Talk:Today Tonight

Possible Axing

Fingers crossed. http://mumbrella.com.au/today-tonight-axed-135901 211.31.37.109 (talk) 11:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Today Tonights Chaser APEC stunt report

Just saw today tonights report on the Chaser APEC stunt. Probably the most one-sided, biased news report I have ever seem, shock-shots and shock-music all around, nothing short of propaganda. Everyone I've talked to is completely supportive of what The Chaser did, yet EVERY SINGLE person interviewed by Today Tonight was against it.

Whatever happened to ethical journalism? And how do these people sleep at night? With shows like Today Tonight being broadcast almost every night, I am now seriously worried about the future of the media and, by relation, democracy in this country.

If there are any sources to quote I would like to see a section containing a nuanced examination of Today Tonights political loyalties. I'm afraid I myself am too frustrated and angry to do an unbiased job of it myself, so I'll refrain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.132.201 (talk) 04:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

What exactly do you expect from Today Tonight? They have to make up news and make it look bad so people watch it. A couple of years back their producers hired a mustang and drove down the Queenslands Gold Coast where they found some targets ("Hoons") and offered them decent cash if they could film them for an upcoming DVD for their "production house" "Extreme Video". They paid them and filmed them do do burnouts and "race" on the streets. They then butchered all the interviewing they did with these people, chopped and changed and edited the heck out of it until these guys looked even worse. They then went to air with a "breaking story" about how Today Tonight have uncovered the underground illegal racing 'gangs' and talked down these otherwise average kids. The funny thing is around a year later (maybe two?) they aired a story about three people who lost their licences for filming a mate doing a burnout (All three lost their licences, the driver, the filmer and a passenger). The presenter closed with some witty comment "Well us, and I'm sure the rest of Australia have no sympathy for you". I was wondering when the TT producers where going to hand their licence in for doing even worse on the Gold Coast :) 210.1.223.204 (talk) 08:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

removal of odds and ends

Below is some odd text I have removed. Seems unclear/confusing. Not sure how/why Today Tonight could occupy the same slot as ACA since ACA has been running since 1971. And why would nine run two different identical shows? Asa01 21:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Although Today Tonight is currently on Channel 7, in the early 1980s it was on Channel 9 in timeslot now home to A Current Affair.

The old Queensland version of the show was hosted by ????

Between 1979 and 1985, Today Tonight was a QTQ-9 (Channel 9 Brisbane) current affairs program which and ran against Seven's State Affair. ACA used to run at 930 monday - thursday Austvguy 11:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Odd

"Today Tonight is in direct competition with Ray Martin's A Current Affair. Despite being produced and made in Melbourne, the program has lower ratings in the city than its competitor made in Sydney. In Sydney, Today Tonight is the leader, thanks to a strong lead-in of fast-paced gameshow Deal or No Deal and Seven News with Ian Ross."

Which program is produced in Melbourne, and has lower ratings there? Unlike A Current Affair, Today Tonight is not produced in one single city (it has multiple editions, as the opening paragraph makes quite clear). - Mark 16:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The Today Tonight East-state version (produced in Melbourne) wins in Sydney, whist A Current Affair (produced in Sydney) wins in Melbourne. Austvguy 11:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Criticism and NPOV

(I've merged several threads together)114.77.210.119 (talk) 09:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the 'Criticism' section due to the information being unverified - as much as I detest Today Tonight :) Cnwb 04:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• It is interesting to note that nearly one third of all breach findings made by the Australian Broadcasting Authority against television broadcasters since the beginning of 2003 have involved Today Tonight. This covers every program aired on television by every telvision station.

Today Tonight is often sighted as an example of Junk Journalism and they've been caught out in the past for not properly researching their stories. I think the most famous example is probably the dole army hoax http://www.insnews.org/world/focus/0202/oz.media.hoax.htm

They tend to spend a lot of time forcing a one sided opinion down your throat. That is not good journalism! Factoid Killer 22:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Hmmm... I really think a criticism section detailing the dole army hoax is appropriate here. Factoid Killer 22:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Also their focus on single mothers. And what is their affiliation with Prime Time? Factoid Killer 22:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• I've added a cited reference to the Dole Army as this was a specific incident. However vague analysis of the show's unusual focus on single mothers and the unemployed are not really appropriate for the article. --Canley 04:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

(Keep 'em coming!)

Please keep adding to this article (especially the criticism).

I am a noob so forgive me. The article mentions "Fazza" Who is that?

No Idea.

Maybe add to the current affair page as well, as much of the bias and exaggeration also applies there. raptor 10:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

(Criticism sections)

I've removed the criticism section from the article. While I mostly agree with its content regarding the conduct of TT, the section is unverifiable, not of a neutral point of view, and possibly original research or analysis.

If you do want to have a criticism section, try one of the following:

1. Citing specific controversial cases or stories like the "Wa-Wa" incident (with references). These speak for themselves.
2. If you are going to mention criticism, don't use your own opinion or analysis (that's original research), or use weasel words like "many people believe" or "some people say". Directly quote someone published or broadcast elsewhere with a reference - a media expert, public figure or politician - where they criticise the show. Example: "Media expert Jim Canley told The 7.30 Report that the national IQ had dropped 5 points since Today Tonight had been on air." (obviously I've made this up, don't quote it!).
3. Mention verifiable dated statistics (hopefully published elsewhere, but a link to the Australian Communications and Media Authority may be OK) of TT making up one-third of the ACMA investigations.

--Canley 15:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• It is improper representation to have a critisism section exclusively to Today Tonight, and not ACA. Both shows incorperate the same unethical, questionable and ignorent reporting, and if there is going to be a critisism in the Today Tonight section, there must be one in ACA.

"Like A Current Affair, Today Tonight is notorious for its sensationalist reporting similar to Inside Edition,..."

Referencing ACA as a comparison seems sensible as it was mentioned earlier in the article, but to describe TT by comparing it to a North American program seems to privilege North American users. Thoughts?

Votedukakis 11:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Barcelona Tonight.. Mallorca???

'not on the island of Mallorca'. Wasn't skase on the island of Majorca? Factoid Killer 22:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems Mallorca is more correct: check out the Wiki article on Mallorca Rocksong 23:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The graph

The graph suggests that a Melbourne program is viewed in 3 cities. This is incorrect. Since Naomi left, the show is now produced out of Sydney's Martin Place studios. Austvguy 02:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. I'll update the article to reflect that. --Tntnnbltn 17:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Fanbase/primary demographic

Much like A Current Affair, each time I watch this show I feel as though it is geared towards a conservative fanbase. This is due to its penchant (once again like ACA) to constantly attack foreigners, the unemployed and such. Is this show supposed to be neutral? Gamer Junkie 09:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The demographic is usually middle class working families and the elderly. The Australian did an article http://www.theage.com.au/news/Opinion/Demonising-youth-of-today-tonight/2005/04/12/1113251624108.html asks much the same question, the only certainty being TV tabloid journalism isn't aimed at youth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.168.194.181 (talk) 07:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

The Chaser section needs a rewrite. Although I personally agree, it is biased. ~ Trisreed my talk my contribs 12:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Also poorly written. --Mikecraig 22:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for removing it - how is it a controversy against Today Tonight? If it is, then we'll bring in the report between James Thomas involving "Meakin Booze Bus" as controversy too. This is a form of controversy which involves The Chaser doing things towards Today Tonight, not the reverse where Today Tonight are doing things towards others. It looks ugly because of its poor writing standards. I'm removing the section first - if you guys agree about this controversy being not Today Tonight's, then don't bother writing anything about it at all. If you can write something which is better than the current version, and looks as though it is a controversy of Today Tonight's then go for it. Alltrainzfan 04:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of valid points to it..firstly, the fact that they are obsessed with the Chaser (don't quote that for the article though). Then there's also the allegations they 'detained' Andrew, that they showed quite a few freelancers' private phone numbers in their story, and the overall way they handled it - it took up more than half of the show.

If you put it in the context of their ongoing thing with the Chaser then it is quite relevant. timgraham 06:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Some possible sources: [1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10]. timgraham 06:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Well what do you senior guys think? I'm leaving it to the professionals to handle this "controversy".Alltrainzfan (talk) 06:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It's Summer!

Samantha Armytage is doing Summer East Coast edition, how about South Australia? I know Tina Alteri is the Summer for WA, but SA used to be Rosanna, now it has to be someone else. Alltrainzfan (talk) 07:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The real reason it is aired

The fact that these shows air straight after the evening news, often without any obvious break to indicate a programme change, seems important to mention. I've even seen the official 'news' presenters introduce them at the end of their timeslot - here's <blah blah> with more news on a current affair!, for example.

Clearly, everyone sensible hates these shows... I'd like to see some justification as to why they even bother airing them - they must make money somehow, but how...? If you want to winge about something, do you pay them? That doesn't make sense - 90% of the segments are sob stories on some poor down and out girl/guy getting screwed by The Man.

Sure a bunch of incidents showing how they fucked up is good, but I only looked up this article in the hope that it would explain why these channels waste so much production time, money, and effort on producing, basically, actively harmful audio/visual excrement...

203.24.134.243 (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I could say the same about the Daily Telegraph, and it's clearly making money. The show unfortunately rates its socks off. Too bad that journalistic ethics takes a back seat when the stories air. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, a common problem, but the question boils down to *why* do these shows rate so highly? I find it hard to believe the average person is so dimwitted as to mistake this for news, or even entertainment. Really. As opinionated and narcisistic as I apparently am, I still have trouble believing these ratings aren't rigged somehow. Is there a disgruntled ex-employee that wants to spill the beans, or will he be murdered if he talks?

Hmm, now wouldn't that make a great story!

Bunching?

I'm seeing a heck of a lot of whitespace on this article, I'm fairly certain it's caused by the image and the bunching tags. Can we do something about this? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Move request

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Article not moved ~~ GB fan ~~ 03:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Today Tonight → Today Tonight (Australian TV program) — This has existed since 1995 but there is a much older show with the same name at Today Tonight (Ireland). Neither seem very well known outside their respective countries. Both describe themselves as dealing with current affairs. Suggest moving that one to Today Tonight (Irish TV programme) as well. --86.45.84.132 (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Implicit in this request is that Today Tonight will be a disambiguation page (otherwise, why move?). With only two Today Tonights, a dab page is not needed (per WP:DAB) and would require users seeking the Australian programme to click twice while saving those seeking the Irish one nothing. The current hatnotes suffice. — AjaxSmack 23:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support per no primary usage indicated by the nominator. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 04:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per AjaxSmack. This article gets 20 times the pageviews[11][12] of the Irish one. Station1 (talk) 06:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. I've got no problem with having a two-entry dabpage, but I'm reasonably satisfied that the Australian show is the better known of the two. I do agree with the nom that "(Ireland)" is an unsatisfactory disambiguator, so I would support that move. PC78 (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Page Protection

Someone needs to get this page protected, there's way too much vandalism going on. I call the big one bitey 06:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Never.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Today Tonight. 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/20081107060907/http://www.theage.com.au:80/articles/2006/11/27/1164476136524.html to http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/11/27/1164476136524.html

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} 21:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)