Talk:George Stroumboulopoulos Tonight

2005 update needed

Resolved

 – Old news.

This is about 'Season One'. The new season started on November 7th, with many changes. Videos will probably start appearing on the show's website within a few weeks, after which this should be updated. (For example, the format has changed dramatically.)

During the december 14, 2005, George, talking about this article, mentioned that the show does not specifically target a younger audience, so I think it should be removed from the article (2nd paragraph I think)--72.138.175.46 01:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Watch the segment again, when he referred to the show not expressly targeting younger viewers, his comments were certainly said sarcastically and meant to be taken as tongue in cheek. If the show were not meant to attract a younger audience, Don Newman would be the host. mhunter 04:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with mhunter and have included more on that in the last paragraph. I don't agree with taking out the point about targeting a younger audience. No matter what George says, that was CBC's intent. It should stand. Sunray 07:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia self-reference

I've moved the following from the main article because it's self-referencing and opinionated. Feel free to try to salveage whatever might be interesting from here, but I can't find anything. Fagstein 17:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

In a segment of the show devoted to Wikipedia on December 14, 2005, Stroumboulopolis commented on Wikipedia articles about him and The Hour (i.e., this article). He was pleased with the accuracy of the article on himself, but took issue with the comment about the show's primary demographics being "adolescents and young adults." He might have a hard time convincing folks within the CBC itself, it seems. George is described as a "pop culture guru" on the CBC's website, which also quotes a viewer saying: "Just when the whole political scene was becoming extremely unpopular with my generation (the same age group that has the lowest election turnouts), your show piqued my interest."[1] In a humourous vein, Mrs. Enid of This Hour Has 22 Minutes, says in a clip on the same webpage: "The CBC trying to be young and hip is like an old lady wearing a thong..."

Perhaps, what George was trying to point out is that the show reaches a wide audience. While this is, no doubt, true, its youth appeal is undeniable. A wide audience of tweens and teenagers is not a wide audience----check out the BBM ratings or are you too busy making love to the executive producer again?------Please how tacky is that

If you read the guideline, this is not a Wikipedia self-reference. It is, after all Stromboulopolis who refers to Wikipedia and the paragraph simply records that. The guide does state "Wikipedia can, of course, write about Wikipedia..."

I know i am not the only one who would like to hear many of the qualified professional that question the 9-11 Commission. I'm sure Georgey knows that the teenagers that watch the show would like to be informed about this as well. Maybe George, just avoids controversy on the show or has not found the time because he is too busy interviewing ephemeral pop stars to weigh up the empirical data itself.

I also have difficulty seeing why you think it is opinionated. It simply juxtaposes his comment that the show isn't targeted towards young adults with CBC's own promotional material about the show. NPOV can involve presenting both sides. This seems to me to be an interesting item to include in an otherwise rather dull article. Could the paragraph be improved? Sure. Sunray 09:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Viewer Response section

The section removed by Hunter1084 on February 9 2006 is a very common viewer response to this show, likely the single most common response, and it is based on the facts provided. It was not an ungrounded POV and was therefore restored. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.53.180.231 (talk • contribs) .

It is, however, unreferenced. From where is this information coming from? Fagstein 16:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I see that you have singled out comments which were critical of the show and said nothing about the unreferenced but largely positive claims immediately above it, which I’ll quote below. Therefore I don't find this to be valid criticism and suspect that it is only an attempt to censor the piece and spin it in a positive direction, so I’ll revert back to the previous edit, at least temporarily. Here is the section the above poster left, even though it is unreferenced, while deleting my section for being unreferenced.

“The Hour has been met with a diverse response of both controversy and acceptance. It has been successful in attracting viewers from all demographics, and many viewers consider its unorthodox method of presenting the news to be a refreshing difference from the CBC's regular presentation of news. It does not simply discuss current events, it brings them into perspective and challenges various viewpoints on these events. This format is equally open to controversy, however. Often The Hour is characterized as nothing more than CBC's attempt to attract younger viewers.”

This person has unintentionally raised a good question, however. As this quoted bit here is completely unsupported it should probably be removed. I’ll see if I can find some guidelines on this and then delete it if it seems appropriate. Much of the comments I added, otoh, can be easily referenced, but quantifying the number of people who don’t like the show because of its regional character would be a little tougher.

Agreed. It's gone. If someone can find some critical analyses of the show in the media they can quote from that. Otherwise it's just people's opinions. Fagstein 07:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. There is also a line at the top of the page, “The show's down-to-earth, no-spin approach to the news has attracted a diverse demographic audience, well beyond the youth audience that was the CBC network's original intended audience for the show.” which is also unreferenced and should be deleted, so I’ve done that. When I get a chance I’ll include the factual information about George’s background, noting in particular his very limited exposure to Canada and Canadian culture outside Toronto, in a section above and I’ll include references to his bio and the bios of other hosts of national CBC programs, particularly cultural programs, to show the striking difference. This is, I think, the single most important factor that the viewer needs to know about when viewing this show, and it’s one many will be surprised to find out because of CBC’s past good record at ensuring that their hosts had well rounded education and experience. Knowing this fact will, I’m sure, answer a lot of people’s questions about the show. - 198.53.180.231 Feb. 13, 2006

George’s bio itself shows just how regional he is. He was born and raised in the greater Toronto area. He went to school at Humber college in Toronto. He spent less than a year working in Kelowna before moving back to Toronto where he’s been ever since. Further, most of his working experience has been in Toronto for MuchMusic, a channel that is centred around Toronto’s Queen Street West music and pop culture. MuchMusic also has its VJ’s take on a distinctive hosting style. This style is a Moses Znaimer creation which he uses on some of his other Toronto and Toronto based programming as well. All this I would say falls into the realm of common knowledge for anyone who is familiar with the stations I’m talking about.

On the inappropriateness of a regional personality such as George as the host of a national show, CBC has had a long standing policy of hiring people with a good familiarity with different parts of the country to host its national shows. Peter Gzowski worked various places, most notably a long stretch in Moose Jaw. Peter Mansbridge worked in a number of places including spending time in the Navy and working in Churchill Manitoba, Winnipeg and Regina, and you can go down the list of other CBC national personalities and see similar, well rounded backgrounds. What the CBC has done in recent years with youth culture, however, most notably by hiring George and Jian Ghomeshi, two essentially purely regional personalities who have spent little to no time working in other parts of the country, is a radical departure. It’s also clearly very biased and the source of a lot of complaints. (CBC’s prior attention to ensuring a national voice and perspective on their national shows has earned them a great deal of good will, I should add, and many people who have seen The Hour believe that CBC will of course have taken the same care with this show and will defend it on this basis. In this case, however, CBC has let them down and is really broadcasting a culturally regional show while trying to pass it off as national show.) The first part of this is easily referenced, but if we are going to delete the above quoted unreferenced section, however, I guess I shouldn’t comment on the number of complaints without first digging up a reference. I will leave it in now, however, as I am leaving the above unreferenced section in while I hunt down the guidelines. - 198.53.180.231 Feb. 12, 2006

On merging The Hour article into George Stroumboulopoulos Tonight

In my opinion, it was incorrect to merge The Hour and George Stroumboulopoulos Tonight thus blurring the separation between two shows. Admittedly George Stroumboulopoulos Tonight is totally different. We should have kept The Hour article tackling its six seasons distinctly, we should have created a separate George Stroumboulopoulos Tonight article tackling only Tonight as it commenced its season 1, after end of The Hour. As things stand now, the distinction is gone. These are two separate programs, two separate formats, even two separate audiences. I propose a discussion and hopefully a concensus to restore The Hour article and restart a new Tonight article only related to Septemver 20, 2010 and onwards. werldwayd (talk) 05:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Our article states: Current show segments on George Stroumboulopoulos Tonight include: "Mile a Minute"/"The News"/"The List"/"Best Story Ever" segments... On some programs, Stroumboulopoulos reads aloud viewer correspondence, in a segment called "George Reads the Mail." This couldn't be more misleading. These were capsules in The Hour. The George Stroumboulopoulos Tonight just includes an intro and interviews. This is yet another reason The Hour article should have never been cancelled and moved here. werldwayd (talk) 06:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I have now created a new format section for George Stroumboulopoulos Tonight attributing almost all earlier materials solely to The Hour as they don't apply to the new show werldwayd (talk) 03:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Split proposed

This article clearly needs to be split into George Stroumboulopoulos Tonight and The Hour (Canadian TV show) (where it used to be). The article itself says that The Hour "was discontinued". George Stroumboulopoulos Tonight is not thus not actually the same show. It's clearly a successor show with a similar format and many of the same people working on it. Putting them in the same article is about like putting The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien and Conan (TV series) in the same article. We just don't do that. See comments above, like "I have now created a new format section for George Stroumboulopoulos Tonight attributing almost all earlier materials solely to The Hour as they don't apply to the new show", for examples of why trying to combined two related TV shows (or other works of any kind) into one article can be problematic and confusing. Another issue is that we are falsely stating that George Stroumboulopoulos Tonight won awards which were actually presented to The Hour, a different show with (mostly) a different run-time, a different broadcast schedule, many different personnel, and even format differences. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 15:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Funny, on http://www.cbc.ca/strombo/ the first season as George Stroumboulopoulos Tonight was previously referred to as season seven. Now, that season is indeed being referred to as the first season, though episodes of The Hour are still there for viewing. If you wanna separate them, I'm OK with it.--EclecticEnnui (talk) 03:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think it is quite the same as Conan's situation. Conan's shows have appeared on two different networks with a hiatus between them. As our own article states, Conan "more closely represent[s] Late Night than Tonight in regards to content and material..." In contrast, The Hour and GS Tonight are basically an evolution of the same show on the same network, in the same timeslot. The article currently has separate subsections for each show's format. There is a redirect from The Hour to George Stroumboulopoulos Tonight. Doesn't that about cover it? Sunray (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the subsection is fine, since the shows are fundamentally the same, on the same network and time slot there is no reason to split it.MilkStraw532 (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

On the show, George has actually referred to this season as the 8th season at least a couple of times. I agree with the others. It's actually probably best to keep it as it is. Can that split tag be removed now?--EclecticEnnui (talk) 02:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I decided to go ahead and remove it.--EclecticEnnui (talk) 04:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George Stroumboulopoulos Tonight. 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/20140310183716/http://www.brioux.tv/2014/03/report-strombo-scores-rogers-hnic.html to http://www.brioux.tv/2014/03/report-strombo-scores-rogers-hnic.html

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) 07:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)