Talk:WRAL-TV

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

Untitled[edit]

I'm confused--why would WRAL take on ABC full-time when there was only one other station in town at the time (WTVD)? I'm wondering if it had something to do with the Civil Rights Movement--WBRC-TV in Birmingham went full ABC about the same time as WRAL because CBS strongly supported the Civil Rights Movement. Considering that gasbag Jesse Helms was a commentator on WRAL at the time, you could make a pretty good argument that the Fletchers were just as upset. Blueboy96 16:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TV Mast section[edit]

Any objections if I move the paragraph on the "TV Mast" to the end of this article, just above the external links, with a heading such as "Technical information"? This detailed information, of little use to a general audience, doesn't seem to belong in the introduction. Jpp42 11:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope- sounds good

Fair use rationale for Image:WRAL Logo.jpg[edit]

Image:WRAL Logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

de facto censorship?[edit]

The article states "Capitol Broadcasting and Helms engaged in de facto censorship." Is this actually correct? It implies that a broadcaster is required to broadcast all of the programming of the network it is affiliated with. It seems to me that Capitol Broadcasting was it's own first amendment rights, or maybe Helm's, instead of ABC's. That could explain why the network did not attempt any action against the station.

It would be helpful to have someone familiar with these issues to work on the paragraph in question.

Jdearden (talk) 02:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First Amendment rights have nothing to do with it. It has to do with whether WRAL violated its contract with ABC and/or federal communication laws. That's what would need to be determined. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I think of censorship, I normally associate that with the violation of the first amendment. This in itself may be erroneous.

On the other hand, as you say, WRAL may have violated it's contract with ABC. If WRAL's contract required them to carry, say, the entire news program including any commentary, but they did not, that's not censorship, it's a contract violation.

If we were talking about a book, it would be clearer, because a censor would have cut pieces out or otherwise changed the text. If we had access to the original we could compare the two and see what was different. But with a broadcast station there has to be something on the air. It might be clearer if WRAL replaced ABC's commentary with elevator music!

So, it might have been censorship, but doesn't seem to have been the case. It might have been a contract violation, but then ABC would have taken steps to end that. So it would seem the sentence I quoted is incorrect and should be removed. It would be good to have input from someone with more information than I, though. I was hoping that my comment would attract such a person. Jdearden (talk) 01:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship is not just first amendment, it's also hiding something you don't want someone else to see. For example, in the apartheid days of the south, any physical contact between black and white was typically censored in films. In the case of WRAL, they didn't want their audience to hear the "liberal" views of the network newscast, presumably for fear the people might agree with them. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Several comments: I was on the fringe of WRAL's signal in the early 60's, and watched often. One can speculate on why the station became a primary ABC affiliate, but, no business explanation seems to be offered in the article. There were no primary ABC affiliates to the east, south or west of WRAL's market, and, channel 5, as low band VHF, carried far out of the market. WRAL became a viable option for thousands of viewers in Greenville, upper South Carolina, Greensboro etc, as it would be showing programs not available in the local market. And, the CBS and NBC affiliates from other markets penetrated WRAL's home market. In addition, ABC was competitive,market for market where it was available equally with NBC and CBS, meaning the local stations did not suffer because of the lack of network affiliates in the country generally. ABC's advance in national ratings in the 70's had much to do with the increase in affilates as new stations came on the air. I have no knowledge of later programing, but, after WRAL went to ABC, for some time it continued to air NBC's Today Show, and NBC's evening news.Helm's editorial ran during the local WRAL newscast in the evening, NOT during the network news; that editorial was repeated the next morning at 7:25, the 5 minute local station option during the Today Show. The article is somewhat in error, although I do not know what happened after WRAL began using ABC NEWS, some years after this period. At no time when I was a viewer was network news interupted by Jesse Helms, and, I never knew the editorial to fill more than a 5 minute block. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgecreel (talk • contribs) 12:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KingSparta (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Today Was Valonda Calloway's Last Day[reply]

Clarification of "Triangle"[edit]

I have appended the words "television marketing area" to the term "Triangle" to clarify that the reference is to the TV marketing area, as is supported by the link. Fayetteville is definitely not part of "the Triangle" historically or as that term is understood by area residents. Although television is the context here, I think it is important to avoid fuzzing up the meaning of the geographical and historical name by making clear that the reference is only to a marketing area in the television world.Ed-Claude (talk) 12:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on WRAL-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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 14:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SNL controversy[edit]

Does anybody want to the put down on here the fact that WRAL censored parts of the November 12, 2016 airing of SNL when Dave Chappelle was hosting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CD3D:DB50:F502:60DE:C0E9:B0BC (talk) 02:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on WRAL-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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anchors: What about Denece Boyer?[edit]

Anchors: What about Denece Boyer in notable staff? 137.118.161.59 (talk) 01:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is Denece Boyer notable? She doesn't appear to be—at least, she doesn't have an article written about her. —C.Fred (talk) 02:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:WRAL-TV&oldid=1206083771"