Jump to content

Talk:MSNBC

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 98.217.161.235 (talk) at 20:58, 3 February 2024 (→‎Britannica: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Britannica

@ValarianB: Are you seriously suggesting that Britannica is an unreliable source for the claim of liberal bias? If Britannica, which is more professional than Wikipedia, considers this bias a notable enough aspect to feature in the first paragraph of their article, then why should we not do the same here? Considering allegations of liberal bias make up a huge chunk of the article, it makes sense to note the allegations in the lede. But I wouldn't mind also saying in the lede for balance that others in the past have claimed a conservative bias instead. X-Editor (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It will not be appearing in the lede, this is a perennial, SPA-fueled agenda item. If you really want to add it further down in that section, that probably won't bean issue, though IMO it is a little redundant. ValarianB (talk) 21:06, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ValarianB: Just because it has been discussed and rejected in the past doesn't mean that it should continue to be rejected if new reliable sources come to light. The perennial proposals page itself says "Consensus can change". Saying that the only accounts trying to add this content are single purpose is also extremely bad faith. You have also failed to rebut my argument regarding Britannica. X-Editor (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bias can only be defined in relation to a standard. The standard for WP content NPOV is clear and it is foundational. It's the world that's biased, not Wikipedia. Chew on that for a minute? SPECIFICO talk 21:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SPECIFICO: You failed to rebut or respond to most of my arguments and I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say. X-Editor (talk) 21:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear that. Maybe review some of the past discussions of this and think it over and we can resume in a day or two. SPECIFICO talk 21:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SPECIFICO: Sorry, but the burden of proof is on you to explain why my arguments are wrong, not me. Even the perennial discussions article says "Consensus can change". X-Editor (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no. Please read WP:BURDEN if you believe you have verification for the liberal bias bit. I have rarely edited this article, so I'm afraid I can't be of much further help to you here. SPECIFICO talk 21:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SPECIFICO: The Britannica article I'm referring to says "MSNBC is generally considered to be liberal or left-leaning.". Sorry for not linking it. X-Editor (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you describe Fox News as "an American multinational conservative news and political commentary television channel and website based in New York City" but wouldn't describe MSNBC as left leaning or progressive? It is as left leaning and progressive as it gets. This looks a lot like discrimination on Wikipedia's editors side. You discredit Fox News by labeling them as having a predetermined position on the news they report, and therefor you voice an opinion, and not a fact. In my opinion neither should be labeled as conservative or progressive in the lede (as those are opinions and not facts), but if one is so should the other. 81.218.199.176 (talk) 08:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not labeling MSNBC as a liberal news source goes against wikipedias guidelines. Articles should be written from a neutral standpoint. Denying MSNBC is a liberal news source would only be done by those with a liberal bias themselves. This page needs to follow wikipedias own guidelines and properly label MSNBC as liberal news. 98.217.161.235 (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The perennial proposals page itself says "Consensus can change". Well, feel free to make your case and try, my friend, but you don't get to just add it unilaterally and then sputter with indignation when reverted. As I've stated before, the reason why it does not need to be stated in the lede is that being "liberal" or left-wing" in America is the mainstream PoV. Stating "MSNBC is liberal" is about as useful as saying

"Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is a white American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president...

to Donald Trump. This will never be a question that hinges on sourcing, but rather relevance and purpose. ValarianB (talk) 12:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ValarianB: Comparing white skin colour and political bias sounds like a false equivalence. There is already precedent for adding political bias in article ledes like Fox News and Salon.com. There is no precedent for pointing out white skin colour. While it is true that liberal and left-leaning are mainstream positions in the United States, the same can be said for conservatism (There are tens of millions of conservatives in the United States), yet conservative bias is still pointed out in Fox News' lede and Salon's lede. It's also important to point out that not everyone is familiar with US politics and since WP is global and not American, we should explain political bias to those who are unfamiliar. The edits I made to the article also didn't add the liberal description upfront, it was added a few sentences later in the first paragraph. X-Editor (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe that's cuz FoxNews has the word News in its brand but it broadcasts conspiracy theories, whackadoodle retired petty government factotums masquerading as expert commentators, and false information fed directly to it by various politicians? That could be part of the difference. SPECIFICO talk 22:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SPECIFICO: You're engaging in whataboutism. This isn't about Fox, this is about MSNBC. You've done nothing but completely ignore and dismiss my arguments backed up by an RS that you've also ignored. I'd rather end this discussion here than continue. X-Editor (talk) 01:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You yourself and nobody else introduced Fox News into this thread. If you continue to make personal remarks and misrepresentations, you're unlikely to change the clear lack of consensus for your views. SPECIFICO talk 01:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SPECIFICO: Since this is clearly going nowhere, can we both agree to end this discussion? X-Editor (talk) 01:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please review WP:CONSENSUS. You started the discussion. You found nobody agreeing with you. The discussion continued only to give you a chance to make your case. SPECIFICO talk 02:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"You found nobody agreeing with you" That's why I'm ending this discussion. X-Editor (talk) 02:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's simply false. You're showing extreme point-of-view bias and you need to reread Wikipedia policies on POV. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MSNBC has repeatedly said in court that it is not primarily a news network but a political commentary network. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, not sure what the point of that is, but if you want to refer to this network as "liberal" we need reliable sources to support that. People have tried and failed for years. If you can do so, power to you. 331dot (talk) 02:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Politico, Newsweek, NYT, Washington Post, Salon, and several other sources say that MSNBC is liberal or Left-wing or progressive. All of those terms imply the descriptor, 'liberal.' We need to interpret sources without bias and that means treating terms like 'progressive' as implying terms like 'liberal'. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sensible thing to do is to include the word "liberal" in the introductory sentence in the article. It's settled fact that MSNBC is liberal. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 01:49, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop sticking your comments in-between the posts of other users. These are threaded replies those people made to each other over 6 months ago, and you just make it confusing. If you have a point to make, do it at the bottom of a discussion. Now, no, it is not a "settled fact" that MSNBC is liberal. Reality is liberal, and those who fall to the right of that tend to not like it. This is not a question of finding reliable sources, it is a question of relevance. Zaathras (talk) 02:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Facts stand on their own and exist independently of people's politics. First of all if reality were liberal, it wouldn't change any statement about MSNBC's political orientation; it would merely imply a conformity with reality. Secondly, if you want to make blanket statements like "reality is liberal", you need to provide evidence for such an assertion. You have failed to provide a single shred of evidence for that assertion. It is a settled fact that MSNBC is liberal, as sources ranging from Salon, Newsweek, Politico, and implied on page 16 of this court opinion, "Herring Networks v. Maddow"(https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/08/17/20-55579.pdf). CessnaMan1989 (talk) 14:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That primary sourced random judicial opinion more or less vitiates whatever claim you are making about MSNBC. The issue for this page however is that while at present, some of the talk show hosts on MSNBC express "liberal" views, the channel is a news organization that adheres to established journalistic norms and is backed by NBC News, also RS. That's not the case with Fox, OAN, et al. SPECIFICO talk 14:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, a news or political commentary organization is defined by the general leanings of its reporters and commentators. "Backing" by NBC news doesn't change the political orientation of MSNBC. Also, what evidence do you actually have that MSNBC adheres to journalistic norms and just what norms are you talking about? Political bias is pretty normal in journalism and commentary is quite different from journalism, as it has a totally different set of norms. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the case, which is hardly random but rather one of the most famous cases associated with MSNBC and recent America media in general, asserts that the views of the network's primetime lead are so well known to have a liberal bias that the programming is not intended to be news but mere commentary. This decisively implies a court acknowledging that MSNBC is liberal. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As other editors have noted in past discussions, the majority of the news media has a naturally-leaning progressive bent. We don't need to cite the bloody obvious. So, read WP:BLUESKY at your convenience. Zaathras (talk) 14:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very different argument than the one you were making before, and it is also one that doesn't seem to be particularly strong at first glance. There are tons and tons of right-wing news organizations, and even Google, which has usually tried to filter out most of these organizations, struggles to do so. 99% of the population will say that the sky is blue. I don't think 99% of the population will assume that a news channel is liberal unless the article explicitly states otherwise. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)It isn't really different at all, no. As someone else once pointed out in an earlier discussion, the lede of Donald Trump does not state that he was the 43rd white president. You may peruse the archives of this talk page, and see nothing you're offering here is new or novel. And no, there aren't "tons and tons of right-wing news organizations", there are a handful. Conservatism does not lend itself to sustainable media presence. Zaathras (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're now making a totally different argument. You've gone from saying that MSNBC isn't liberal but that "reality is liberal" to saying that the lack of a political descriptor in the introduction of an article about a news network implies that it is liberal. There are way more than a handful of conservative news sites.
Donald Trump is not known for being White. MSNBC is known for being liberal. Particularly, MSNBC is a liberal alternative to conservative Fox News. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your lack of comprehension of my words is a "you" problem, I'm afraid, not mine. MSNBC is "liberal" inasmuch as media itself is inherently progressive and forward-reaching, which is anathema to conservatism. Conservatism seeks to keep what is in place, to maintain the status quo. The core of honest journalism is to investigate, to seek, to uncover truths that other wish to conceal. The nature of journalism, and media, is to progress. So, agaon, there is no point in stating the obvious. MSNBC's notability is simply that it is a media outlet, period and full-stop. Zaathras (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, the simple fact is that you're making two totally different and contradictory arguments. If you don't understand that, too bad, but you're saying on one hand that MSNBC isn't liberal, and, on the other hand, you're saying that it is common knowledge that MSNBC is liberal so it shouldn't be mentioned in the introduction. MSNBC is mostly known for its liberal commentary and the court opinion proves it. Meanwhile, have you provided any actual evidence for any of your contradictory assertions? CessnaMan1989 (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your simple inability to understand here will no longer be replied to. Zaathras (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then your lack of a remotely coherent argument shows that MSNBC should be described as a liberal news network(or news and political commentary network) in the lede. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 02:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The news is not "liberal". Much of its commentary is progressive, not conservative. But it's long had conservatives and neocons featured as well. SPECIFICO talk 18:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A political commentary show having opposing views on it doesn't change the orientation of the host network. Just about every major political commentary show puts opposing views on there as a foil for the audience. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not "opposing views". Hosts and featured personalities. Just one example, Joe "I was a congressman" Scarborough, a Reaganite throwback, and a history of the likes of Tucker Carlson, Michael Savage, et al. SPECIFICO talk 15:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The household names that some editors may call "right wing news sites" are not news sites. They are cable drama that do not adhere to journalistic standards, or in most cases not even the literary standards of fine fiction. SPECIFICO talk 18:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like it or not, at least enough of those "right-wing news sites" are "news" in the general sense of the term that an omission of a news network's political leanings doesn't necessarily imply that it is liberal or left-wing. As for your other claims, they're completely irrelevant to the topic, particularly the one about "fine fiction." This is about MSNBC's political leanings, not what makes fiction high or low quality. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know which news sites you're thinking are news sites? I suspect they are ones that WP considers deprecated as not reliable news sites. Meanwhile, MSNBC gets its news reporting from the NBC news organization, which is RS and well-established for journalistic practice. Some of the discussion shows are left-leaning on MSNBC, but then others, like "morning Joe" are stocked with raving Reaganites and recycled republicans. SPECIFICO talk 20:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of what you consider them, they're news sites. The New York Post, The Washington Times, Breitbart News, may all push debunked conspiracy theories as news, but they're still news sites and right-wing. The fact that MSNBC has a few opposing views on doesn't change the orientation of the network, just as those right-wing news sites probably have liberals on sometimes. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 21:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is Dancinig with the Stars also a news broadcast? How is it different from OAN and Fox evening programming? SPECIFICO talk 21:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've only seen Dancing with the Stars a couple of times, but I don't think it intends to convey or present general facts outside of the scope of its contest. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Same as evening and much other Fox Media. SPECIFICO talk 22:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are right-leaning, thus outliers within the general media realm. There's really nothing more to say here, as this just begins to go around in circles. The label "liberal" will not be appearing in the lede of this article. Zaathras (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are right-leaning, but they are very much within the general media realm. They aren't particularly "outliers". Right-wing sites are about 40% of the news sites, which is why the term "liberal" should be appearing in the lede of this article. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 02:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed edit to lead paragraph concerning acronym

No, this is not about partisanship or bias. I was just interested in what the MS stood for in the name. I found that it was covered in the lead paragraph but only after I knew to look for Microsoft. I didn't read very closely but I'd hoped to make the information a little easier to spot and to formally spell out the acronym as it was used initially. I was thinking it could look something like this

MSNBC and its website were founded in 1996 under a partnership between Microsoft and General Electric's NBC unit. Its name, MSNBC, was an acronym of Microsoft National Broadcasting Corporation.[1][2] Microsoft divested itself of its stakes in the MSNBC channel in 2005 and its stakes in msnbc.com in July 2012. The general news site was rebranded as NBCNews.com, and a new msnbc.com was created as the online home of the cable channel.[3] In the late summer of 2015, MSNBC revamped its programming by entering into a dual editorial relationship with its organizational parent NBC News. MSNBC Live, the network's flagship daytime news platform, was expanded to cover over eight hours of the day.[4]

Is this alright? Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 17:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC) Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 17:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article already states MSNBC and its website were founded in 1996 under a partnership between Microsoft and General Electric's NBC unit, hence the network's naming.. Seems clear enough. ValarianB (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ValarianB That's kinda what I mean though. Saying "hence the network's naming" is a backhanded way of stating it and not a phrasing that someone would usually think to search for. If someone was looking for that info and didn't know if it was in the article, what might they search for in the page? "Acronym", "stands for", "name", "stood for", "originally" (like, what was the company originally called), "called", "means", maybe even "MS " if they're hoping that someone parses out the MS part of the acronym and explains that. None of those get hits within the article though.
The other bit is that not many places actually expand the acronym and state it as such. Having it expanded as Microsoft National Broadcasting Corporation in italics and next to the word acronym would make it more probable that it would be highlighted by google searches asking this kinda question.
I think it's a generally harmless change and it is adding some new info (ie. the expanded form) that isn't mentioned in many other places. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 01:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ValarianB You said in the revert that it's bleedingly obvious but is it? Even knowing that it was formed from Microsoft and NBC, it wouldn't be surprising if someone guessed that MSNBC might stand for Microsoft Syndicated National Broadcasting Corporation or Microsoft Satellite National Broadcasting Corporation (like C-SPAN's is), but it doesn't. If the argument is that the meaning of the original acronym doesn't matter since nobody refers to them by that name anymore, then we can always delete all references to HBO standing for Home Box Office or 3M standing for Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company or bury the meaning of the acronym somewhere in the body of the article while we're at it, right? Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 21:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:ACRO1STUSE, "when something is most commonly known by its acronym [...], the expansion can come in the parenthetical or be omitted, except in the lead of its own article". Thinker78 (talk) 00:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thinker78 Oh, thank you! I did not know this existed! I really should presume MoS has a guideline somewhere until proven otherwise lol.
Given recent disagreements, I'd like to keep this open for a further several weeks before making definitive changes. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 17:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Stelter, Brian (October 6, 2010). "MSNBC on the Web May Change Its Name". The New York Times. Archived from the original on February 26, 2017. Retrieved February 22, 2017.
  2. ^ Wessberg; Arne (1999). "5, Public service broadcasting". In Tawfik, M; Bartagnon, G.; Courrier, Y. (eds.). World Communication and Information Report. 1999-2000 (PDF). A. Clayson. Paris: UNESCO. p. 99. ISBN 978-92-3-103611-8. OCLC 43403188. Archived from the original on 26 September 2022.
  3. ^ Stelter, Brian (July 15, 2012). "Microsoft and NBC Complete Web Divorce". The New York Times. Archived from the original on November 3, 2012. Retrieved October 9, 2012.
  4. ^ Steel, Emily (September 17, 2015). "MSNBC Retools to Sharpen Its Focus on Hard News". The New York Times. Archived from the original on July 29, 2017. Retrieved February 22, 2017.

MSNBC - Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding Just wanted to get some other opinions on this and have some discussion. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "MSNBC".The discussion is about the topic MSNBC. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!


Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2023

Wikipedia has no room for biases that favor any person(s), group(s), organization, and/or ideology or beliefs. Wikipedia has every obligation to remove its left wing biased overtones in its writings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.26.142.155 (talk) 11:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say about a topic. Being biased does not in and of itself preclude the use of a source on Wikipedia, as every source has biases. Sources are presented to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves as to bias and other factors. It is a common misunderstanding that Wikipedia is supposed to be "without bias", which is impossible. Wikipedia tries to have a neutral point of view, which is different. We don't, however, provide a false balance where sources do not.
If the sources in this article are not being summarized accurately, please detail the specific errors here. 331dot (talk) 11:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add the word “liberal”

It is not right to have “conservative” in Fox News wiki page but not note MSNBC being very liberal 209.122.198.74 (talk) 22:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are not the first person to ask this. Please provide independent reliable sources that describe MSNBC as liberal. Such sources do describe Fox News as conservative. 331dot (talk) 22:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: The section on controversies is sourced. The lead should summarize the whole article, so the fact that it has been labeled as "liberal" by specific sources should be mentioned in the lead. Janhrach (talk) 19:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is described there is only one small aspect of the article- and describes which sources deem MSNBC liberal. To make that claim in Wikipedia's voice, it must be shown that the preponderance of reliable sources describe it that way, not a limited few. 331dot (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: To be clear, I am concerned mainly about Britannica. I don't know if its claim is reliable or not, but I think the claim is notable, given that it is Britannica. I do not mean that MSNBC should be labeled as liberal in the first sentence, but I think the claim should be mentioned (as a claim) later in the lead. Janhrach (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but the mention of Britannica is just one line and its seems disproportionate to call out one line of the entire article in the lead- leaving aside wondering why Britannica should be specifically called out at all. 331dot (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand now, mentioning Britannica specifically would be undue. If we would want to mention more sources, but all objectively, we would arrive where we are now – to a separate section on bias claims. So I withdraw my suggestion that criticism should be mentioned in the lead. Anyway, thank you for your arguments. Janhrach (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NewsGuard has declared MSNBC unreliable

Add mention that NewsGuard has declared MSNBC to be an unreliable source of information and of poor journalistic quality. NewsGuard has been quoted directly for its assessment of various other news organizations in other articles, so there is consensus in favor of such an inclusion. Here is the link. 2A02:810A:12C0:598:6950:4A0D:9D02:60F3 (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please show other articles where this is discussed. 331dot (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioned briefly in WaPo. More in depth coverage in Variety just on MSNBC's Morning Joe, which quotes NewsGuard as saying e.g. "the hosts and guests have conveyed false and misleading information on a range of topics". Endwise (talk) 10:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to other Wikipedia articles that discuss NewsGuard and what it thinks of them. Who are they exactly? Are they recognized as an authority on judging journalistic quality? I want to know why their opinion should be specifically called out in this or any article. 331dot (talk) 10:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 381#Is NewsGuard reliable for checking accuracy of news sites? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 01:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Their news reporting is NBC News. The opinions are a different matter. SPECIFICO talk 01:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot Check the page Newsguard. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example of their negative factors for MSNBC: NewsGuard states

In addition, articles written for the MSNBC website wrongly declared that New York Post stories about Hunter Biden’s laptop were false (and have continued to be published uncorrected on the site).

Which stories? The ones that say what? SPECIFICO talk 21:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MSNBC&oldid=1202925102"