Talk:MTV

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Society Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Media, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to media. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
MTV is within the scope of WikiProject Music, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to music. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
TV
Television Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Assessment comments

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the MTV article.
Article policies

Bold text[[

Contents

[edit] Link title

Image:Suppp boooooooooooooooo]]


VH1 Classic is showing a special on this (disappointing, so don't go out of your way to find it). They show the beginning as the 15 minute leadup and countdown for one of the space shuttle launches, before "Ladies and gentlemen, rock and roll!" and the original MTV theme song. I'm not going to edit this because because I can't verify whether the countdown occurred at 11:45

== MTV Programming on Sept 11, 2001? ==for 24 hours as part of the year's Hate Crimes awareness campaign.

Was this also totally not true on 9/11..? Didn't almost all networks and stations flip to some sort of news coverage? I remember seeing like MSNBC news on Bravo or something... MPScan

I believe that for 48 hours after the attacks, they showed a blue screen that said that they had ceased regular programming in respect to the important events that had taken place, or something like that. ThePacMan 19:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure they aired CBS News coverage on the day itself, and then that night (around 11 p.m. ET), switched to a constant, commercial-free rotation of music videos that might lift people's spirits. That continued until Friday, September 14th, when they aired a special news edition of "TRL" to talk about it. --Samvscat 19:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WTF?

September 11th is, historically, a date synonymous with tragedy.

Beside the innumerable tragedies and acts of imperialism on the world stage attributed to this date, September 11th is notoriously bad for America. For example:

1857 - The Mountain Meadows Massacre in Utah 1919 - The US invades Honduras 2001 - The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon

and VERY tragically…

1970 - The Ford Pinto is introduced

Even Hollywood has been marred by this date. In 1921 Fatty Arbuckle was arrested for rape and then subsequently acquitted, although his career never recovered.

And now the coup de gras of all national and Hollywood tragedies proceeds tomorrow when "What Perez Sez" premieres on VH1.

God knows why shit-talking has become the leitmotif of E! and VH1, but with the introduction of an entire show centered around a talentless hack, it doesn't show any signs of changing.

Mario Armando Lavandeira Jr. (AKA Perez Hilton) has made his career waiting for miniscule celebrity screw-ups on which to inflate and then build his own reputation to make up for a failed career that actually would have required some sort of talent. Even the name, "Perez Hilton", is a novelty hack on the name of a talentless bitch that Lavandeira wishes he could be.

I'm not defending the celebrities Lavandeira skewers. Britney certainly wasn't in professional form. The VMA's certainly did suck all around. They sucked so bad that Alicia Keys finally had the chance to shine amidst more glamorous and popular hedonistic hollywood elitists (not to downplay the incredible performance by Chris Brown). Where I take issue with Lavandeira and his gossip predecessors, is that he is symptomatic of the plague that has infected the American psyche. We tune in to gossip shows to catch a glimpse of celebrities embarrassing themselves. The tabloids exist for this premise alone. Lavandeira is just the latest head popping up out of the hydra stump of gossip columnists who masquerade as being authorities on any topic. The most puke-inducing part of their form of celebrity is the undeserved air of accomplishment they take on. People take offense to the biased ramblings of puppet pundits like Anne Coulter, but we should truly be more concerned with the very existence of the phoney gossip elite. At least Coulter has an educated bias on real matters.

Funny enough, Lavandeira knows where his meals come from. He made the ludicrous claim that Britneys performance was disrespectful to MTV (Which owns VH1). Seriously dude, MTV is responsible, more than anyone else, for the destruction of any artistic merit in music today. They destroyed music so badly that it's hard to actually find music on Music Television, anymore.

How sad is it that after all is said and done, Justin Timberlake is the one with class amongst all these celebrities that are little more than persistent protoplasm? Do you realize how ridiculous that is? Justin Timberlake! He simultaneously paid homage to the great performers that preceded him while humbly acknowledging the talent displayed after Browns performance. Seriously folks! I feel violated acknowledging this.

Well Mario, good luck with your show. I'm sure the public can't wait for you to out another gay man who just wants to be left alone. We'll be watching with baited breath as you attack celebrity fashion choices that you couldn't afford (although judging by many of your photos, you're in no place to talk). And, of course, we can't wait to hear you criticize performances that you wish you had the gaul, talent, budget, acumen, and/or creativity to do yourself. The viewing audience will be there in their envy and jealousy of the celebrities they pay to hate. I can already hear the sound of billions of neurons dying as their synaptic charges die out. Perhaps your show gives credence to social darwinism. Apparently it's time to thin the herd for humanities survival.

Never mind, you don't need luck with your show. It'll do just fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.170.104.24 (talk) 23:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] mtv brasil

here in brazil they were sued in 2002 by an non-governmental organization, 'cause they put 180 frames of sadomasoquism and pedophilia in an add. and now they were sued once again 'cause of pedophilia in a mtv unpluggeed song, and the government obligated them to pass info about child sexual abbuse. ehere is a link in portuguese and at the bottom of tha page you can see 2 frames from the first add: http://www.mensagemsubliminar.com.br/noticias.php?action=view&id=NDUxMDYuNg==


==General== What nobody seemed to add to the article is the fact that MTV LATIN AMERICA completely replaced their programming on 9/11 to show live coverage of the events of that day.

Does the MTV Series box in this article also not render properly for other Firefox users? Remy B 07:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

How about an article about mtv censorship? An index about the banned videos and stuff life that?

If such a page is done, it should be noted its solely MTV US and MTV UK&IRL that censor videos. MTV Central does not, for instance. --Kiand 21:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Do you count the vids they refuse to show at all? Trekphiler 08:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed TRL from the list of shows - it's primarily a music/video show, which is different from the others in the list. (If you want to include them, it should be in a separate section along with Yo MTV Raps, Headbanger's Ball, etc.) Removed the name of the director of Video Killed the Radio Star (Russel Mulcahy). Not relevant enough to the MTV page. GGano

The criticism section is, as it stands, completely unfounded and could easily simply be the opinion of the writer. Would be useful to have some references. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:51, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

p.s. isn't it a little odd that this page has been moved back and forth at least three times, and yet there is no talk page discussion about the most appropiate name? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:51, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And now it has been moved AGAIN. And still no discussion. WHY? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 22:13, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Quite agree. The fact that the article also describes Magyar Televisió and Mainos-TV makes the move inappropriate, which is why I'm moving it back. Arwel 00:07, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
For whatever it's worth, I also agree that MTV is the right place for this, both for the reason Arwell states and because that's the name of the channel ("Music Television") being a subtitle of sorts. . . Jgm 00:55, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
For what its worth I just found out my television calls it MTV (channel four-hundred-and-something). Let's keep it here (MTV) from now on unless someone says why not on this page. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 08:58, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Page moved by User:YOMHER AGAIN without discussion, and moved back. Strong note left on his user page not to move it without discussion here. Arwel 22:09, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Is it really true that MTV started out as a rock music video station? I was under the impression that even in their early years they played a lot of pop---Duran Duran, New Order, Madonna, and so on. --Delirium 22:42, May 8, 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't describe The Buggles (whose Video Killed the Radio Star was the first video played on MTV) as rock! -- Arwel 23:27, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
By the way, whatever happened to the details of Magyar Televisio and Mainos TV which used to be on this page? -- Arwel 23:27, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
When MTV started the video scene was pretty new, so they would pretty much play whatever was sent to them. It was more new-wave than traditional pop. This came from some (pathetic) history of MTV that VH1 had aired at one point, with one of the veejays talking about it.

This entry could use the MTV logo... if there was permission to use it. Allyunion 10:44, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How about a screenshot of the Moonman and the MTV flag

[edit] Zig & Zag

Hmmmm... anyone has suggestions about where to add the sockpuppets Zig & Zag? With the cartoons? SietskeEN 13:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm guessing you might mean Zig and Zag (puppets), but I can't ever remember them being on MTV... --Kiand 13:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Well... they were at MTV Europef around 1994. I believe Ray Cokes proclaimed to have introduced them, but I'm not quite sure. Thanks anyway for the link! SietskeEN 08:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Whatever happened to Nipplegate?

I had noticed that there wasn't anything in the article about the Superbowl XXXVIII halftime show. As MTV produced the show, that should at least have some mention in there - regardless of how each person feels about the network and the show itself.
JesseG 20:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Guest hosts

Anybody think including guest DJs would be a good idea? First one, I hear, was Adam Ant. (Personally, I could care less, but...) Trekphiler 08:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The criticism

As much as I agree with the criticisms of MTV, it does seem fairly biased. I love this article and agree with it entirely, but it appears to be extremely biased.

The criticism article does seem to have multiple unattributed quotes. It could certainly use a cleanup. BinaryTed 16:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree it warrants a cleanup. This section is an accumulation of "critic" complaints with no specific critics being cited. Moreover, it reads like a gossip column of subjective bias, drowning in music trivia.
Thefool 22:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

it seems to me that MTV critism should gert its own artical LOL(Esskater11 23:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

I certainly agree, therefore I shall do some research when I'm bored this summer to create the article "Criticism of MTV" and add that to the MTV Template. Thanks for your suggestion! --Andrewlp1991 19:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I am quite certain that there are a lot of people like me, who don't come accross as constipated conservative whiny parents that have a very different criticism of MTV. Like the opinion that MTV is basicaly one big machine to manipulate young people to buy things. Most of my friends have used drugs and I praise loose women that some foul tongues would desacrate as sluts. What I dislike is that MTV promotes a very damaging culture, a very bad way of dealing with people, friends, partners.

I am very sure many rock bands have expressed similar feelings.

For instance what does radio head have to say about MTV? Queens of the stoneage?

Though they are not institutions they most definitely are spokes people, and for that matter though I don't aggree with everyhing they say, you can count Radiohead as a spokesperson for me.

Guidocalvano 02:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Serious cleanup needed.

Particularly in the "criticism" section. Every other word is "also." Kestrel 17:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

    • MTV UK has recently been under fire as it no longer airs any daytime music videos, outside of parts of a few shows like Total Request Live and Making the Video, and focuses primarily on MTV produced reality shows such as The Osbournes and Punk'd. Many argue, however, that as MTV runs nine music channels in the UK, it has delegated music videos to its genre channels in a bid to differentiate itself from the competition of the fourteen other music video-oriented channels. Videos are also often played between other shows and at night.
    • MTV UK has also been attacked for over-use of on-screen graphics, such as logos, programme promotion and countdown timers, and its electronica-themed genre channel MTV Dance is often derided for playing a lack of dance music during the day, preferring a mix of pop-dance, pop, and R&B. Ironically, the channel has also been criticized for lacking programming.
    • Critics have said that MTV was like "pornography for children."
    • There are also critics of MTV and their reality shows such as NEXT, the game dating show that demoralizes individuals by making the daters complete various tasks and games only to be "Nexted" when they were not pleasing enough because of their looks. The show also airs homosexual daters, which can be seen as controversial and just a ratings ploy.
    • Another field that MTV has dabbled in is gaming. MTV was the first channel to show the new Xbox 360,gaming purists have been angered at the fact that MTV got the first look at the system and not established game medias like G4TV(however G4 itself has changed in recent months as well). Also gamers have the tendency to boycott anything MTV has to offer about gaming whther they are reviews or Award Shows.A majority of the gaming world depises MTV because of the fact they review games solely on fads. For example MTV was extremely estatic on the new 50 Cent:Bulletproof game which did sell well but hated by veteran gamers.

The above are examples of things that need citations. And when I mean citations, I mean more than just some bloke on an intenet forum saying 'MTV is shit because it no longer plays music.' Anon Dude 15:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Although MTV is shit because it no longer plays music, I also agree also that it also needs citations also. Kestrel 01:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


++The timeline seems totally arbitrary. Why should "eras" be split by odd years when no apparent change is detectable? To me the only clear changes were from all-music format to the current one. - Plasticbadge 17:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism - Racial discrimination

The Janet Jackson mention at the bottom of the racial discrimination has nothing to do with racial discrimination and should be moved elsewhere. --Neilajh 23:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I have moved it the the section titled "Moral influence". --Ezeu 02:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The entire section is nothing but POV with nothing to substantiate its accusations. I've {{fact}} tagged every accusation, and if they are not substantiated, I'll remove them. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I've waited 5 days and it hasn't been sourced. I have removed the entire section. Source it and it can go back. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of the form

Many people as I do we think that MTV uses a very powerful weapon to hipnoze people. I mean, flashlights, constant camera moving and very much short scenes one each after the other. This form goes much more farther than the message within. And the message is just about offering to the young population everything they need to know for growing and living in the society. From what to do in the first date, when to feel proud, and when ashame, hopes and frustrations, and meybe this might be not really good for the person, ´cose, in other words, is not this way of producing really "brainwashing"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.57.64.235 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 31 March 2007.


-- What in god's name are you talking about?? Keep off the drugs man! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.173.211.254 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 31 May 2007.

Yeah I don't really follow you either but Im sure mtv does have brainwashing in it lol. (signed by some other guy that did not write the following)


If you take an approach based on plain business economics it isn't such a strange notion.

MTV makes money as a platform for commercials. Companies will use MTV as a platform if it is the most cost effective platform for motivating viewers to acquire the products they advertise. I do think that they have a strong incentive to enhance the effectiveness of advertisements. And this can be accomplished is by making their current audience more influentiable, for instance by using emotional vulnerabilities. Large numbers of the viewing population are quite young, maybe even in adolescence. By showing physically attractive people their wish to find partners is awakened, and with that their fear of rejection. These attractive people then preach how important it is to have material wealth. The next block presents to you the new fragrance from axe.

Another way to increase advertisement profit is to expand the total number of influentiable viewers. Just as a video of attractive people making materialist statements makes people more inclined to buy things, other statements can motivate people to change their attitudes to other people. TLC sings "I dont want no scrub". Aren't they implicitely stating that once you have bought the gear that makes you attractive you can demand that your boy friend also get a job to spend his money on MTV gear?

Just wathc the number of dating shows centering aroun money ("Can I come in?"), things (houses, products in "RoomRaiders"), fear of rejection (dismissed, next). Other recurring themes are hierarchy and power and how products and money achieve this (hip hop bling and videos, the fabulous life).

The final category of programming is about pain and humilation. Think of "Viva La Bam". I don't exactly get how this leads to advertisement revenues, but they are definitely not about building deep and strengthening friendships, or having beautifull feelings for ladies or gents.

And it is precisely these friendships and these ladies that make me content with life. Not a new pair of shoes or a diamond neckless.

They don't necessarily brainwash, but they do manipulate. Simply because that is what they are paid to do.

Guidocalvano 02:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right. That would work eh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.89.42 (talk) 04:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Separate "Criticism" page?

Hi. Earlier, user Esskater11 suggested that there be a separate page detailing the numerous criticisms against MTV. I agreed with the user, so I will create a page titled "Criticism of MTV". I believe that the creation of that page is warranted because Wikipedia has other "criticism" pages covering popular entertainment & other things. Those pages include but are not limited to: Criticism of Family Guy, Religious opposition to the Harry Potter series, South Park controversies, Fox News Channel controversies, Criticism of World of Warcraft and so forth. Some sources for such a page can be found within the "References" section of the main MTV article. I just wanted consensus over an agreement to create such a page. --71.135.180.154 19:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, I think I will go ahead and create it sometime this weekend I guess --Andrewlp1991 22:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I Dont Want My MTV

Has anyone heard of "i dont want my mtv," a project of standtrue? Im surprised nothing of this is included in this article. heres the link for the website —Preceding unsigned comment added by 07:10, 2 August 2007 (talk • contribs) 24.36.89.104

Hmm, good idea! I might as well just include it in "Criticism of MTV"...coming soon to Wikipedia! Thanks --Andrewlp1991 05:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel Words in the 'Moral Influence on MTV' Section

The following paragraph within the 'Moral Influence on MTV' Section smacks of weaselry to me:

"The American Family Association has also prominently criticized MTV for its negative moral influence [41], even going as far as to describe MTV as a "pro-sex, anti-family, pro-choice (i.e., pro-abortion) drug culture".[42] Focus on the Family, another pro-family group, has released a spoken-word CD titled Confronting the MTV Culture to persuade parents to counter the "dangerous messages" of MTV. [43]"

What sticks out to me would be the noun phrase "Focus on the Family, another pro-family group, …". Focus on the Family is (as described on its Wikipedia article) " … [a] promot[er of] … social conservative public policy." Focus on the Family is known primarily for its hardline stances on abortion and equal rights for homosexuals. As to how this translates into being "pro-family", search me—unless, of course, that's the latest in Newspeak for "we intend to suppress your civil liberties and rights in order to soothe our sadistic consciences". But I'm being acerbic: the point is, this noun phrase refers to Focus on the Family (and the American Family Association by retroactive inclusion) in a manner that many could interpret to mean, at its broadest: "support of families". This is not strictly true. Neither of these organizations support families which structures include same-sex couples. To my knowledge, it has not entered the vernacular lexicon to such an extent as comparable exemplars "pro-choice" or "pro-life", so its precise semantic content may not be immediately clear to a majority of readers, and this paragraph does not elucidate specifically what content aired on MTV to which such organizations object—namely, the attempted denial of homosexual citizens equality under the law (let us not forget that Viacom operates Logo through MTV). The phrase "pro-family" should either be qualified or replaced with a more accurate adjectival. SumeragiNoOnmyouji 04:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

One might consider using the term "socially conservative" to refer to groups like FOF and AFA that support regulation or self-regulation by broadcasters to minimize content that condones gay relationships, premarital sex, etc. Terms like "pro-family" might make sense if they are used in contexts where a group like FOF or AFA is describing itself, much like an anti-abortion group might describe itself as "pro-life", but like with the above criticism of the the term "pro-family" as possibly NPOV, a significant number of abortion rights activists and non-activists might question how appropriate or consistent their "pro-life" policies actually are, and so question the accuracy of the term "pro-life". There's also a term "traditional family" which may be more acceptable to socially conservative critiques, and at least as a historical term it's arguably NPOV. southern students for choice - abilene (talk) 12:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Fear Factor" an imitator of "Fear"?

From what little I've seen of these two shows, I think it's a bit of a stretch to say "Fear Factor" is an imitator of "Fear". Besides being reality shows with "Fear" in the title, the two shows have distinctly different styles... in "Fear" the people are immersed into a situation with helmet-mounted cameras, whereas Fear Factor is a series of disconnected "games" shot conventionally. BinaryTed 16:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Political Influence

The section on political influence makes it look like they only cared about the 2004 US presidential election. There should be some note reguarding previous elections, especially the 1992 presidential election, since the youth vote was heavily attributed to Clinton's win. ErikNY 15:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree, I clearly remember in the early 90s when the network veered into political issues. The coverage of issues was extremely one-sided. That was about the time I'd had finally had enough and switched off the network. --208.204.155.241 18:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] intro

To say that MTV "abandoned" music is a little bit extreme. No one would argue the shift in focus of MTV's programming, but there are shows dedicated to music videos, and music videos regularly play late at night.

  • "To say that MTV "abandoned" music is a little bit extreme."

No it's not, it's the truth. And how are artists (Yes the crappy ones they play on MTV) going to get recognized when they play late at night and maybe an hour during the day? -Saint Jimmy

[edit] MTV: The decline

While the article acknowledges that the network is no longer as popular as it once was, and also that it is frequently criticized for rarely playing music. What I don't get from the article is a clear explanation for why the network veered more and more away from videos towards non-music related shows that made it popular, and seems to be (from the criticism) what people want the network to be.

I'm no way connected to MTV Networks/Viacom. I just have a strong interest in American mass media. There could be several factors. Of course, the popularity of MTV's reality shows as The Real World, Punk'd, Laguna Beach, Newlyweds, and My Super Sweet 16 are pretty much the reason why it has distance itself from music video programming. In fact, the New York Times had a pretty lenghtly article in April 26 just devoted to the popularity of "My Super Sweet 16." [1]They're a lot of competition in the music video programming such as Fuse TV. MTV also expanded into specialized digital cable video channels devoted to music videos e.g., MTV Jams, VH1 Classics, etc., and has a web site that let's visitors streaming music videos online called, "MTV Overdrive." For a business decision, it makes sense in my opinion. Originally, MTV use to show the "top" music videos of the year special in December on their "flagship" cable channel but in 2005 MTV advertise to watch the top videos of 2005 in the "MTV Overdrive" website. MTV's other network channels have a similar service e.g., "VH1 V-Spot," "Comedy Central Motherload", "MTVU Uber", etc., As someone already mention in this discussion tab, MTV (America) do airs music videos in the late night and early mornings most of the time. The MTV Wikipedia article needs some work with appropriate citations and it is slanted POV with the Criticism taking most of the space, of course needs to be cited and contain factual information. --Who What Where Nguyen Why 19:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I would like to see more criticism of the parent conglomerate Viacom and their move away from other than commercial pop/rock music on TV. Commerical pop music is all they deliver worldwide. Many would want more. When the US Cable Choice Act is passed by Congress, then mandatory carrying of Viacom programs will be taken away, in favor of alacarte programming choices by individual cable customers in the US. This model is already in effect overseas. What will Viacom/MTV Networks do to stay profitable then?? -- Truth4Sale 18:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Truth4Sale
You raise some good points, but the move away from videos and music started in the late 80's and accelerated in the early 90s, long before many of the hit shows you mention, or internet on-demand capabilities. There also weren't the alternative cable channels because satellite and digital cable weren't prevelant then. Many of the reality shows they tried to introduce didn't last long, apart from the occasional hits like Beavis and Butthead, or Real World, implying that the attempts weren't clicking with the audience. They must be getting ratings or they wouldn't do it, but popular opinion seems to be unanimous that MTV declined when they stopped focusing on music. I can only conclude that there must be legions of people secretly watching and enjoying this programming. --208.204.155.241 15:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] South Park was MTV produced???

was it really? Realferrari 08:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

You might be thinking of Beavis and Butthead. Mr. C.C. 07:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually i think the confusion is because South Park airs on the MTV Latin America channel. SP is produced by Comedy Central in the USA Andrewlp1991 03:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


MTV has a parent corporation called MTV Networks, which owns comedy central. South Park is thus property of MTV Networks, but it isn't created by MTV. Guidocalvano 01:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MTV Wanted to take over Much Music

I heard from a guy I know who lived in Toronto for a time that MTV wanted to take over Much Music. I can't find a citation, but CHUM (Much Music owners) didn't want to become an MTV station. If anyone can find this information, then it would be good to put in the article. Mr. C.C. 07:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


MTV Networks bought up all music video stations on the public cable in the Netherlands. Guidocalvano 01:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What about the Fuzzy Psycho Animals?

I remember MTV used to air a cartoon in which cute fuzzy animals ended up either mutilating themselves or killing each other. Anyone knows the name of this cartoon? --TLW 13:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Happy Tree Friends, but I dont remember MTV showing it...

MTV Latin America shows Happy Tree Friends. Andrewlp1991 21:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BET VS MTV

MTV isn't as nearly as good as BET. Whoever made that statement. --So Fresh and So Clean_Wish U Was Me 22:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Censorship

Removed the Panic at the Disco line under censorship. The word "god" is censored not becuase of it's religeous connotations, but rather the fact the "goddamn" (as in "goddamn door") is considered "inappropriate" (for taking the lord's name in vein) by Standards, but "damn" is acceptible to them.

Oh yeah, MTV has gone overboard with censorship on anything potentially offensive or controversial. MTV refused to air Madonna's several music videos in the past like "Justify My Love" and the stripped "Like A Prayer" made headlines in 1990. MTV banned comedian Andrew Dice Clay in his vulgarity streak in the 1989 VMA's and the infamous quote from the 2005 Hurricane Katrina relief drive when Kanye West stated "Bush don't like black people". Certain music videos like one by Nine Inch Nails and sorry not to remember the song's name, had literally blocked half the video's scenes as "disturbing" like the image of a monkey on a cruficix. Some of the classic music videos like "I'm turning Japanese", "Mexican Radio" and "Pretty Fly For a White Guy" would be censored today due to political correctness. I don't know there's a liberal or conservative management in the network, but MTV are probably afraid on what kind of material they transmit and how it can influence their main young adult/teenage audience. --Mike D 26 16:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
MTV often positioned itself as militantly anti-censorship in much of its political programming, yet they do an extreme amount of self censorship, much of it voluntary, since other prime-time shows would sometimes freely air content that MTV censored. What they choose to censor and what they choose to show often makes little sense. Their policy seems ad-hoc or applied inconsistantly. --208.204.155.241 15:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] M

All I have to say is the letter "M" is supposed to stand for MUSIC, man!!!

Yep. MTV is shit and worse, it brainwashes young people. Sad.


Thank you! MTV is shit, it started off pretty well but now with all this hip-hop/rap/r&b shit, it just sucks. Everything on MTV sucks, and yet it still manages to be one of the highest rated networks on TV. Disgusting how so many people can like this...--FloydZeppelin74 20:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] moral influence

The most important part of MTV's critique are the videos and the clothing of the artist there. their it may influence the changes in lifestyle of the youth.  Also maybe expand into the social and educational influence that MTV imposes among the youth of America.


[edit] Christina Norman, president of MTV?

I read in this article that the president of MTV is Christina Norman, but this article says it's Tom Freston. I'd change it, but I want to check here to make sure I'm not missing some organizational subtlety. --Allen 06:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No response, so I went ahead and changed it. --Allen 14:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ha!

I love how someone created a redirect for Empty-V to this page! I found it funny and relavent. Darwin's Bulldog 04:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup desperately needed

Among the things to do:

  1. Move that way-too-technical information out of the intro paragraph
  2. Rewrite the history section with better divisions/sections
  3. Improve "Diversification" into a section on other MTV channels; some of that stuff from the intro paragraph could be moved here
  4. Consolidate all of the International stuff, combine into Diversification
  5. Analyze the objectivity and relevance of everything in "Criticism"
  6. How did "Influence on American liberal politics" even get in here?
  7. Spin off "Cartoons" into its own MTV Animation article, or rewrite it as a paragraph within MTV's history
  8. Delete or move the irrelevant "MTV: Virtual" and "Trivia" sections
  9. Move "Station IDs" into history of the channel
  10. "Slogans" is getting out of control, I don't know what to do with that
  11. "MTV in popular culture" is also huge; should this be its own article?

--Samvscat 08:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite carried out

Well, I did just about all of those things... if anyone has a problem with it, let me know. --Samvscat 13:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Top videos by year, 1981-2005

This list was in the article; I removed it because I don't think it's relevant enough to be in the article, and I put all the other lists into their own articles. However, I think someone would nominate this for deletion if I made an article for it. So, here it is... Top videos on music.mtv.com per year, 8/1/2006

  1. 1981- The Buggles - "Video Killed The Radio Star"
  2. 1982- Prince - "1999"
  3. 1983- Michael Jackson - "Thriller"
  4. 1984- Prince - "Let's Go Crazy"
  5. 1985- Madonna - "Like a Virgin"
  6. 1986- a-ha - "Take on Me"
  7. 1987- Whitney Houston - "I Wanna Dance With Somebody (Who Loves Me)"
  8. 1988- Guns N' Roses - "Sweet Child O' Mine"
  9. 1989- Metallica - "One"
  10. 1990- Sinéad O'Connor - "Nothing Compares 2 U"
  11. 1991- Nirvana -"Smells Like Teen Spirit"
  12. 1992- U2 - "One"
  13. 1993- Dr.Dre (featuring Snoop Dogg) - "Nuthin' But a "G" Thang"
  14. 1994- Snoop Dogg - "Gin and Juice"
  15. 1995- Green Day - "When I Come Around"
  16. 1996- No Doubt - "Don't Speak"
  17. 1997- The Notorious B.I.G. - "Hypnotize"
  18. 1998- 'N Sync - "Tearin' Up My Heart"
  19. 1999- Britney Spears - "...Baby One More Time"
  20. 2000- Eminem - "The Real Slim Shady"
  21. 2001- Christina Aguilera, Lil' Kim, Mýa and P!nk - "Lady Marmalade"
  22. 2002- Missy Elliott - "Work It"
  23. 2003- OutKast - "Hey Ya!"
  24. 2004- Snoop Dogg (featuring Pharrell) - "Drop It Like It's Hot"
  25. 2005- Green Day - "Boulevard of Broken Dreams"

--Samvscat 05:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Debut

Can someone clarify the following paragraph please? Where does the disparity between the "official" and "actual" figure come from? The immediate impact statement doesn't make any sense to me, is it trying to state that 6 people would be gathered around the TV for every "subscriber"? I'm afraid that I don't know enough about the channel history to correct this paragraph. Camw 05:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

  • "At launch time, the official subscriber count across America was 3,000,000 (the actual number was 500,000), but the immediate impact would have argued that every young adult's television in the country was tuned to MTV."

[edit] Omission of Hip-Hop

Shouldn't Yo, MTV Raps at least be listed in the section MTV comes of age - Format evolution? --Kyebaush 15:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism?

This page seems to have a lot of vandalism which I can't clean-up, as a new user. Would someone else mind doing it? 24.1.49.178 21:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC) Thats all folks

From Nov. 25, 2006 to July 15, 2007 this page was "semi-protected" due to vandalism. On July 17, a few days after semi-protection was lifted, there were two instances of IP vandalism [2] [3], which might signal that this page might need semi-protection again. --Andrewlp1991 19:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Mtvmid90s.jpg

Image:Mtvmid90s.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 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 23:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why no mention of their orginal format?

When they first started they wouldn't air videos featureing african american performers. They didn't play any tell record companies threaten a boycott. Seems like a pretty important part of their history. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.27.168.204 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 12 June 2007.

[edit] Removal of the petitiononline link

Today i noticed in the history that someone removed the petition against MTV regarding Janet Jackson's limited airplay. That petition can be found www [dot] petitiononline [dot] com [forward slash] JanMTV06 [forward slash] petition [dot] html. The reason for removal was "Petitiononline links are no good. If the petitions make the news, cite a news source for it. If not, it's not notable. There's never a reason to link to a petition)". However, since the petition has 5,000 sigs, I say it's notable, and does every petition or anything online have to have made the news in order for it to be worthy on Wikipedia? BTW I was the one who added it originally when I was adding sources for the "Controversy" section. Andrewlp1991 03:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is the page protected?

I don't see anything on the talk page justifying the page's protected status. Should this be unprotected? 71.238.246.189 18:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree; the last time any vandalism hit this page was on 7 May 2007, nearly two months ago. I say unprotect the page. Andrewlp1991 05:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
UPDATE - the page was unprotected today. Andrewlp1991 01:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MTV killed rock and roll

Why is this not mentioned anywhere? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.179.223.76 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 22 July 2007.

MTV debuted in 1981 and can there for not be the culprit John jarrell 17:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Radiohead is in my opinion quite alive, so are Smashing Pumpkins and Rage Against the Machine (ok maybe the last one fell apart but still). If you want to hear good rock ask your friends.

But on another note. It is amazing how they are quite fond of airing corrupt "punk" bands. The rock is corrupt only about half of the times and is in this respect quite impressive. It is unsetteling though that they apparently manage to get commercials income out of these non corrupt rock bands (or manage to achieve some tactical goal some future commercial money depends on) Guidocalvano 01:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] michael jackson

I have added some details about his 1990`s videos its quite possible to say he was still the biggest star in the planet up until the mid 90`s and had some record breaking videos which can be mentioned, his impact on MTV was a lot longer than the thriller album. Realist2 13:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I know this isn't a forum but...

Does the new style song credits look anything like the European counterparts? Cos I don't understand by "larger full-screen font". If anyone has a screenshot, I'd be pleased to see it. 77.97.245.64 08:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)DanZieBoy

[edit] The "previous concepts" chapter

There's something wrong with the third paragraph of Previous concepts:

"MTV's programming format was created to control the minds of teenage America.[2] Pittman had test driven the music format by producing and hosting a 15 minute show, Album Tracks, on WNBC, New York, in the late 1970s. Pittman's boss, WASEC COO John Lack, had shepherded a TV series called PopClips, created by former Monkee-turned solo artist Michael Nesmith, the latter of whom by the late 1970s was turning his attention to the music video format.[3]"

Yeah, that first sentence sounds a little dubious too, but who's Pittman? There's no mention of a Pittman anywhere else in the article! 88.114.147.214 23:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Van Toffler?

Do you think we should feature who is the president of MTV? Van Toffler is the current president of the MTV empire right now. I think he should be mentioned in the info box.Nocarsgo (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] <3

I love MTV! (Hey does anybody want to cite this for me? I dont know how, if you would do it, that would be awsome!! Thank you!!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.163.159.219 (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for signing it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.163.159.219 (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This article misses an ESSENTIAL part!

The MTV.COM web site. This must be some of the earliest commercial web sites EVER! No I'm not on crack. I watched mtv.com on a NCSA Mosaic browser back in late 1994 (or early 1995)! MTV was very early on the web; hence we should give an overview about the first web site launch of MTV. Would interest a lot of people, I suppose. [edit] Found some more stuff: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Curry#The_Web_and_MTV.com and http://groups.google.com/group/alt.folklore.urban/browse_thread/thread/51d41f9e26a69bf5/b50358df1931f955?hl=en&q=insubject%3Amtv.com&lnk=ol& -andy 85.179.223.255 (talk) 18:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible merge with Criticism of MTV

A merge shouldn't happen at all. Now that we have criticism and censorship articles, the section is finally balanced. I'm removing the merge tag. --Pwnage8 (talk) 10:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Balanced? You've got to be kidding. The problem is that the main article (MTV) gets knocked over to show only "positive" views of MTV, while the "Criticism of MTV" article is a dumping ground for all "negative" POV's. It used to be that "negative" views of MTV were integrated throughout the article as Wikipedia policy states. I'm tagging this article in a few minutes and would like to make the MTV articles more neutral here (most of them are heavily biased or unsourced).
On the other hand, if you really intend to write a "positive" article about MTV, check out the site Wikinfo, which encourages this sort of practice. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 23:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't write this article. If you want to "integrate" the criticism in the article, it'll get lost. Naturally, it'll end up being dumped into the "criticism and censorship" section. Not really much integration there. And if there's a link to a main article, then it'll give readers the impression that there's tons of criticism (which there is) and will encourage them to read about it. When I was talking about "balanced" I was referring to the "criticism and censorship" section, which before the criticism article was created, was heavily skewed towards it. Now that we have articles for both, it's "balanced". Get it? Nothing about POV. --Pwnage8 (talk) 02:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, please read the page Wikipedia:Content forking, which states that forking POV in a separate "Criticism of ____" article is often a tactic "deliberately...to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts." With a heavy heart and using good faith, I'm afraid that what you're doing pretty much falls under what I've just quoted. I can argue that doing this will give readers of the main MTV article who don't see the "Criticism of MTV" article an impression that MTV wasn't highly criticized. It's more effective to assert criticism if it's sprinkled throughout the chronological history of the article.
Also, the "Content Forking" page i just mentioned also states that POV forks "are inconsistent with Wikipedia policies" and that "[t]he generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article."
But, I also see that maybe you're trying to do what it says where "the original article should contain a neutral summary of the "Criticism of ... " article" and you believe that "there is so much information about a certain aspect of a subject that it justifies a separate article", as you feel in the negative viewpoints of the network. I'm not going to deny that MTV has been heavily criticized over the years, but I feel that criticisms deserve just as much to belong in the written history of the network. As far as "naturally...dumped", well that's against policy, and editors should revert such edits as vandalism or such.
And finally, I also understand your concerns about "heavily skewed" towards the "criticism/censorship" parts. I think if the "history" section has criticism integrated throughout the article, then check this out: (from Wikipedia:Criticism#Criticism_integrated_throughout_the_article) "Criticism that is integrated into the article should not disrupt the article or section's flow. For example a section entitled "Early success" should not contain one paragraph describing the success of the topic and three paragraphs qualifying or denying that success. This is often why separate criticism sections are created." Is this what you're trying to accomplish right here? My goal is to be able to neutrally/objectively present criticism of MTV in this encyclopedia, not "promote" it as what a "criticsm of MTV" article would do. Good night, --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 02:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I have no interest in POV-forking whatsoever. I just want to make sure everything is covered as neutrally as possible, and there's just too much legitemate content in the criticism article to be fully integrated (format changes, Parents television council, American family association, etc) The reality shows should be covered in their own articles, but all of them collectively, can be summarized in a neat little paragraph. Keep in mind that the MTV response section will still be included, thus making the criticism fork neutral. The page needs work, don't get me wrong. I'll try to make the changes that I mentioned later this week. --Pwnage8 (talk) 23:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm getting really a lot more nervous as this continues. First of all, I'm the one who added the PTC/AFA points, and I now know (from WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE) that maybe they should get less coverage due to their views being a minority. And I'm getting the feeling now that the "Criticism" article is being made to advance a POV rather than help neutrality. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 05:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
P.S. If you're interested, I'm opening a discussion on the NPOV Noticeboard. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 05:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Criticism of MTV should stay as a separate article. -- JGibson233 (talk) 22:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, here's my new rationale. I think the "Criticism" article should just elaborate on the criticisms, which can be briefly introduced in the main article. I'd like to re-import the early allegations of racism[4], Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction, and some of the Parents Television Council's regular attacks on the network, among others. I'll see how that works. Thank you all for your assistance and feedback here. You're also welcome to assist as I've stated here. -Andrewlp1991 (talk) 03:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
So should the merge tags be taken down now? --Pwnage8 (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I think so. Let's try at least to "whisper" some of the stuff from the criticism of MTV article within the main MTV history section...I mean the reason why MTV began playing Michael Jackson videos so much was becuase people like Rick James felt that MTV had a bias toward "white" videos. And then there came "think MTV" primarily in response to the moralists (cough, cough PTC) who say MTV is "sex, drugs, and anti-morality". And of course, Janet Jackson's you-know-what... And also the NPOV tags can be removed once all this is accomplished.--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 22:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)