Results for: the daily beast Search Results
Family Filter:
A struggling Newsweek has joined forces with the growing online news and blog site The Daily Beast. Will this print/pixel combo work?
13 Nov 2010
Share Video

******* Tina Brown, a titan of magazine publishing, has just launched her first online venture with the backing of Barry Diller's IAC. The Daily Beast is a site and daily email about cultural movers and shakers, a world she knows very well as past editor of Vanity Fair, The New Yorker and Talk. Here's the take on the new launch by Staci Kramer at paidContent, along with a Q&A with the star editor. I've re-posted an interview I did with Tina in December at Michael's restaurant in Manhattan. -- Andy Plesser, Executive Producer
6 Oct 2008
Share Video

******* Google News has just released a widget which allows webmasters to create a customized news feeds in two sizes, 728x90 and 300x250. The company refers to it as a "Google News–based element for webmasters and developers." Details were just published on the Official Google Blog. The company said in a blog post: "This makes it easy to integrate headlines and previews from Google News into any webpage, and for newspapers to reach new audiences across the web." Pulling live, customized headlines on Web pages is not new; it's been around for over 10 years. One of the earliest and best services was Nick Denton's Moreover, which he left in 2001. But having the range of topics provided by Google News is a very powerful, indeed. We wonder how much this new effort will drive newspaper and media consumption. For an overview on Google News, we spoke last year with Josh Cohen, Business Project Manager for Google News. We have republished the video today. In an unrelated post about Google News, Peter Osnos, former Washington Post reporter, writing on the Daily Beasts opines, "Will Google Save the News." He's a take on Osnos' piece by Mathew Ingram, writing for GigaOM titled 'Google is not your Sugar Daddy." -- Andy Plesser, Executive Producer
5 Feb 2009
Share Video

******* CNN**** has taken notice of the Huffington Post and the Daily Beast as "opinion destinations" and wants to be a "horse in that race," CNN**** General Manager KC Estenson told me last night, after the industry introduction of the revamped CNN**** site. Andy Plesser, Executive Producer
30 Oct 2009
Share Video

Sarah Palin might not really be able to see Russia from her backyard, but can she see the White House? That’s the question many are asking after the premiere of her reality TV show, “Sarah Palin’s Alaska,” on TLC. We’re analyzing reactions from CBS, The Daily Beast, ABC, and CNN. “Sarah Palin’s Alaska” premiered Sunday night, giving viewers across America a chance to see Palin and her family’s day-to-day adventures---at least, that’s how the Palins describe it. Real Clear Politics’ Scott Conroy tells CBS News this show could be just one massive campaign ad for a potential presidential run in 2012. “It seems like she was really trying her hardest to say this was about Alaska, but you know, the cameras are focused on her and her family. And really, it’s a political ad that she doesn't have to pay for. In fact, she’s getting paid to do it, and to me, it’s something that’s going to remind people about what they like about Sarah Palin.” But in an interview with The Daily Beast, producer Mark Burnett says the show is not part of a political campaign. “The show ‘is completely non-political... It’s absolutely not trying to show one thing or the other. She is showing everything.’” Maybe not, but Palin doesn’t shy away from political references either. When faced with a nosy new neighbor, journalist Joe McGinniss -- who rented a house next door in order to write what Todd Palin referred to as a “hit piece” on his wife -- the couple came up with an interesting solution. “Todd and his buddies got out there and built a 14-foot fence and I was very thankful for that. By the way, I thought that was a good example. What we just did, others could look at and say ‘Oh, this is what we need to do to secure our nation’s border.’” Political or not, analysts are wondering what sort of impact the reality show would have if Palin chooses to run. ABC’s Cokie Roberts believes it could go either way. “She has to decide: Is she going to make her life as something of a celebrity and take that path, or is she going to get serious about politics and government? I think at this point she hasn’t decided and this program is a way to keep her options open.” CNN’s Jim Acosta, however, points out the timing of Palin’s show could not be any better--- if 2012’s really on her mind. “The timing of all this is very conspicuous. That’s because the show runs about 8 weeks. That takes us into the middle of January. That’s when we’re going to see some of these top Republicans who are running for president throwing their hat into the ring, and what better way to roll out your presidential campaign than a reality TV show?” So what do you think? Could “Sarah Palin’s Alaska” become Sarah Palin’s America? Or -- is she not yet ready for a prime time political slot?
18 Nov 2010
Share Video

Transcript by Newsy BY CHRISTINA HARTMAN You're watching multisource global video news analysis from Newsy. SEN. JOE LIEBERMAN (I-Conn.): “And we've got to apprehend Mr. Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, and bring him to justice as a violator of the espionage act because if we don’t, this will keep happening.” U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman is calling for his head. He -- is Julian Assange -- already wanted by Interpol in connection with rape charges -- now ABC reports, a group of U.S. senators want him prosecuted under the Espionage Act of 1917. “... which criminalizes obtaining or communicating information used to the injury of the United States -- as well as laws that bar gathering and transmitting national defense information.” But can they? That’s the tricky question. TIME’s Rick Stengel tells Bloomberg - legal analysts admit the more than 90-year-old law could be at odds with the First Amendment. “...A lot of courts and even the Supreme Court seemed to think is too broad in its definition of what is secret and what is damaging to U.S. interests. ... There are cases where those competing values of what's in the Espionage Act and the First Amendment, and it will be interesting to see how that's decided.” And Julian Assange is something of a First Amendment absolutist -- in previous interviews saying what he’s doing -- essentially -- is putting the First Amendment in the people’s hands. But that isn’t stopping the E-word from blanketing media coverage. CNN: “If you want to look for bipartisanship though, everyone thinks it's missing in Washington, this is it. ... This is espionage. This is top secrets that have been released. This has jeopardized lives.” MSNBC: “Let's call it what it is: Spying, espionage...” Fox News: “Is the new journalism, just the old espionage?” But Fox News’ senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano is calling for cooler heads to prevail -- saying it isn’t Assange who should be prosecuted -- it’s the people who leak the documents in the first place. He says Wikileaks is protected as a media organization. “...The person in the media who publishes the document, as long as the document is of public interest, cannot be prosecuted and cannot be sued.” CARLSON: “Under the espionage law?” NAPOLITANO: “Under any law. Because the Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment to be the press. You and me are the eyes and ears of America.” CARLSON: “So what can they prosecute him with? What law?” NAPOLITANO: “Nothing.” But The Daily Beast’s Stephen Carter says that isn’t the issue - the U.S. could very well convict Assange -- but that doesn’t mean it should. “Assange is a maker of mischief ... exposing confidential material because he can. … But acting callously ... ought not to be criminal... … Dissent is the lifeblood of democracy, and should be carefully nourished, not scared into hiding.” Finally - in a provocative piece for the Christian Science Monitor -- Peter Grier wonders if Assange is already secretly under indictment. “It’s certainly possible. … A judge could order an indictment of Assange sealed until such time as the U.S. is able to apprehend him... The purpose of such secrecy would be to keep the WikiLeaks chief from going even further underground.” Three U.S. senators -- John Ensign, Scott Brown, and Joe Lieberman -- are all proposing legislation that would make it easier for federal authorities to go after those who leak confidential U.S. documents. But tell us what you think -- Espionage -- or a fair exercise of Free Speech? Get more multisource global video news analysis from Newsy.
4 Dec 2010
Share Video

Transcript by Newsy**** BY ALYSSA CARTEE You're watching multisource politics news analysis from Newsy CHRIS MATTHEWS: “You’re going to have three that night, the President, you’re going to hear from Paul Ryan, who’s the Republican response, and Michele Bachmann all in one night. Three ring circus.” There’s a lot of buzz about President Obama’s second State of the Union address- but it’s not the only speech that’s got political analysts excited. Here’s Fox News’ KT McFarland’s take on the hottest speech of the night. KT MCFARLAND (Fox News Security Analyst): “The State of the Union address I want to listen to is the one that Paul Ryan is going to give as the rebuttal because that is the first glimpse you are going to see of how serious is this new House of Representatives at cutting back expenditures.” Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan is the House budget committee chair and known for his “Roadmap for America’s Future,” a dramatic budget proposal which features massive cuts. The Washington Post Columnist Ezra Klein says- the “Roadmap” isn’t a safe position for the Republican party. “...I think the GOP might end up suffering quite a lot: The more they elevate Ryan, the more they elevate Ryan's Roadmap. And that document is a time bomb for them: It doesn't just privatize Medicare...It privatizes much of Social Security.” Ryan won’t be handing out the only Republican rebuttal- Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann will give an online response representing the Tea Party Express. The Daily Beast’s Andrew Romano says- the fact that Bachmann is delivering a speech not endorsed by the GOP is a sign of problems to come. He says the Tea Party rebuttal... “...suggests that the battle between disgruntled, absolutist Tea Party activists (who want to blow the system up) and their more realistic representatives in Washington (who plan to work within it) is only beginning.” As for the main State of the Union address NBC’s David Gregory suggests- Obama has a tough line to walk- and he’d be smart to stick to the middle. DAVID GREGORY (host of Meet the Press): “It will be a more centrist course here. He knows that he’s got a divided Republican caucus between the House and the Senate. He wants to try to expose those fishers and do some business with Republicans.” Both the State of the Union Address and the GOP’s response will be televised on all major networks with Bachmann’s speech to be posted on the Tea Party’s website shortly after Ryan’s rebuttal. Get more multisource video news analysis from Newsy
25 Jan 2011
Share Video

Transcript by Newsy**** BY SAMANTHA MCCLENDON You're watching multisource business news analysis from Newsy EXTRA EXTRA... read all about it!! AOL officially bought The Huffington Post for a whopping $315 million... 300 of those million will be paid in cold hard cash. MSNBC says AOL is struggling so... it’s probably about time. NICOLE LAPIN: "A big surprise though I will say. AOL has been on this shopping spree guys. I was reading a commentary this morning that called it the last scene from Butch Cassidy and the Sun Dance Kid where AOL is trying to hang on surrounded by the Bolivian Army and has no choice but to make this move.” Tech Buzz Blog says the price tag alone is impressive -- calling it the biggest blog acquisition ever. “This also makes AOL the biggest blog content producer today – they now own Engadget, TechCrunch and HuffPo and many more — the big names in the blogosphere.” Arianna Huffington, Huffington Post co-founder -- told the Wall Street Journal, AOL shares her vision. ARIANNA HUFFINGTON: “This is my last act. Well I’ve had many incarnations ever since Athens, Greece, England, here, books, television and this is the most exciting thing I’ve ever done.” AOL will make Huffington the editor in chief of The Huffington Post Media Group, which means she’ll control all of the editorial content for AOL. A writer for The Daily Beast says there is a difference between being the owner and being an employee. “It's the difference between a mother and a babysitter. They both love their kid, but only one will race into a burning building to save it. Especially with a swollen bank account back home.” The Huffington Post gets 500 million views a month, and some say this is a great opportunity for AOL to use that viewership for advertising. One writer for Talk Left says this could be good business for AOL. “I actually like the idea, but then, I'm one of the few people I know who still uses an AOL e-mail account. So aside from the merger reassuring me that AOL isn't going out of business anytime soon, what does it mean for the news, other than a behomoth conglomerate?” That’s exactly why a reporter for Bloomberg questions whether this is a smart move for AOL. “We know that Huffington has some strong political views and is there a risk for AOL in putting someone in charge of editorial content with those views if traditionally they’ve had a non-partisan approach?” “We will see.” This is AOL's biggest acquisition since it parted ways from Time Warner. So what do you think? Will the Huffington Post still keep its flavor? Or will the new ownership water it down? Get more multisource video news analysis from Newsy
8 Feb 2011
Share Video

BY TRACY PFEIFFER ANCHOR JIM FLINK You're watching multisource U.S. news analysis from Newsy It’s the first of its kind. Legislation passed in Arizona bans abortions based on the sex or race of a fetus. Phoenix’s KSAZ has more. ANCHOR, VOICE OVER: “Governor Jan Brewer signed the measure into law. It makes it a felony to perform or provide financing for an abortion based on sex or race of a fetus or a parent’s race. Doctors could face jail time and even lose their license if they practice.” Opponents of the law argue it’s a solution looking for a problem, with no evidence to prove sex or race selection occurs. And a report from The Arizona Republic highlights the he-said she-said nature of the debate. “Rep. Steve Montenegro, R-Litchfield Park, said he pushed the legislation because of fears women would choose to abort because they didn't like the gender or the race of the baby. Rep. Katie Hobbs, D-Phoenix, said the only proof Montenegro offered was a magazine article on such practices in China and India.” But the state issues analyst for CitizenLink -- an affiliate of conservative group Focus on the Family -- argues, Arizona is simply providing much-needed protections. MONA PASSIGNANO, STATE ISSUES ANALYST: “Usually you hear about that in China, you know, for the one child policy with, especially if it’s not a boy, they’ll need to abort the girls. What we’re seeing is in the Untied States, people are coming for those same type of abortions from around the world, and so Arizona closed that loophole.” The American Prospect’s Tapped blog says, the law does make sense on a moral level -- but should not be written into legislation. “Would I be personally horrified to find out a woman and her husband routinely sought abortions of female fetuses? Yes, I would. Would I seek to stop them? No, not beyond any personal council or public criticism it's in my rights to provide. That's just the way it is. Sometimes, freedom means we have to live with the possibility of icky things.” Finally, author and writer for The Daily Beast Michelle Goldberg tells MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell, the bill isn’t really about race or sex -- it’s just about restricting abortions. LAWRENCE O’DONNELL, HOST: “The only way you could enforce is that, the mother would have to say to you, ‘I wanna do this abortion because of the gender of the fetus or because of the race of it.’” MICHELLE GOLDBERG, AUTHOR AND WRITER FOR THE DAILY BEAST: “What is insidious is that we’ve never before had in this country reason-based bans on abortion. When you go for an abortion, you didn’t have to tell the doctor why you’re having it -- that’s what’s so sinister here.” The Yuma Sun reports, violators of the new law would face three and a half years in prison. 'Like' Newsy on Facebook for updates in your news feed Get more multisource video news analysis from Newsy Transcript by Newsy
5 Apr 2011
Share Video

BY CHRISTINA HARTMAN You're watching multisource entertainment news analysis from Newsy GLENN BECK: “I am leaving the program but I'm not leaving Fox.” He’s hated by the left -- loved by the far right. Glenn Beck - the Fox News host best known for his on-air conspiracy theories -- is “transitioning off” his controversial show. GLENN BECK: “I don’t like conflict but sometimes you have to stand. I took the job because I thought I had something to share. I really thought that if I could prove my case that something wicked was coming, America would listen, and they have.” Neither Fox nor Beck provided much in the way of specifics -- leaving unanswered lots of really, REALLY pressing questions. “Why is he really leaving? Are the rumors true that other Fox talent was embarrassed by the antics? Was he really losing money for Fox? And what will he do now? ... What conservative commentator, personality, pundit, can it be Sarah Palin? Who can take over for him?” (CNN) According to Nielsen -- the show averaged less than 2 million viewers. A pretty sizable audience for any cable news show -- but it represents a drop from last year’s average ratings of 2.7 viewers. So was it the ratings -- was it one conspiracy too many -- or was it -- like Beck says -- just that he never intended to stay forever? Lots of explanations in the blogosphere. The LA Times says it’s all about the ratings... “...there was little mistaking … Beck is being booted off the air. His sinking ratings certainly didn't help...” Nope -- it’s the fact he lost advertisers -- about 400 of them -- says New York Daily News... "Murdoch and Ailes didn't oust Beck when he ... likened Reform rabbis to proponents of radical Islam. No, it was only after the increasingly kooky conservative started losing money as big-name advertising dried up...” Not to mention -- The New York Times’ Brian Stelter tells CNN -- he just didn’t fit in at the network. “He was always his own man, unlike Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, and he wasn't born by Fox and didn't depend on Fox. ... He called president Obama a racist. That caused an advertiser boycott, a lot of advertisers left his show. After that, people on the news side of Fox refused to go on the show or be associated with the show.” Beck’s liberal critics are rejoicing. DAVID BROCK, MEDIA MATTERS, MSNBC: “Glenn Beck was particularly dangerous, I think, and to have that presence mainstreamed was almost a unique problem in terms of the discourse. I think this is a victory for civil discourse. ... You've seen some paranoid ravings of almost a madman. ... I think at the end of the day, his reputation will be remembered as -- for what it is, that even Fox had to draw a line...” At the end of the day, though, The Daily Beast’s Howard Kurtz says the move was mutually beneficial. “Whatever the genesis … [this] is a case study in how even the most successful broadcast personalities can become too hot to handle.” In an interview with the Associated Press - Fox News chief Roger Ailes denied ratings or advertisers had anything to do with Beck’s “transition off” his show. Beck will stay involved with the network through occasional content contributions. 'Like' Newsy on Facebook for updates in your news feed Get news with analysis from Newsy Transcript by Newsy
9 Apr 2011
Share Video

BY CHRISTINE SLUSSER ANCHOR ALEX ROZIER You're watching multisource U.S. news analysis from Newsy No, you didn’t read the headline wrong. Even an anchor for LA’s KNBC couldn’t wrap her mind around it... “This one is really hard to comprehend. Mail-order suicide kits, sold by a 91-year-old woman from southern California.” The kits, sold by the “Gladd Company”--AKA 91-year-old Sharlotte Hydorn, sell for 60-bucks a pop. The kit includes a plastic bag that fits around the head and neck, plus a plastic tube that connects to a helium tank--which is not included. “She says the kit is meant to give people a kind option in times of pain, but some call it, irresponsible. In Oregon, lawmakers are already fighting to make it a felony after this man... 29- Year-old Nick Klonoski ordered a kit and took his life.” (Video Source: KGTV) The Daily Beast quoted Klonoski’s brother, Zach, spoke out against the woman--and her kits. “This, an emotional Zach testified at the hearing earlier this month, should be illegal... ‘This is analogous to putting a gun-vending machine next to a depression clinic,’ [he said, and]...Though Hydorn admits she did sell Zach’s brother his implement of death, she makes no apology for it. She has a story of her own.” And it’s San Francisco’s KCBS that has that story, though in all of her media interviews, Hydorn refused to show her face. REPORTER: “Some people might say, why, are you doing this for the money?” HYDORN: “Nooooo.” REPORTER: “Why are you doing this, Sharlotte? HYDORN: “Because I care about people.” REPORTER: “It was care for her own husband during his battle with colon cancer that Sharlotte began making and selling her suicide kits.” HYDORN: “I wish he had died a peaceful death.” But while Hydorn’s motive for creating the kits may seem sincere- is it legal? According to The Huffington Post... “To this point, California does not have laws enacted that make this type of business illegal, despite many recent calls to enact laws that will limit the availability of such devices.” The Huffington Post also reports- about 1600 kits are sold every year. Follow Newsy_Videos on Twitter Get more multisource video news analysis from Newsy Transcript by Newsy
10 May 2011
Share Video

BY MAURICE SCARBOROUGH You're watching multisource tech video news analysis from Newsy. It’s spy games for the Internet age. Facebook has been caught pants down after news surfaced it hired a PR firm to launch a secret smear campaign against rival Google. As a writer for Gizmodo puts it... “What to do when you're not quite the most popular girl but so desperately want to be prom queen? Start trashing Ms. Perfectpants behind her back! Normal enough for high school. Kind of pathetic if you're Facebook.” According to various reports PR firm Burson-Marsteller had been encouraging media outlets to look into Google’s privacy practices on behalf of an unknown employer. But as a writer for Forbes explains-- the plan eventually backfired. “...(a well-known Google critic) announced via Twitter that a public relations firm wanted him to slap his name on an anti-Google op-ed that they had ghost-written … A week later, USA Today revealed that it had received a similar pitch...” The Daily Beast finally managed to uncover the identity of the mystery employer - who some thought was Apple or Microsoft. When the smoke eventually cleared-- all signs pointed to Facebook. “The mess, seemingly worthy of a Nixon reelection campaign, is embarrassing for Facebook, which has struggled at times to brand itself as trustworthy. But even more so for Burson-Marsteller, a huge PR firm that has represented lots of blue-chip corporate clients in its 58-year history.” According to one analyst on CNN, these whisper campaigns happen all the time, but companies usually aren’t caught. So what prompted Facebook to launch this sneak attack? “You know it’s all about social networking, advertising and competition. You know think about it, Facebook is king when it comes to social networking, and Google is trying to get in on the party, but Google is reportedly doing so by taking some information from Facebook and posting it on its own Social Circle site. It’s just like when Google, Google News posts links to articles from other companies but the problem is here Facebook says it can’t do that. ... In the end this all comes down to a big fight for advertising dollars aka money.” According to The Financial Times Burson-Marstellar says it should have turned down the assignment in the first place. 'Like Newsy' on Facebook for updates in your news feed. Get more multisource tech video news analysis from Newsy. Transcript by Newsy.
14 May 2011
Share Video