Comments:US 'Big Brother' "live" eviction taped for the first time
Should CBS have aired the episode live despite Chima's threats?
edit
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Quick hints for new commentators:
- Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
- Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
- You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading
It still should have been "live". If Chima can't control herself in the house then she should be kicked out of the house by CBS. Why should the viewers be punished because of her actions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.202.188.225 (talk • contribs)
Uh, just how is this news? *sigh* More fancruft filler. 72.150.237.34 (talk) 02:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ah but yet you took the time to read it AND comment on it :) DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 05:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- That's hardly an argument against the article being fancruft. I only came to the comment page to ask why this was published in the first place. Entertainment is not news, unless you are an entertainment-news source. (this is something I still question about WikiNews) Fine, if that's the case, but that's not the premise of why I come to WikiNews. If all this entertainment nonsense is going to clutter things up, then I will have to look elsewhere for a more professional news-source. 72.150.237.34 (talk) 03:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- There is not enough of it to clutter things up. While I share your disdain for this story, I feel that the odd one or two should be acceptable without causing trouble, rather like the way we accept local stories. If we get flooded I will be calling for a raise in the newsworthiness bar, but until then... One or two are harmless, and Mike has invested a of time for exclusive interviews, so let him have his fun. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 09:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- That's hardly an argument against the article being fancruft. I only came to the comment page to ask why this was published in the first place. Entertainment is not news, unless you are an entertainment-news source. (this is something I still question about WikiNews) Fine, if that's the case, but that's not the premise of why I come to WikiNews. If all this entertainment nonsense is going to clutter things up, then I will have to look elsewhere for a more professional news-source. 72.150.237.34 (talk) 03:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Like it or not, entertainment is news. Do you even read or watch what is considered "news" nowadays? Mike Halterman (talk) 07:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- That still is not a reason to stoop to their level. I hope someone were paid for bringing this advertisement. --80.167.173.75 (talk) 07:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Have you even read anything I've written before? I've been here for years and put together a lot of nice interviews, and it's not anything relating to foreign policy or nuclear weapons. I'm a journalist in real life and pop culture is my specialty. Someone "were" not paid to write this, I did it on my own. And I'm going to do it again too, with or without your blessing. Mike Halterman (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- That still is not a reason to stoop to their level. I hope someone were paid for bringing this advertisement. --80.167.173.75 (talk) 07:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Fascinating stuff indeed. --78.151.140.174 (talk) 02:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)