Talk:Inside Edition

Polk Award

Didn't the program receive a Polk Award when O'Reilly was host or right after he left? It was that whole controversy with O'Reilly mistakenly claiming he won a Peabody when it was Inside Edition who won the Polk? Arnabdas 19:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"Awards" Section?

Is the awards section really necessary? For the most part, the awards do not seem to be prominent enough to be worth mentioning, let alone have its own dedicated section in the page. It seems, to me at least, that someone who works for, or is a big fan of the show added this entire section in an attempt to make the page look good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.10.166.1 (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

US economy?

This line clearly has nothing to do with this article American television viewers clearly need all the help they can get as the US economy continues to deteriorate. Either reword it, or remove it Paskari (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Is "controversy" section really necessary?

I'm not sure that the Bill O'Reilly outburst has any place here. The outburst itself was never aired on the show, and there's a whole huge paragraph about it. There isn't even a full paragraph describing Inside Edition while Bill O'Reilly was host. And why is the section labeled a controversy? A TV host getting angry off-air? Wow. Yeah. Huge controversy. I'm sure that's never happened before. And then we have some spam about Lucian Piane also in the paragraph. 70.224.17.162 (talk) 03:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's highly subjective, but the video became viral, including a brilliant (IMHO) dance remix. And it just got parodied on The Simpsons tonight (03/15/2009); Kent Brockman spazzes on-air when his homemade solar eclipse viewer isn't pre-built. I recognized it instantly. But you're wrong about it being off-air. The meltdown happened ON-air.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tJjNVVwRCY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2YDq6FkVE&feature=related Macshill (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it has no place here and in fact I am going to remove it. Anything that reads, 'currently there is a video circulating...' doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Not only only is it trivial information with little insight into the subject other than showing us some sensationalized incident, it also is a relative temporally. That is it may be current now, or the paragraph may have been added years ago and it is not really current. I would suggest that if someone wants to talk about Bill O'Rielly's outburst, they should put it in an article about Bill O'Rielly. At best, this deserves a sentence to point it to a more suitable place, and doesn't need to go on about how there are videos of it all over the internet as this does not in any way add to the information about the subject (Inside Edition), nor is it encyclopaedic (it is just internet 'rubber necking'). Theshowmecanuck (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Headings

The Wikipedia Manual of Style on heading (WP:HEAD) says that:

• the Wikipedia style for capitalizing headings is to use "sentence case" instead of "title case", e.g.,

Important things to know about this subject

not:

Important Things to Know About This Subject

This may be unfamiliar to many editors who believe that or have been taught that "title case is the right way to capitalize headings". It isn't the "right way", it is one style. Wikipedia has, for better or worse, chosen to follow a different style, i.e., capitalize the heading the same way you would capitalize any sentence:

• capitalize the first word,
• capitalize any proper nouns (people, places, organizations), and
• begin all other words with lower case letters

In addition, I have changed the heading "On-Air Talent" to "On-air staff". "Talent" is industry jargon. It does not describe the position or the work. It is meaningless to readers unfamiliar with American broadcast industry jargon, and is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. "Staff" indicates that these people are being listed because they work for the station. Ground Zero | t 03:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Bill O'Reilly

This article states that he was the host from 1989 - 1995, however, in the Bill O'Reilly article, it states that he started at Inside Edition in 1991. So, which is it? 4.168.0.31 (talk) 08:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

History Needs a Rewrite

The opening paragraph of the History Section is in dire need of being rewritten for clarity. Right now it is a difficult rant, with a quick, unclear explanation of how the TV program has arrived at the current rendition, but it doesn't seem to work for it's history... What network originated the broadcast? Was it CBS? As currently written, it doesn't clearly say where it first began on air... Stevenmitchell (talk) 04:10, 5 November 2021 (UTC)