Talk:Current TV

Will Wright TV show

This was just announced today, might be worth following for this wiki. Here are a bunch of links, most of them repeat Current TV's press release (also included along with a link to the official site).

http://kotaku.com/5658240/will-wright-puts-you-in-control-of-his-television-show

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/simulate-this-will-wright-wants-to-give-you-control-over-a-tv-series/

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118025342.html?categoryId=4076&cs=1

http://current.com/shows/bar-karma/

http://i2.crtcdn1.net/images/ed/2010/10/06/408144.pdf

Theymbg (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Current News

What ever happened? Is the news wrap up show at the end of the day the new Current News? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.182.178.8 (talk) 03:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Mario from online community on Current.com. The nightly news wrap up show is actually "Current Tonight." This show ran while Current News was still in production, but has gained more attention in the absence of Current News. Our intent is to bring back the concept of Current News, but broaden it to include more than merely news-related stories. In essence, community members will be able to submit and vote up content in groups like movies, music, news, tech, green, and comedy -- the stories picked will then be featured in bumps on Current TV.

Here are some posts from the Current.com blog in which this is referenced.

Community Q&A: Hey Current, where are you going?

Bring back Current News and Vicky the Robot

If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out.

Marioanima (talk) 07:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Marioanima (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC).

Comcast

According to Current's website, all of Comcast has CurrentTV on channel 107. I was wondering if it should be added under the lineup like DishTV and SKY do, instead of falling under "See local listings". --Takeru27 (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Is this a press release or an encyclopedia entry?

As you'll note, the original posting for this entry as INdTV was pretty much a press-release. I attempted to take what was in the press release and retain the information, and provide more insight into how the network developed. I realize my prose was more in line with an op-ed piece than an encyclopedia entry and I encourage anyone clarify my points from a more objective voice.

NPOV

This rewrite and some of it's details read like it came from someone inside Current's marketing dept. NPOV tag added. Details listed in rewrite section. Silent.reprobate (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions

Full disclosure -- My name is Mario Anima, and I'm the director for online community on Current.com. I have some suggestions, but I thought it would be best to offer them here first to avoid NPOV concerns in the actual entry. Some of the info in entry is a little stale, so I thought it best to point out some examples, and offer some resources.

A couple of things to note for the history section. First was the October 15th, 2007 relaunch as Current.com. The new beta site featured a redesigned homepage with the ability to view content aired on TV, and to contribute news stories, videos, blog posts, and other media stories from all over the web. Also, community members vote on and discuss these submissions, which increased chances for the items to be featured by our online programmers on the homepage.

Of course, another missing aspect that made some waves was the announcement of intent to file for IPO.

The Current.com homepage underwent further revisions with the launch of Current:News on April 2nd, 2008. This included yet another revision to the homepage, but more importantly it added to the community voting aspect on the site in support of Current:News -- a collaborative newscast that airs on Current TV at the top of every hour. Here's how it works, community votes and other activity on submitted items translate into popularity based on some algorithmic mojo. Popularity ultimately influences what shows up in the popular section on the homepage. Popular items vie for the next available slot in Current:News (the modules at the top of the page), and the story occupying the top spot in the popular feed when the countdown timer runs down wins fame, fortune, and glory...in an upcoming episode of Current:News. Once the next story is picked, our Current:News team reviews the selected items and discussions taking place on each one, and they cut together a new episode of Current:News to air at the top of the hour. The title of each item, alongside the original contributor and editorially selected comments from the accompanying discussion are highlighted in each Current:News pod.

So far, the robotic voice used in Current:News pods has had a somewhat polarizing impact on some community members. Another change was the airing of Current:News at the top of every hour, a spot formerly held by infoMania. Instead, infoMania has moved into a new time slot and is now a full half-hour show.

Some structural stuff: Would it be better to have a separate section for TV vs. Current.com? Maybe not, your call. Another thing, we do have some pretty popular pods on Current TV, so perhaps a section dedicated to our in-house productions? Here are some links to our more popular shows:

infoMania -- snarky take on recent web-related news. Includes a segment called Viral Video Film School, which is pretty popular.

SuperNews! -- an animated political satire series

Daily Fix -- music news

Vanguard -- investigative international journalism

Let me know what you think, and please let me know if there is a better way to do this. I really don't want to cause a stir here.

Marioanima (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

rewrite

I am interested in editing this entry. I would like to have a week to do research the subject. I would appreciate if the article is not deleted in the coming weeks. I suspect that this network may be involved with potentially interesting/significant activities. Thanks in advance. Fastplanet 10:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

There does need to be a rewrite, but there is no significant activities that the network is involved in, aside from possible criticism throughout the political spectrum (yes, on multiple instances including "liberals") for its content.Planetsconspire 00:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This is an especially boring piece; it reads more like a timeline than an article designed to inform. It would be much more pleasing to read if someone could change it away from a "just the facts" writing style, and put in more exposition about the people involved other than Hyatt and Gore. Is the Emmy the only award its won? Who else was nominated for the same award, or were they the only entrant? I'm sure I could look up that ceremony and find out, but it would be much more captivating to say who Current defeated for the award inside the Current TV article. At the same time, is this the network's only accolade, has it been nominated for others but not won?

At the same time, the programming section describes the format of a Current show, but does not name any shows or schedules. This seems to imply that Current broadcasts random segments with no regards towards a schedule; is this true, or is there a regular line up of shows (prime time, for example).

For an article about a television network, there's very little information here about the network itself, and a much stronger focus on the corporation behind it and its business dealings. AR 3/14/08.

There is no verifiable source that can corroborate Current TV's claim that "30% of their content comes from their users", until that can be independently verified I have removed it from their listing for the second time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.89.26.84 (talk) 02:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Current TV in the last year has become Current.com and changed much of the information that is on this listing. Their website is in a new beta format which has removed the voting apparatus where the online community of users vote for video submissions for airplay, and I am uncertain of what criteria they now use for user-submitted content.

The anonymous entry above has also mentioned there is no means to verify the amount of user content on their channel, as it is hard to corroborate that 30% of their content indeed is "user-contributed". It is not clear on their website that they even accept video submissions anymore? This page needs to be updated to reflect the changes to their website model immediately. Silent.reprobate (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This sentence is not accurate: "The channel has exclusive rights over viewer-submitted segments, but not copyright ownership." I believe this is incorrect since Current TV can and does re-edit pods that are submitted to their network to reflect the theme, style and tone of the network. If the pod creator retained any copyright rights then this would not be allowed, as it would be distorting and/or changing the original tone of the pod presented by the author. Silent.reprobate (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"The news network was said to be a combination between CNN, MTV, and blipverts." - source this quote or remove it please, it sounds like anecdotal marketing talk. Silent.reprobate (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've tweaked the wording on the PROGRAM section to reflect a more realistic view of the approval process, the role of voting by the community at current.com and the nature of licensing pods for airplay. Silent.reprobate (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Amaya Brecher's host listing now points to her wiki article about her role as a cast member on MTV's The Real World: Hawaii instead of the promotional link to some esoteric radio show website Bananananna Republic (talk) 17:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a strong NPOV here as well as of may 12. I suggest sending a warning to said person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.20.7 (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Current TV is owned by Current Media, LLC. I think this whole article need to be rewritten under that banner (Current Media, LLC.) with sub-sections for current tv & current.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.211.71.137 (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Split off Detention of Current TV journalists by the DPRK in March 2009 to North Korean hostage crisis?

Is this event sufficiently noteworthy to merit its own article? JCDenton2052 (talk) 04:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Given the verdicts rendered by North Korea's highest court, this story deserves its own space. But the suggested titles have so far been inapt. I offer: U.S. Journalists Detained by North Korea. That or words similar should suffice.

I would say yes. Especially since Larry King covered it. But I fear a new article on the situation will basically be a summarisation of different news articles that have covered it. It may not hurt to wait until some kind of resolution comes out of it first. Also, are there any sources that talk about how the situation is affecting recent developments in North Korea? That would be very useful if we are to create an article on the reporters being taken into custody - and yes, I would refrain from calling it a "hostage" crisis. That is not at all a neutral article name or sectional name. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 10:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

If it leads to something "bigger" (ex: sanctions against DPRK, military conflict, etc.) then maybe yes. But it should definitely NOT be referred to as a "hostage crisis". They are not hostages, they are criminals who have been found guilty under DPRK law, and incarcerated accordingly.Drcwright (talk) 05:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

We should not use that proposed name. It assumes the innocence of the two prisoners, and that is unclear, to say the least. Even the most recent AP report says it is possible that the two "strayed" (like they're children or cows?) into North Korea, in which case they certainly are within their rights to arrest them. I don't think there's enough there to have its own article, too much of the coverage is speculative, like connections to the nuclear program.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Vote yes, but under a different name. Because the details of the trial are not public, it's probably inaccurate to refer to them as either hostages or criminals. Nfelurre (talk) 07:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This event deserves its own article but lets not be calling them criminals (gotta keep a npov). "Imprisonment of U.S. Journalists by North Korea (2009)" or something along those lines would be a better choice riffic (talk) 08:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be on the right track; I'd rather see "Imprisonment of Current TV Journalists (2009)" or something similar. Seems a bit more precise, and sufficiently descriptive. Townlake (talk) 13:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

And regarding the legitimacy of North Korea's trial and verdict, all should note the the phrase "illegally entering North Korea and grave offenses" used in describing the crimes. A trial where the most serious charge is not openly stated can hardly be legitimate. And illegal entry into a nation, alone, is only a minor offense, hardly worth a long term of "reform through labor." 66.214.9.247

I don't see what the legitimacy of the trial has to do with splitting the article. Townlake (talk) 13:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Now that a spin-off article has been created, the corresponding section here should probably shortened.Kxx (talk) 08:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Beginning of the article needs work.

If you look at all the other channels or networks on Wikipedia, they all explain in the beginning what type of network they are. News, sports, etc., but this one only discusses business information which is useless to most people trying to figure out what it is. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 17:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I added a phrase in the first paragraph. --Bruce Hall (talk) 05:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Closure

The channel has ceased broadcasting in the UK so why is the entry keep getting undone 81.108.117.49 (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Numbers, reception, and criticism needed

There is no discussion of ratings or homes reached, except a vague and un-sourced that was in 2005 history section which I removed (didn't know if it was indeed "current") or any other discussion of its reception, impact or criticism. Current TV has had more impact -- because of an ex-VP's involvement -- then the numbers should merit. There needs to be some sub-section on that impact. --Bruce Hall (talk) 05:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. The evidence currently present suggests "Current TV" is the common name. Cúchullain ^t/c 20:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

---

---

Current TV → Current (TV channel) – Current TV is not the name, just simply Current. 68.44.51.49 (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. Do you have any evidence for this? http://current.com/s/about.htm uses "Current TV", as does The New York Times, Fox News, Al Jazeera, TIME, et cetera. Trinitresque (talk) 03:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support - No evidence is needed. In fact, people typing in "Current TV" would confuse the title with "current television". I did not realize that the article is referring to the channel until proposal is made. --George Ho (talk) 05:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Why would anyone type "current TV" looking for that? There's no article on "current television". There's not even any such thing as "current television"! And hold up. "No evidence is needed"? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I could swear that WP:Verifiability was one of the three WP:Core content policies. It states: "Readers must be able to check that Wikipedia articles are not just made up." So I just gave evidence from WP:reliable sources clearly showing that the primary name is Current TV, and you've given no evidence at all showing the opposite, yet you're right because "no evidence is needed"? Someone please tell me how this works.

Side note: And even if "current television" is a real thing, as in that there is an actual article titled "current television" (there isn't), then per the WP:Disambiguation policy, Current TV would still remain at this same article name, but a WP:hatnote would be placed at the top of this article leading to the "current television" article. No page move for this article would be needed at all. Trinitresque (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - i think "Current (TV network)" would be more accurate. --emerson7 07:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Current TV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071014183632/http://www.adweek.com:80/aw/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002501601 to http://www.adweek.com/aw/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002501601

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aljazeerausannouncement.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130623024903/http://america.aljazeera.com:80/update/al-jazeera-america-will-broadcast-nightly-primetime-current-affairs-magazine to http://america.aljazeera.com/update/al-jazeera-america-will-broadcast-nightly-primetime-current-affairs-magazine

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120820081904/http://www.headlinerawards.org/Winners2008Broadcast.html to http://www.headlinerawards.org/Winners2008Broadcast.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://america.aljazeera.com/update/al-jazeera-america-will-broadcast-nightly-primetime-current-affairs-magazine

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121113113043/http://current.com/blog/93858032_joy-behar-say-anything-to-premiere-sept-4.htm to http://current.com/blog/93858032_joy-behar-say-anything-to-premiere-sept-4.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20171201034038/http://douglascaballero.com/portfolio/53/ to http://douglascaballero.com/portfolio/53/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)