I looked around and couldn't find any positive reviews of this show, but that doesn't really surprise me. Find one positive thing said about Rush Limbaugh in the Chicago Tribune or the New York Times, yet he has 20-25 million listeners a week.

KeithCu 11:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is very relevant if the show received universal negative response. Simply removing factual information from this page for the sake of "neutrality" isn't neutral at all, and it is detrimental to Wikipedia's very purpose: to inform. This is not about my political views: it is about informing people and if, as you've indicated, no one had anything nice to say about this show, then we can't just ignore the fact.

I will reinstate the information. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 17:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't see why 5 negative quotes are any more information than 1 negative quote. And I don't see any explanation for why it did so well when it got so many bad quotes, but anyway, the show is on every week, so we've got time to improve it.

It seems like the MetaCritic review basically sums up the views of the most prominent media outlets, many of which were among the quotes in dispute. I'm going to remove the quotes but leave the MetaCritic mention in. That way, readers can decide for themselves whether to read the bad reviews. Citadel18080 04:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also removed the MetaCritic user rating. User ratings don't belond in an encyclopedia article. Citadel18080 04:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Viewership Numbers

Why are the viewership numbers comparing the show to cable news networks. The show is on cable news but it is not a news show shouldn't its numbers be compared to other entertainment shows on air at that time. Who cares if it did better than whatever CNN was showing, CNN was showing news not comedy. Better to compare it with all the entertainment shows on. Saj29 11:50, 8 August 2008(UTC)

An unregistered user removed the viewership numbers from the Reception section. There is no reason to do this, as viewership ratings are commonly found in Wikipedia articles about TV shows. I'm going to restore them and ask that they not be removed again without discussion. Citadel18080 02:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another reason to have this article protected. Unregistered users have turned this article into a circus.Yeago 06:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colbert Report isn't liberal?

I can understand the unwillingness to label TDS liberal (even though it pretty much is, they never explicitly state that it is), but can anyone really argue that the Colbert Report isn't openly liberal? I mean "Reality has a well known liberal bias" is a pretty straightforward statement that is pretty straightforwardly liberal. I mean, hasn't Colbert repeatedly admitted it when he's not in-character? Pellucid 13:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is valid but it doesn't matter in the context of this article. What you are doing is original research and it shouldn't be in this article or any other article on wikipedia. Turtlescrubber 13:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He outlines conservative bias, but is he really pushing a liberal perspective?Yeago 16:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you outline the bias of one side without outlining the bias of the other, then yes, you are pushing the side you aren't outlining. Pellucid 03:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NO. That's the fundamental mistake you make. Colbert and The Daily Show attack absurdness regardless of whether it is left or right wing. It is clear by this comment that you are perfectly ignorant of the actual content of The Daily Show and Colbert which is why you'd do us all a favor to study up or shut up. We cannot have a useful discussion so long as you don't grasp this elementary idea. One is proudly slanted and occasionally hateful punditry and the other is omnidirectional light-hearted mockery.Yeago 06:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I can't believe that anybody honestly believes that the Colbert Report is anything other than a flaming liberal lovefest. I've never seen him go after a liberal once, despite the fact that a Democratic Congressman from Louisiana was recently found with $90,000 stuffed in his fridge. The reason he goes after Democrats is because they aren't left-wing enough for him. I'd believe that bullcrap about the Daily Show if they were mocking Democrats as often or more often than Republicans now thanks to a Democrat-dominated House and Senate, but they're not. You're one of these people who honestly believes that only Republicans do absurd things and that anyone who isn't on board with you is a moron who has no idea what he's talking about. I was a religious Daily Show watcher since freaking Craig Kilborn; I'm intimately familiar with the format, and I'm intimately familiar with the fact that it's now basically unwatchable to me thanks to its extreme liberal slant and complete unwillingness to point at absurdity if it doesn't re-affirm the views of sheeplike liberals. Pellucid 07:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Sheeplike liberals?" If I didn't know better, I'd think that I'd wandered to the realm of freerepublic.com. This is yet more proof that you cannot be seen as an objective editor.
The reality is that the president is the center of power in the United States. Much as you'd like to protect GW Bush from the wolves—pardon me, the sheep—of the press, that goal is laughably unrealistic.--HughGRex 10:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a fan of GW Bush; yet another sheeplike liberal position of "if it's a Republican it's in favor of everything that's Republican." Your inability to not project your own opinions of things onto others is proof to me that you are the one who cannot be seen as objective; you can't even understand that just because someone isn't a liberal doesn't mean they like Bush. Pellucid 15:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ignore your repeated juvenile insults against those you disagree with, to point out—once again—that you have not proved that The Daily Show exhibits a liberal slant. Now, would you like to have a rational discussion, or would you like to keep insulting those who disagree with you?--HughGRex 20:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some quotes to help you grasp that Colbert is a liberal:

"We want to find out actual information about Republicans. We want to know where the pods are, where they're grown, and we want to photograph them before they're harvested."

Ummm…that was a joke. You're pointing to a joke as proof of something? Good luck with that.--HughGRex 10:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After two years in Virginia at Hampden- Sydney College, which he recalls as "an inorganic rock of ultraconservatism,"

http://www.jerriblank.com/colbert_nytimes.html
And actually, here's the proof that BOTH are liberal.

CP: Some critics have accused “The Daily Show” of being overly liberal though you have mix of Democrat and Republican guests, and liberals are the butt of jokes sometimes. How do you respond to the critique?

SC: Um, we are liberal, but Jon’s very respectful of the Republican guests, and, listen, if liberals were in power it would be easier to attack them, but Republicans have the executive, legislative and judicial branches, so making fun of Democrats is like kicking a child, so it’s just not worth it.

http://www.campusprogress.org/features/375/five-minutes-with-stephen-colbert—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pellucid (talk • contribs) 13:02, 6 June 2007
(Indentation added by HughGRex, for clarity.)
That's proof that Colbert says that Stewart is a liberal. It's not proof that Stewart is a liberal. More to the point, it's not even close to proof that The Daily Show attacks politicians from a liberal perspective. Rather than constituting "proof" of The Daily Show's liberal agenda, your interpretation of this quote appears to prove that the bias is in the beholder.--HughGRex 10:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow you're uninformed. Stewart is openly liberal. Colbert's statement was in response to the question "is THE DAILY SHOW" liberal. Your inability to read things properly seems to also indicate that you're not the best person to have editing Wikipedia. The question is incredibly clearly stated, and yet you're here desperately attempting to pretend that Colbert answered a question that wasn't asked and, indeed, there would be no reason to ask. Pellucid 15:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And you, Sir, are using neither facts nor logic to support your point of POV. You're just attacking me and others (see above) with neither basis nor decorum. I invite you to settle down and stick to verifiable facts. Can you do that? Cool. Thanks.
Now: pay close attention. I'm going to speak about reality. Please read carefully.
Jon Stewart is a comedian. He may be a liberal, but that does not mean that he is uninterested in making jokes at liberals' expense. It does not mean that his TV show jibes from a liberal perspective. (He makes fun of: Pelosi, Kerry, Hillary, Dean, Edwards, Reid…) The president gives him more material to work with. If Hillary or Obama becomes president, Stewart will be on him/her (and the silly stuff done by his/her administration) like ugly on a warthog, because (pay close attention here) that is his job. But (sorry about this) you'll have to wait until 1/20/09 at least for that to happen.--HughGRex 20:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Settle down there, Yeago. The point is basically moot now, anyway. Someone edited the conservative-liberal bias line out of the intro and it looks fair enough. Can we move on to a new subject? Citadel18080 07:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You spoke a bit soon, as Pellucid edited it back in. This subject simply refuses to go away.--HughGRex 10:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colbert Report isn't liberal? 2

The quotation you added still doesn't address the Colbert Report and is sketchy as it relates to the Daily Show. Does it refer to the hosts or the show itself? Using the word we makes me believe that it refers to the hosts. Lets try to make a compromise version before changing the page again. Thanks. Turtlescrubber 12:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the question that was posed that SC answered. There is absolutely no question about it; the show is intended to be liberal. "Some critics have accused 'The Daily Show' of being liberal;" not "some critics have accused the commentators on the Daily Show of being liberal." Furthermore, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert themselves are both openly liberal, so nobody needs to "accuse" them of anything; why would he feel the need to answer a completely different question than the one that was asked and, furthermore, to answer a question that didn't need asking because everyone knew the answer anyway? Pellucid 13:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when he responds he uses the word "we" and not "the show". In all honesty, I think alot of assumptions are being made for a relatively pointless statement. Because there is so much disagreement on this topic, why don't we try to find a more npov version that everyone can agree on? Turtlescrubber 15:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. And instead of either side claiming they are "objectively true" we really ought to settle on a solution that is subjectively agreeable. I am for your solution of simply saying that this show is a "response to" the daily show, which makes no accusations of bias.Yeago 15:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have switched sides on this issue in consideration of Pellucid's CampusProgress.org quote. I've brought it up with TurtleScrubber privately and I'm afraid he's guilty of the same punditry I earlier accused Pellucid of (they both are). At any rate, see my discussion here Talk:The_Daily_Show#Is_the_Daily_Show_liberal.3F.Yeago 14:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not about Colbert or the Daily Show

This article is about The 1/2 Hour News Hour, not the Daily Show or Colbert. Please move this discussion either to the articles about those shows or off Wikipedia entirely. The fact that this whole argument stems from one sentence in the article is ridiculous. Citadel18080 18:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've removed the mention of the Daily Show and Colbert entirely and replaced it with Weekend Update. I've never seen the Daily show or Colbert, but I know that Weekend Update has bashed both Republicans and Democrats, and it was the original news satire show, wasn't it? Citadel18080 18:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but only if one is too young to know about
The Smothers Brothers, Mort Sahl, George Carlin, All in the Family…etc.--HughGRex 21:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I dig the crusty-old-coot thing you're going for, but All in the Family? Don't inflate your claims. The show commented sharply on the issues of the day, via its fictional storylines, but that doesn't make it a news satire show. Oh, and last I checked, George Carlin and Mort Sahl aren't shows at all. --63.25.245.12 04:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Turtlescrubber 18:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Show is a comparable show to both this one and Weekend Update, while Colbert is not. I agree that we shouldn't go on and on about it, I feel that 1/2 Hour News Hour has a lot more in common with TDS. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Kinda of a weird solution, especially since the producer made so much mention of TDS.Yeago 19:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, honestly, this is one of those situations where almost everybody pretty much knows that the Daily Show and the Colbert Report are liberal, but nobody in authority over the issue has admitted it in a direct enough way for all parties to be satisfied with the proof. This is an acceptable compromise for now, but if I find more evidence I will bring it up again. Pellucid 01:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say your link suffices, actually.Yeago 04:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, the people who primarily edit The Daily Show seem to disagree. Pellucid 07:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its primarily just Turtlescrubber.Yeago 12:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Turtlescrubber 13:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just add that I found a quote by Rolling Stone, referenced above, which says that TDS and Colbert Report "clearly" have a liberal bent, but a number of people here want to ignore the obvious, so this is our compromise. TDS is relevant here because it was created in response to TDS, not SNL, but anyway.KeithCu 04:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Episode List is Up

I've created a list of the episodes and their contents on a seperate

page. Please review and edit at your convenience. Citadel18080 06:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Here we go again...

I removed he italicized portion of this line from the "Reception" section:

"The show received generally poor reviews from prominent media publications. MetaCritic, a website that generates a weighted score for television shows, music, and other forms of media from reviews by major publications, currently ranks the show with a reviewer rating of 12 out of 100, [8] MetaCritics lowest rating of any television show ever. [9]"

Turtlescrubber, I did not remove this line because it was not cited. While I do not deny that the statement is true (I looked through Metacritic myself to make sure), keeping this line is just asking for a repeat of the long debate over the quotes and and the "liberal bias" line, both of which have been settled for the moment. I maintain that the best way to keep this article reasonably fair and free of conflict is to keep the information as basic as possible. 12 out of 100 ratings sends a pretty strong signal without milking the statement for all its worth. Any thoughts? Citadel18080 02:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the cite because it never had a proper cite, not because I thought you were requesting one. I don't see the parallel between the "liberal" issue and this one. This one is adequately cited and you can easily check this for yourself by going on metacritic and searching for tv shows with low ratings. The next lowest rated is 7 points higher. I don't see why you have removed it because I think it is pretty noteworthy to be the lowest rated ever. This is a fact you can check for yourself. Why did you remove this again? Turtlescrubber 03:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like this line:
"The poor reviews coupled with the high ratings have led many to accuse the critic community of having a
liberal bias."[citation needed
]
If "many" Reliable sources have indeed made such an accusation, why could the editor not have cited them?
Personally, I'd be embarrassed to author such a knee-jerk "durn-librul-bias-rears-its-ugly-head-again" edit without a passel of citations to back up my point of POV. It ain't exactly encyclopedic…--HughGRex 09:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a true statement. It's just really hard to sift through all of the bullcrap to find the best source. I could post a crappy source if you'd like right now. --Pellucid 15:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pellucid, do you really not understand what the 3rr is? It's not over the lifetime of an article but a 24 hour period. Your edit summaries are really puzzling. So, you take out the sourced material and replace it with unsourced, and as noted above, rather ridiculous material that you originally added?
I don't think you understand how encyclopedias work. They do not provide commentary. They do not come to conclusions for the reader. They do not contain irrelevant information. The fact of the matter is that the statement I removed was completely irrelevant; it's not the kind of statement you would find in a professional encyclopedia because it provides a conclusion and commentary for the reader that he doesn't need. There's a reason that all of the "trivia" sections on wikipedia are being cleaned up, and "what's the lowest-rated show on MetaCritic?" is very much a trivia quetsion. --Pellucid 15:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I compared this to the "liberal bias" issue because a line about liberal bias was added by Pellucid in response to the addition of this line. Besides, Pellucid has a point, encyclopedias shouldn't come to conclusions for their readers. As I've said before, why not let readers visit Metacritic themselves if they want more information? Citadel18080 16:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reference I added doesn't go to metacritic. I really don't understand what your point is. I was pretty shocked to read this and therefore find it notable. I don't know why you want to compare cited npov info with uncited pov conjecture and pretend that they both carry an equal weight. There is no conclusion being made, just a factual statement with citation. Turtlescrubber 16:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If any show is being judged as the worst show ever by a known and respected site it is noteworthy and not trivia. Leaving the score of 12 but not qualifying it does as the lowest score ever does not give full and proper perspective. Any numbers of movie articles contain mentions of razzie awards they have received. Simply put it is both encyclopedic and noteworthy.--The Emperor of Wikipedia & Protector of Wiktionary 17:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume, then, that you're volunteering to go through every other entry in Wikipedia that has been rated by MetaCritic and mention how they rank in MetaCritic? If MetaCritic were a website that presented factual, non-opinion driven information, it may be more relevant to this article. Honestly, I question even mentioning the MetaCritic rating as opposed to simply mentioning that reviews were poor. Has anyone even evaluated MetaCritic's compiling methods to make sure they're valid? I mean, how do they treat a show that receives one out of five stars on a particular critic's personal rating scale? Is that a one on their scale or a 20? It's just not scientific enough to really be valid. --Pellucid 19:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Cenestrad the Emperor's post, "If any show is being judged as the worst show ever by a known and respected site it is noteworthy and not trivia. Leaving the score of 12 but not qualifying it does as the lowest score ever does not give full and proper perspective." I did a quick skim through MetaCritic and found that the site includes reviews not only for pilots, but for other seasons and DVD collections of shows. WHen you say that the show is being judged the "worse show ever," you are comparing it to the ratings given to Seasons 5 & 6 of '24', 'Family Guy' on DVD, and so on. The pilots of these shows are not included. To say that the Half Hour News Hour is the lowest ranking show on the site when other shows are being reviewed during their prime years removes all credibility from the statement.

In response to Pellucid: a MetaCritic rating provides a concise summary of the prominent reviewers' views of the Half Hour News Hour pilot. These reviewers deserve mention in the Half Hour News Hour's article becuase of their importance to the entertainment community. That is why the ranking of "12 out of 100" is included.Citadel18080 21:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You must have missed the citation I put on the statement. What you are doing is original research. Turtlescrubber
So let me get this straight...first of all, you're requiring Citadel to have a non-original research source to REMOVE an item from the article. Second of all, you are BLATANTLY stating that you do not actually care as to the relevance of the piece of information that you wish to add and that you only seek to add it because you can; you are actually blatantly admitting that you would rather have a LESS relevant article as long as your personal views are the ones that win out in this confrontation, since you can in no way refute the actual substance of Citadel's statement and have fallen back on a fallacious "original research" argument. Well, at least you're being honest in admitting your apparently monumental bias. --Pellucid 22:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? It's a big paragraph of crazy. My conversation with you is now over. Please be more civil in future exchanges with other editors. Turtlescrubber 23:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continued

Turtlescrubber, what citation are you talking about? Are you referring to the link to the Half Hour News Hour page on Metacritic. If so, how is that in any way relevant to what I said? I simply looked through MetaCritic and found that several of the television shows were reviewed much later in their production cycles than their pilots. If that is original research, than whoever looked through MetaCritic and found that there was no show with a lower ranking also did original research.
I find it rather disconcerting that you never saw this citation. [1]
This is what I am talking about when I say it is not original research. Turtlescrubber 01:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll say this again. By providing a nonbiased summary of the views of popular media reviewers, the MetaCritic reference serves as their "Response" to the show, along with the viewing numbers of the public. That is the only reason it is on this website. A comparison to other shows evaluated on MetaCritic cannot be made because some of those shows were not reviewed when their pilots were made, but much later in their lifespan after the producers had years to improve and expand upon them. It does not make the MetaCritic page on the Half Hour News Hour any less objective, nor does it make the 12 out of 100 score any less significant. It simply prevents a comparison between the Half Hour News Hour and other shows from being accurate in context.Citadel18080 01:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I'll say this. The SFBG article relays a simple statement of fact. I did not put this info into the article, I merely found a source for it. I honestly didn't believe it when I first read the wikipedia article and went looking for a source and I checked the metacritic page. I find it to be a fascinating part of the article and completely suitable for a wikipedia page. True, it is not a scientific comparison but these are only T.V. shows. Judging the accuracy of metacritic is not our job. Our job is only to present facts in a npov. I believe that is what we both are trying to do but we have a difference of opinion. Is there any way to compromise? Turtlescrubber 01:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see what happened. You're SFBG article reference got lost somewhere in that reverting war and I forgot that it was there. Sorry about the confusion, but we should still not be blindly including facts that are inherently incorrect. If someone went on the Wikipedia article for steel and wrote that fire has never melted steel because Rosie O'Donnel said so on The View, would I be doing original research if I removed it solely because the "fire never melted steel" reference was there first and it would POV to exclude Rosie's statements? I am not faulting the SFBG writer because he got it wrong--its an easy mistake to make--but journalists aren't perfect, and if the statement is untrue it should not be included in the article.
I appreciate that you're willing to compromise, so how about if we either leave the mention out or include a disclaimer saying that, due to young age of the website and its reliance upon a specific number of reviews before it includes a show, MetaCritic reviews some shows, like 24, after their pilots.Citadel18080 02:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think your disclaimer idea works and would be acceptable, at least to me. Just make sure you properly source the disclaimer! :} Turtlescrubber 07:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me. Turtlescrubber 17:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is from the source and should be in the article "the lowest score a show has received in the site's history." That should settle the edit war that has erupted over the compromise version. Would this work for you citatdel? Turtlescrubber 23:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This version(June 15 at 23:22 by Turtlescrubber) is perfectly acceptible to me. I just made a minor grammatical correction to avoid using the word "pilot" twice in the sentence.Citadel18080 05:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that gets us off topic and turns this into an article about metacritic. Really if metacritic is worth mentioning than the fact that the hhnh has the lowest score off all time is also worth mentioning. If it is not worth mentioning lets also take out the mention of it's first nights ratings and make this an article based soley on the content of the show. --The Emperor of Wikipedia & Protector of Wiktionary 04:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Metacritic score is worth mentioning because it provides the opinions of the reviewer community in a far more balanced manner than the dozen-or-so quotes that were originally present. The first night's ratings are worth mentioning because the public, ultimately, has the final say as to how good a show is. Most Wikipedia articles have "Reception" sections, and there's no reason why this one shouldn't, but it needs to be fair. I do not understand how you consider the first night's ratings to be factually equalivalent to MetaCritic. Ratings are facts. Opinions are opinions. My patience is gone. Good night.Citadel18080 06:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why this article is so difficult, either. Metacritic is not original research, its linked in dozens/hundreds of articles and there is no precedent for non-inclusion. Merely including a citation does not "turn the article into metacritic" as "The Emperor" maintains (this stance is really unheard of, for we could apply its logic to every paragraph in every article ever, and come to the same boneheaded conclusion). This article magnetizes much misguided interference with regard to its content.Yeago 14:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You neo-cons are truly amazing. Your inability to admit a turd is a turd is astounding. Leonard part 6 was voted one of the worst movies of all time and it’s right in the article.--The Emperor of Wikipedia & Protector of Wiktionary 14:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, you're devotion to making sure that this article says that the show is "a turd" is remarkable, even going to the point of personal attacks and recommending the removal sourced viewer ratings in fairness to a bunch of reviewers whose opinions are ultimately less important than the ratings themselves, not to mention less relevant to a Wikipedia article in general.Citadel18080 15:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look if you think it does not need to mentioned that a movie or television show sets a new bar for bad then go to the movie articles for Gigli, Glitter, Crossroads , From Justin to Kelly and the television articles for The Trouble with Tracy, My Mother the Car, The Jerry Springer Show and remove it from them as well. As far as I can tell wikipedia has set a standard that allows for the mention of overwhelmingly bad reviews. The section does not need to drag on with quotes from twelve different critics but if the shows score is the all time lowest than it is reasonable to mention that. As far as personal attacks I have made none, I merely called a spade a spade. --The Emperor of Wikipedia & Protector of Wiktionary 16:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And if you were Ebert, we'd include your comments. But you're not. You're just some dude. Go find sources. Until then please realize your unbalanced, inflammatory is a waste of our resources and yours. Oh, and I don't know who you are calling a NeoCon please read my comments in sections above.Yeago 17:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know what you are talking about. I didn't write a review and try to post it, I read that the hhnh had the lowest score on metacritic ever and posted that. So I am happy to just be some dude and really have no need to be ebert (he's fat). --The Emperor of Wikipedia & Protector of Wiktionary 18:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The articles you mentioned have nothing to do with MetaCritic, and it is with MetaCritic that I take issue, not the fact that THHNH got low ratings. If THHNH were a movie, then I would have no problem referring to it as the lowest rated on MetaCritic because movies are released once. If MetaCritic reviewed shows only at their pilots, then I would also have no problem, but MetaCritic does not review every show at its pilot, nor could it given the fact that the TV portion of the site is only two years old. How do we know that the Family Guy pilot wouldn't have received a lower rating--its not being reviewed, but the Family Guy Vol. 3 DVD is. I am not making any sort of biased statement, but I am simply ensuring that only the facts are included in this article. I'm going to rewrite the sentence in question to explain MetaCritic ratings in more detail. Hopefully that will stop this ridiculous debate.Citadel18080 16:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enough with the attacks!

I'm getting extremely tired of the subtle digs people are adding about THHNH. Cenestrad recently added the line, "Despite the overwhelmingly bad reviews the show has continued to dominate it’s time slot among cable news networks." Can anyone provide a reasonable basis for keeping this line in the article? The reviews are not about the show, they are about the pilot. The viewership ratings are not about the show, they are about the pilot. The reviews and ratings give the complete picture. You would never see a line like this in a professionally written encyclopedia.Citadel18080 16:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need to list the ratings for every single show but that it cont. to do well despite the bad reviews seems to me to be notable. --The Emperor of Wikipedia & Protector of Wiktionary 17:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but mentioning that the ratings continue to be good despite bad reviews could be a good thing to add to the article as long as it's written in a more strategic manner. --Pellucid 16:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should add all post-pilot ratings information to the episode guide instead of the main article, as that is where it is generally displayed in Wikipedia TV articles.Citadel18080 01:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are not saying that by trying to write a fair and balanced article i am attacking sombody.--The Emperor of Wikipedia & Protector of Wiktionary 06:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has suggested that, you have misread Citadel's problem. If you don't plan on joining genuine debate--and that does include making an attempt provide a balanced perspective to this article--you're going to find yourself ignored. Citadel isn't some partisan axe-grinder, he deserves a legitimate response, not victim-playing.Yeago 09:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again what are you talking about? the header here is Enough with the attacks and it is about my edit. It is pretty easy to see why I would think he thought I was attacking sombody. As far as partisan axe grinding I added that the show was metacritics lowest scored and now I added that it contiues to dominate it's time slot so what side am i grinding for?--The Emperor of Wikipedia & Protector of Wiktionary 13:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The debate on if the hhnh current standing in the ratings should be included or not has received no new input for 3 days. I assume that everyone has had their say and it seems that support for its inclusion is at least equal to any objection to it. I have added an edited version of the lines back into the article as wiki policy is to allow the information to stay if it is verifiable and no clear consensus is reached--The Emperor of Wikipedia & Protector of Wiktionary 08:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the site with the current ratings. Somebody who is better than me at this will have to add the link. www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/the_scoreboard_sunday_june_10_60884.--The Emperor of Wikipedia & Protector of Wiktionary 13:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lowest rated ever?

Gee, I go away from Wikipedia for a few weeks, and an edit war takes place on one of the articles I've been a minor contributor to! Let me just weigh in and say that I agree with replacing the former list of negative reviews (and one semi-positive review from the Washington Post) with the MetaCritic score. However, I think the "lowest MetaCritic rating ever" mention goes too far. At best, it's trivia, and at worst, it's a blatant attempt to "pile on" and paint the show in the worst possible light.

The fact that it got a 12/100 MetaCritic score should be enough to convey that the critics thought the pilot was very poor. I doubt MetaCritic is even close to having entries for every show on television, nor do they have a consistent set of reviewers for every show they have entries for, so the fact that THHNH currently has the lowest MetaCritic score really doesn't add anything meaningful that its 12/100 score doesn't convey.Eseymour 18:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its just a plain fact. Please stop being so terrified over what people will do with it. Its not the end of the world. It just happens to be. You're drawing a very arbitrary line in the sand.Yeago 20:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Terrified? No, I'm just interested in the article being a fair description of the show, and not a place for people to beat up on it beyond what is necessary or meaningful. It is a fact that the THHNH pilot currently has the lowest MetaCritic score for a TV production, but in light of the points brought up by Citadel18080 and myself, I don't think it's a meaningful fact. Its value as a cudgel to beat up on the show far exceeds its actual descriptive power.
That said, I will go along with the compromise version for now. Most conservatives will just write off the critics as biased liberals, anyway, and liberals are going to bash the show no matter what. (P.S. Lest you think I'm here as a partisan hack, I'll point out that I supported the use of the phrase "perceived liberal bias" because I thought it was the most correct, and I reverted at least one edit which removed the word "perceived.") Eseymour 21:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for agreeing to the compromise version. It took a long, messy debate just to get that far. Citadel18080 02:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See ya article!

Hey there. Just letting you all know I'm leaving this article. Its been good feuding with you all. As someone who tends to lean left(ish) I encourage all lefties not to dismiss outright conservative vantage, even when it only manifests itself in frequent vandalism (ahem, the constant removal of "perceived" from "perceived liberal bias"). When I stepped away from my personal opinions I saw the vandalism as a sign that the article needs to move a bit more to the right. Now that it is, viola, the vandalism stopped.Yeago 03:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More concerns about MetaCritic

I'm concerned that MetaCritic itself does not address things from a neutral point of view, as evidenced by this quote that summarizes the show:

The right-wing answer to "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart," the Fox News-produced spoof "1/2 Hour News Hour" gets a brief tryout on the Fox News Channel. (Yes, this time FNC is attempting to be funny intentionally.)

Given that the Website's own written blurb about the show is biased against the show, can MetaCritic be considered to be neutral? --Pellucid 03:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

we could go back to quotes from a dozen critics panning the show. however i think this needs to be left alone.--The Emperor of Wikipedia & Protector of Wiktionary 04:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to start another edit war? The metacritic info was settled upon by consensus. You have already added info that circumvents this consensus. Why won't you just stop trying to edit war? Turtlescrubber 16:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking to me? If so my desire is to leave the article as it is. the show got bad reviews and that needs to be mentioned. if metacritic is out then quotes from critics need to be in. if by starting an edit war you are refering to me adding the info about the ratings i am trying to balance this article.--The Emperor of Wikipedia 17:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think he was talking to me, which doesn't make even an iota of sense because I didn't change the article at all in that regard. --Pellucid 17:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was totally talking to Pellucid. Turtlescrubber 20:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pellucid, the mention of Metacritic was included solely because it provides a summary of the reviewers' opinions. While the comments made about the show are clearly biased, the reviewing system used by Metacritic is not. Cenestrad, stop threatening to put the quotes back in. There was a general agreement that the quotes were biased. That matter has been settled. I would like to recommend that the following sentence be removed,
"Despite the pilots' poor reviews, the show has continued to lead its time slot in the ratings among cable news networks."
While I see no bias problems with this sentence, it just seems redudandant. The ratings for the pilots clearly show that the reviews had little effect on viewership. Anybody who reads the preceeding sentences can come to the same conclusion. Citadel18080 02:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. it seems to me that if the viewers and the critics watched the same piolt and the piolt was as bad as the critics said the ratings would drop like a lead balloon. I think this article is fair as it is and really should be left static unless somthing major happens to the show --The Emperor of Wikipedia 05:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the reviews did not stop viewers from watching the pilots, why would they have any effect on ratings for episodes released months later? Star Wars: Episode I got lousy reviews, but that didn't stop people from going to see it, or from seeing Episodes II or III. I also did not say the sentence, or the article, is not fair, just that the sentence in question is redundant. Citadel18080 07:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, don't forget that Wikipedia articles derive their information and analysis directly from their sources. The source linked to this sentence provides the ratings information, but makes no mention of the pilots' poor reviews. You said it yourself, "it seems to me...". Did it seem this way to a verifiable source? Citadel18080 07:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that the reviews were based on the pilot(s). If the reviews were going to have any effect on viewership, it would be reflected in ratings of later episodes. As I see it, this sentence provides a useful piece of information about ratings of later episodes. Together with the rest of this section, it tells a story--ratings of pilots were good-->pilots got generally bad reviews-->good ratings continued nonetheless. Eseymour 12:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good ratings compared to cable news shows. This is a comedy on the most popular news network going against cable news on two other networks. Not a huge accomplishment. Turtlescrubber 15:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. Personally I feel that the hhnh may someday be seen as a symbol of all the denial that was the neo-con movement. The Iraq war was necessary, hurricane Katrina was handled well and the half hour news hour is funny. When it gets cancelled I wonder how they’ll manage to blame Bill Clinton. In the mean time we should be trying to write an article that gives a complete picture of the program not our own political views. The show does still lead in the ratings despite its much deserved bad reviews and the article should say so. I also think that the ratings have dropped significantly since the pilots’ premier may also have a place in this article. The beauty of wikipedia is that it is a living encyclopedia not a paper encyclopedia and that its content can easily be changed as necessary.--The Emperor of Wikipedia 16:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could at least TRY to be unbiased, you know. No war is necessary (and nobody I know of has ever said it was), but the Iraq war could be beneficial to us in future counterterrorism efforts if we succeed there. Hurricane Katrina was botched by local Democrat authorities; the federal government isn't even allowed to send disaster relief or national guard unless it's specifically requested by state-level authorities, so blaming Bush and FEMA is indicative of a lack of understanding of how disaster relief works in this country. The HHNH pilot wasn't funny (to me), but just because you personally don't find something to be funny doesn't make it so. I think the Daily Show is a steaming pile of shit, for example, but I don't pretend that liberals are in denial because they enjoy it; it just makes sense that liberals would find the mocking of conservatives to be more funny than the mocking of liberals and that conservatives would find the mocking of liberals to be more funny than the mocking of conservatives. --Pellucid 18:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel no need to be unbiased in my opinions. I am very unbiased in the writing of this article. If you check my edits they will verify this. My point is that this article needs to be about the show not about personal politics. --The Emperor of Wikipedia 18:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to leave personal politics out of the article, then you should do so on the talk page as well. If you want to talk about how stupid you think conservatives are, you can do so in a blog or another approriate forum. I will say this again, I wanted to remove the sentence to improve the overall appearence of the article, NOT because of any political agenda, etc. I don't know how you got Iraq and Hurricane Katrina out of that. Let's all try to focus on the topic at hand, which is improving this article. Since I seem to be in the minority regarding the inclusion of this sentence, I would at least like to reorganize the info in that section to make it look less like a conglomeration of edit wars and more encyclopedic. Citadel18080 22:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this section needs an overhaul to make it read more fluently and I suggest that Citadel does it as he seems to be the most unbiased of anyone editing this article. I think that as long as all of the current agreed upon factual points are included this could only benefit the article. I would like to see the fact that the ratings have dropped significantly since the premier added as I feel this completes the section.--The Emperor of Wikipedia 14:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the ratings information should be transferred to a table in order to ensure NPOV. I am working on one now, but I need a new source of ratings information. From what I can tell, Mediabistro only provides viewership ratings for the 25-54 demographic, and not the total number of viewers. Only the two pilots and the May 27 rerun have complete viewership information. This may explain why the ratings appear to have dropped so severely. Does anyone have a ratings source besides Mediabistro? Citadel18080 18:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Recurring sketches

I just reverted a post about the “Guy White” sketch on the show because it was poorly placed. I do think this article needs a section on recurring sketches. --The Emperor of Wikipedia 14:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the new section. Let me know what you think. Eseymour 17:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cenestrad, I disagree. This article needs more substance than just a couple of sentences describing the show and how well it was received. Citadel18080 20:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have misread. I was advocating adding a new section on the shows sketches. I would also like to add a section for the shows format. --The Emperor of Wikipedia 04:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I was reading too fast. Sorry. Citadel18080 05:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand...

...why all of the reviews kept getting deleted out of this? Showing a review from entertainment writers is NOT a liberal bias...it is showing its reception. As it is, the reception literally has 1 critic. That is ridiculous. Does someone who works for the show edit this page? I spent a while digging up all of the reception and someone goes in and just deletes it all because it paints their show negatively? Why not just make a show that gets a better reception? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.23.25.225 (talk • contribs) 14 August 2007.

Click history and find a version of the page that contains them. Copy the reviewers information, then edit the current page and insert that information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yeago (talk • contribs) 14 August 2007.
I've removed the reviews, because they were reviews of the pilot episodes, and there have been 10 more episodes since then. Also, this was discussed before (read the previous discussions on this page and the archived talk page), and it was agreed that the MetaCritic score was a good way to summarize the critics' reviews. Eseymour 17:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good.Yeago 23:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced them, seeing as how the "reception" of a show includes reviews of the show and I feel that they are repeatedly inappropriately deleted because they are mostly negative. I propose that we keep them because these are the reviews written about the show. If you can find more recently written reviews, you can replace them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.23.25.225 (talk) 05:02, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Ratings

Hi folks. I've been busy with a particularly nasty content dispute elsewhere on Wikipedia, but I'm trying to spend some time here as well. I've noticed that a sentence was added about the ratings "shrinking considerably" with the Aug. 5, 2007 airing. Unfortunately, Mediabistro does not give complete ratings info, only the 25-54 demographic. This has been a problem before and, if someone has an alternate source that provides complete ratings, it should be used instead. Citadel18080 03:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

I removed the tag. Every line and every fact was cited. I have no idea why anyone would have tagged it.--The Emperor of Wikipedia 05:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use of laugh track is relevant.

I see someone's removed any mention that the show used a laugh track. If true, this is relevant. The show attempted to compete with The Daily Show (by the producer's own admission) and emulate Weekend Update. By using a laugh track (while TDS and WU must succeed with its live audience or fail), they attempted to stack the odds, or give themselves a boost in the competition. Despite this, they failed. This is a relevant and interesting thing to know about the show. --63.25.245.123 04:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you have
reliable sources that say they use a laugh-track and make the conclusion you do. JoshuaZ 21:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm looking. Of course, outside of the realm of Wikipedia, in the real world where my television resides, it's so freakin' obvious. It's a shame embarassed conservatives and FNC employees would challenge this very, very obvious, but so-far-unverified fact. --63.25.29.106 00:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and include it with a "citaton needed" tag if you want. Please don't draw your own conclusions about why the laugh track was used, however. Laugh tracks can be used for any number of reasons and, like you say, it would have been "very, very obvious" if they were attempting to use a laugh track to enhance thier audience reactions. Citadel18080 00:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is to Was

I think changing the opening line to "the half hour news hour was" form "the half hour news hour is" is not yet appropriate as the show is still on the air. Just because Grandma has terminal cancer doesn't mean you start saying "Grandma always was found of blackberry brandy" or "Grandma would have just loved the departed" before the old woman gives up the ghost. By the way, Has anyone figured out how Bill Clinton can be blamed for the shows cancellation? --The Emperor of Wikipedia 18:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I've changed it back to "is" a couple of times myself. Citadel18080 00:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also See

Why is there an also see section that only includes The Colber Report? There should be an Also See section with all/many similar satires of news show or no section at all (not a section with just one show). 74.253.2.40 17:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)JML[reply]


I agree. I've added some links to other fake news programs.Reinoe (talk) 02:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also sections are for relavent topics not mentioned in the article itself. The article already mentions several similar shows, there is no need to add these to the See also section. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


why are we having this fight again?

I thought we had reached a consensus about the reception section of this article. --The Emperor of Wikipedia (talk) 04:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_½_Hour_News_Hour&oldid=1196756223"