Going into this whole thing, we were sure that Obama would take the opportunity of a primetime news conference on health care reform to carefully and eloquently lay out his detailed plan to the American people, you know, going through everything step by step to explain exactly what it all meant and how it would be paid for. What we got instead was all-too-familiar flowery rhetoric about how there are too many uninsured people in America and how we must do something now to correct this. We, of course, agree with this wholeheartedly, something must be done and we really want him to do something sensible, but at some point he's got to detail exactly how he's going to overhaul the system. We thought he would do that tonight. Sadly, he did not.

In short, the president whiffed tonight completely. His opponents are using every political scare tactic in the political scare tactic playbook to win the battle for public opinion on this issue, while doing virtually nothing to offer up their own solution, but it appears as though the Obama administration is hoping it can ride the president's noted charm and charisma horse to the finish line on this one. We don't think that's going to work. The sheen of the Obama presidency is beginning to dull and people, even those who supported him in the 2008 election, are beginning to yearn for more than well-articulated good intentions.

If the White House wasn't yet prepared to roll out the details of their plan, then they shouldn't have called the press conference in the first place. This only makes it harder for them to reach people when they're actually ready to roll out the important details of a plan, as you get the sense that people are beginning to just tune out on the issue, despite the fact that having so many uninsured citizens is one of this country's great modern shames. Again, the Obama administration had an opportunity tonight, and they let it slip away from them.

After all, you know what they say—if you lose Gawker, you lose America.

Also, what the hell was he doing condemning the Cambridge police on the Henry Louis Gates thing, saying that "the police acted stupidly?!" Yes, the charges against Gates were dropped, but shouldn't the president remain neutral on such things while the arresting officer's actions are being investigated? Geez. Feel free to agree or disagree with any of this in the comments.

And here's video of the entire press conference:

Obama, dressed in jeans and Chicago White Sox jacket, certainly looked smooth with his delivery, but the camera angle broadcast by Fox was simply horrendous and didn't really give viewers any indication of whether or not it was a good or a bad pitch, so we're basically incapable of rendering a verdict on our own. However, some members of the media who were in attendance saw the pitch and have already weighed in.

From the New York Times:

Once Obama made it to the mound, he eased into his motion and softly floated a pitch to Albert Pujols. Pujols, the current Cardinals icon, reached in front of home plate to catch Obama's wobbly pitch. The fans cheered for Obama, who then hugged Pujols halfway between the mound and the plate.

From the AP:

Obama's ceremonial first pitch at the All-Star game barely reached the plate Tuesday night. St. Louis Cardinals star Albert Pujols helped the president, moving up on the plate and reaching out to scoop the toss.

From the Chicago Tribune:

As you would expect, President Barack Obama leaned to the left while making the ceremonial first pitch at Tuesday's All-Star game in St. Louis.

While he was lacking in style points on his short southpaw lob to home plate, he certainly made a striking fashion statement — not to mention showing his South Side sentiment — to the worldwide television audience.

From the Weekly Standard:

He may have thrown out the first pitch wearing a Chicago White Sox jacket ("My wife thinks I look cute in it"), but there was nothing in his cool aspect or his broadcast-booth blarney to suggest a true love for the game, like that of, say, our 43rd president. This guy should stick to golfing, or, better yet, to kicking a soccer ball around the White House lawn. It suits him: more Europeanish, less Americanish.

Finally, we text-messaged Deadspin Emeritus Will Leitch, who is actually at the game in St. Louis, for his assessment. Here's what he said:

He isn't as good at throwing a first pitch as Bush. THANK GOD!

So the verdict seems to be that Barack Obama throws like a girl, which probably shouldn't be all that surprising considering that he's a latte-sipping communist. But here's a clip of the first pitch from Fox, not that you'll be able to really glean anything from it, so you can at least try to render your own verdict.

pic via AP

• What will it mean for political media? We're looking at you, Politico! I mean, who the fuck outside the Beltway will want to read Politico after this campaign is over, seriously? No offense guys. They have plenty of good reporters, but Jesus. Huge readership decline, is what I'm saying here. John Koblin at the Observer has Politico's memo to staff today laying out what the editors see as the paper's future. Basically they say, yes, readership will decline, but their business model is to reach "influentials," which they already do well, so they should be cool:
  

  This business model, we believe, insulates us to a large measure against the adverse trends in both the media business and the economy more broadly.

  I'd predict layoffs at the Politico within a year. But we'll see!

• What will it mean for television networks? The big networks are counting on Americans giving up on this political shit and getting back to what we do well: Watching horrible TV shows. Just consider this lead from a THR story today on this very topic:
  

  Could the big winner on Election Day be "Knight Rider"?

  Christ, that implies so many scary things. But the likelihood is that cable news rating will drop post-election and those viewers will go back to mindless network dramas and bad comedies, where they were before. Thank god Obama has done his part for Knight Rider.

• What will it mean for comedy? Oh this is the most interesting of all, be honest. Will everybody forget about Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert? More broadly, will all these political comedians who teed off on Bush and the Republicans for the last eight years be able to do the same on the Democrats. And most importantly of all: Will white comedians figure out how to make fun of Barack Obama?
  Early indications are bad. I mean, have you seen SNL do Obama? It's disgracefully unfunny. Maybe start by getting... a black guy to play him? Too hard?
  Here's the problem: everyone is worried about what Obama's election will do to the comedians who are already established. Fuck that. This will be a golden age for black comedians! It's about fucking time! This is what nerdy white comedians are worried about:

  "In front of white liberal audiences — which is what most comedy clubs are, even in red states, it's always that blue-state element — if I try doing race jokes about Obama you can hear the sphincters tighten up faster than lug nuts on a '57 Ford. Until I can say 'President Homey' and get away with it, it's going to be a little tougher."

  Hey fool, you know why you can't "get away with it?" Because "President Homey" is not funny. Not "racist"—rather, "not funny." I expect black comedians to be one of the few demographics to see their salaries rise over the next year. Woo ha.

• What will it mean for the Huffington Post? They will have fewer readers. But most of the ones who leave will be wingnuts.

Needless to say, we're not totally convinced by Tancer's super compelling argument. Granted, we haven't seen his data, but the simple claim that searches for porn have dropped from 20% of all searches to 10%, and that social networks are now the dominant search theme, isn't enough to get us preparing for a grand ol' porno funeral. Allow us to explain ...

There's more of the internet than there used to be. As the internet grows, matures, and spreads into homes across America, it's only natural that porn would become a smaller percentage of all the content out there — not because porn is less popular, but because it's gone from being a big fish in a small pond to a big fish in a very, very large pond.

Social networks are work friendly. You (probably) can look at Facebook while you're slacking off at work. You (probably) can't look at Fleshbot. Does that mean that you like Facebook better than Fleshbot? We'll let you think on that one.

Social networks are kid friendly. We hear the kids are big into the internet these days — and they also really like the MySpace. Chances are, their parents are going to be more okay with them looking at MySpace or Facebook rather than porn. And the more that kids become heavy internet users, the more these numbers are going to get skewed.

Adult sites are vastly more profitable than social networks. Unlike Facebook, most porn sites have figured out some decent ways to monetize their traffic (even with smaller users bases). Somehow, we think the money is going to have the final word on this one.

· "Facebook and MySpace are Killing Porn?" (mashable.com)
· "Porn passed over as Web users become social" (reuters.com)

The magazine industry is far more insulated from the economic pressures of blogs and news aggregators than newspapers are. But! High-end papers like the NYT and the WSJ, watching the internet eat away at their business model, are desperate to make up some of their revenue loss. So they start fancy weekend magazines—T and WSJ., respectively—to cater to luxury advertisers and bring in money to subsidize their real news operations, which are increasingly unprofitable.

Both T and WSJ. have thus far done a good job of drawing in upscale advertisers. But guess who that hurts? Every other magazine that would like to draw in upscale advertisers. Which means all your favorites! So while newspapers are sprawling enough to extend their brands in a different direction, standalone magazines are not always so privileged. (Unless they have no fear of ridicule, like Us).

In this way the internet screws newspapers, and newspapers screw magazines. And magazines screw... ?

TONY is light on content and heavy on listings. That's probably not going to change significantly. So consider what they're up against:

• Craigslist: The entire classified ad business has largely been destroyed by Craigslist. Especially in New York, where Craigslist is widely read. Because Craigslist is, you know, free.
• Yelp.com: A site with remarkably extensive listings and reviews of restaurant, bars, nightlife, bars, and shopping. And the reviews are customer-generated, rather than one magazine's opinion. Also free. (See also: Citysearch, Menupages, etc.)
• Blogs: Crazy micro-specialization means that there are probably a dozen good blogs covering any area of interest you might have in New York. Again, free.
• Other competitors: The Village Voice, NY Press, and L Magazine all do extensive reviews and event listings. All free. New York magazine could be considered a higher-end competitor, but its content is a million times better.

• Suffice it to say that TONY can't depend on increasing sales of its print version to stay afloat. That leaves its website. Which they certainly understand—the mag tried to invest and make its website the leader in its category last year. Unfortunately that didn't pan out. And it's hard to see how they could surpass all the aforementioned online competitors now, even with a big infusion of money.

  So if TONY's business model doesn't deliver them a solid profit right where they are today, the outlook is grim.

  [Anybody out there with more info on TONY's financial situation (good or bad), email us please.]

"In the study, Obermeyer's group compared data on war deaths from eyewitnesses and the media from 13 countries over the past 50 years with peacetime data in the United Nations World Health Surveys, which was collected after the end of the wars. This method avoids problems collecting data during active combat, and also reduces counting deaths twice or exaggerating the number, Obermeyer said.

"The researchers estimate that 5.4 million people died from 1955 to 2002 as a result of wars in 13 countries. These deaths range from 7,000 in the Democratic Republic of Congo to 3.8 million in Vietnam.

"According to Obermeyer, the estimates are three times higher than those of previous reports. Data from this new study also suggests that 378,000 people worldwide died a violent death in war each year between 1985 and 1994, compared with 137,000 estimated at the time.

"The biggest differences were seen in Bangladesh, where 269,000 people died during that country's struggle for independence, compared with previous estimates of 58,000, the report shows. In Zimbabwe, the researchers estimate that 130,000 people have died in times of conflict, compared with earlier estimates of 28,000." [ABCnews via MetaFilter]

Look at what's working in cable's favor today:

Decline of the networks.

The networks plus cable equals the whole TV pie. And it's a huge pie. Any advertiser wanting to reach the most coveted demographic of all—relatively young men and women—has to spend big on TV. The internet hasn't destroyed television as it has print media. And the networks' roster of shows these days is weak, historically speaking—which was exacerbated by the writer's strike last year. The president of TBS says:

"There is very little consistency in what they are doing, and people don't know what to expect when they turn on the broadcast networks. They are still in the business of appointment television, but there are fewer and fewer appointments. There's a great big opportunity for cable networks."

Cable programming is getting better and better.

The days when the networks were automatically presumed to have the best shows are long gone. It's not just premium cable channels like HBO that changed the equation, either. Bravo, Nat Geo, Discovery, the Sci-Fi Channel—all are dominant players in their programming fields, in terms of quality. Cable channels have fewer content restrictions, and they've virtually eliminated the barriers to snagging good talent. Think of your favorite shows. How many of them are on cable? MOST OF THEM. Why? They're investing:

Annual spending on programming by basic networks has doubled in the last five years from $9.2 billion in 2002 to $18.8 billion in 2007, and the top 20 cable networks spent an average of $566 million per network during 2007 compared with $321 million in 2002.

Cable is confident.

The dominant theme of reporting on the television upfronts this year was the surging confidence of cable channels. They're consciously positioning themselves as direct competitors to the networks. They've grown their audiences to the point that they can't be disregarded by the same advertisers who support the networks. Money is pouring in. Discovery—that home of fine executive pay—isn't just generous with its CEO; its stock price grew more than 50% last year. The Sci-Fi Channel makes profits in the range of 40%. It's driven by good programming, which is only becoming a stronger and stronger pull for audience growth; that's one lesson of the internet, where content trumps big money. In the past decade, the overall cable audience has more than doubled.

Networks must, by design, try for mass appeal. Cable channels can target their audiences much more effectively. The scary thing for networks is that even specialized cable channels no longer represent just a niche audience any more; they are almost as plugged into the mainstream as the networks themselves. Virtually all American households at least have the option of cable, and the majority are cable subscribers. The industry is sitting in a sweet spot: it's already big enough to have reached critical mass, and it still has plenty of room to grow.

If this keeps up, I may even get cable myself.

[NYT, WSJ, NCTA]

"Anyone who calls it a hoax is misguided," says the diminutive, hyper 28-year-old. "They don't understand — there are many layers to this."

Oh really? Such as?

"My mission as an artist is to raise dialogue and conversation about substantive things," he says, staring through arty glasses that did not have any lenses. "There's so much media time spent on superficial things — like celebrities. My point is to bring substance back."

[Expert job of killing his subject with quotes, by the WP's David Segal]

Any photograph used in a magazine, a billboard, an album cover, whatever - can only be presumed to be a photo-based illustration. The issue, which Dove's well-intentioned campaign addressed, is the effect these illustrations have on the psyche, self-esteem, and well-being of women (in particular) not to mention the unrealistic view men might have of women. It brings to mind the shock the eminent Victorian art critic John Ruskin experienced upon discovering his wife's pubic hair, after which he was unable to consummate the marriage. Divorce followed shortly.

The hypocrisy that Dove is now being accused of is understandable but perhaps not of a Spitzerian magnitude. However, it is compounded by the fact that the product their ads were pushing were skin firming, cellulite reducing creams. Oh the double standards! So perhaps we should agree that we are living in both the digital age and the age of hypocrisy.

[via Kottke]

What Blodget means is, who at this meeting handed the story to the Journal. He thinks it had to be one of the attendees—"CBS CEO Les Moonves, CBS News president Sean McManus, Katie's agent, Alan Berger of the Creative Artists Agency, and Katie herself"—but it really could've been anyone who heard about the meeting second- or third-hand. Regardless, the 'WSJ' story made it seem like CBS was dumping Katie to save money and "cap a difficult episode for CBS." The Times sounds a bit more like Katie just hates the job.

Of course, having Katie leave on her own volition would be embarrassing for CBS, but in the long run quite a bit less damaging than forcing her out and having her sue for a couple million, like one of their last anchors did.

Anyway she won't go host Larry King Live now because a) Larry King will never retire and b) that job is Seacrest's, dammit.

[Silicon Alley Insider]

It's awfully sweet that publisher Mort Zuckerman is committed (or deluded) enough to the future of his News to make "this significant investment in its future," as he puts it. Are the costs all that much different though? To be sure, purchasing brand-new press machines can cost a pretty penny. The German Koenig & Bauer presses that the News will use cost millions. But an industry insider we spoke to said the material costs to run the press (additional inking, etc.) aren't likely to be much different.

What is likely to change, however, are the number of people required to operate the thing. The main selling point of the Commander CT is that it requires far fewer pressmen than conventional machines. Good news for Zuckerman, not so much for the paper's press operators—we can actually hear the Pressmen's Union organizing from here.

Even if Zuckerman saves some cash with personnel, he may lose a little when it comes to ad revenue, surprisingly. Advertisers pay serious premiums for full-color ads. An extra $31,500 is tacked on to the bill for a full-color full-page ad in the New York Times. (Or you could send your kid to a damn nice college for a year, but it's not our money, sadly.) But they're willing to fork over the extra cash because ad departments remind them up and down that each edition has only a limited number of color positions available. Act now! Time is running out! You get the drift. It's harder to convince an advertiser to pay more for an ad when the others are just as colorful.

Click to enlarge!

This chart reveals the thrust of more than 100 of the most recent headlines for stories on "Jamie Lynn Spears." Even though a hearty 12 percent of headlines were generic announcements of her being impregnated, 15 percent were comments about her getting knocked up as Brit's sister.

Some highlights:

TMZ interviewed Uncle Odus:

He tells us the family was "shocked' and yet "we aren't." As a pastor, Uncle Odus says he's seen "this type of thing" more often than he'd like.

Papa Bear O'Lielly added her to the pinhead club:
On the pinhead front, 16-year-old Jamie Lynn Spears is pregnant. The sister of Britney says she is shocked. I bet. Now most teens are pinheads in some ways. But here the blame falls primarily on the parents of the girl, who obviously have little control over her or even over Britney Spears. Look at the way she behaves.

But Mary J. Blige was there to offer support:
"Stay strong, baby girl. If that's her choice (to keep the baby) then congratulations. Hope she's responsible and I hope she understands what that brings.

So what's older brother Bryan Spears up to these days?

The basics of freelancing: Contractors complete a piece of work in exchange for a fee, not a salary. They can't be bound by specific hours or be required to attend meetings or work at the office. Employers aren't actually required to provide health or retirement benefits to anyone. If they're big enough, most companies provide those benefits at some level in order to get and keep happy employees. But if they provide benefits to some employees, they have to provide them for all. And that's where it gets sticky, because many freelancers, whether they know it or not, fit the (maddeningly loose) definition of employee.

There is no legal definition for an independent contractor, but courts uphold the common law definitions of "master" and "slave." That's less fun than it sounds. Whether someone is an employee or a contractor is based on the amount of control their boss has over them. The implied relationship determines if you're a contractor or an employee, entitled to the benefits every other employee gets. Vague enough? Sound like you're in a relationship with a high-strung high-schooler?

You're Basically An Employee If:

• Your employer gives you company equipment to complete your work.
• You have to get prior permission to take a day off.
• You spend all your time working for one company—likely you don't have the time to work for anyone else.
• You submit oral or written reports to our boss.
• Your employer trained you for your position.
• Your employer bought, trained and supervises your lovely assistant.
• You have your own work station on company premises.
• The business couldn't maintain its success or performance without your services. (In reality, not just in your mind!)
• You're reimbursed for expenses.
• You've been instructed where, when, or how to complete the job you've agreed to. (Having a picky boss doesn't qualify.)
• 
  None of these are legal definitions and many companies blur the lines. Newspapers and magazines, who often fill their pages with freelance work, occasionally set up "freelance stations," where a contractor can work, sometimes daily, without being given their own station and thus qualifying for employee status.

  Not every employer is out to exploit cheap labor. In the media industry in particular, a company is hard-pressed not to use freelance workers. Many of the most ambitious contractors are young and happy to do the work for a byline or are established enough to want independence—both are attractive. Giving those people steady work or a few perks seems only natural. Unfortunately for employers, it also qualifies them for more.

  In September, Governor Spitzer issued an executive order [PDF] establishing the Joint Enforcement Task Force On Employee Misclassification. Spitzer's order rattled the cages of a few media companies—the governor wants to look under rocks most of them would prefer remain undisturbed.

  Viacom may have faced a choice common to media companies: eliminate benefits to independent contractors, or hire them on as employees. Take away paid vacation, company-provided healthcare and a retirement plan, and it becomes a lot easier to make the case that a freelancer is just a freelancer. Many newspapers spent the summer cleaning house in anticipation—those who haven't may find themselves in a bind.

At the end of the piece, the bulk of which details the growing skepticism TNR editors felt only after publishing Beauchamp's pieces, Foer admits as much: "In retrospect, we never should have put Beauchamp in this situation." Perhaps, but deflecting attention from the fact that the magazine should not have put itself or its other reporters in "this situation" makes TNR appear unwilling to accept full responsibility for getting overexcited about unfettered access to a soldier on the ground in Iraq. "We cannot stand by these stories," concludes Foer.

Foer ought to have taken a page from the Chuck Lane School of Apologia. In 1998, when addressing TNR readers in the wake of the Stephen Glass scandal, the magazine's 500-word piece concluded simply: "We offer no excuses for any of this. Only our deepest apologies to all concerned."

Earlier: Drudge Shatters 'New Republic' On Dickhead 'Baghdad Diarist" With Internal Memos, Then Yanks Docs

Sling Media's main product, the Slingbox, differs in a key way from popular digital video recorders like TiVo. Instead of recording programs for later display in the living room, the Slingbox rebroadcasts what's on your TV, live, to your laptop, cell phone, or other Net-connected screens. While TiVo lets you shift TV shows in time, Slingbox lets you move TV programming to other places. (This is especially handy if, say, you want to follow your home team's games, only available on your local cable system, while you're on the road.)

Obviously, a Slingbox could be hooked up to EchoStar's Dish Network boxes. But it could just as easily be connected to a DirecTV box, or a cable hookup. So why would EchoStar buy something that's so hard to turn into a proprietary advantage?

Obviously, EchoStar could introduce set-top boxes that have Slingbox functions, saving space under the TV set. But I think there's more to it than that. Internet bandwidth looks set to increase continuously, while capacity on EchoStar's satellites appears increasingly constrained. If the Slingbox rebroadcasts any video signal over the Internet, couldn't EchoStar, one day, skip the satellite altogether and pump television programming over the Internet — what's known in the industry as IPTV?

Of course, in IPTV, EchoStar will face competition ranging from AT&T to Microsoft. No small challenge. But Krikorian, the Sling Media founder, has faced unlikely odds in introducing a new, difficult-to-explain piece of hardware, winning critical praise and blog buzz, and now selling his company at a more than healthy price. If he's sincere in staying on at EchoStar, as he told PaidContent, Ergen's company has a chance to transcend its satellite-TV heritage. That seems worth a few hundred million dollars.

Facebook has to sell at some point. Just as with YouTube, it means nothing that Facebook's founder pretends his company could continue independently. In fact, it's much less likely for Facebook, which has a smaller user base, tougher competitors (YouTube was king of video; Facebook is still smaller than MySpace), and fewer immediate advertising opportunities. Internet traffic tracker ComScore says Facebook's traffic actually fell by over a million visitors last month.

But Facebook is too cocky to drop down to a $1 billion offer, which is all Yahoo's still offering. Both are playing chicken now, hoping that no third party approaches the other with a sweeter deal. In the meantime, other massive social sites like YouTube and MySpace soak up the benefits of major corporate ownership: stability, cash flow, and huge leverage in future deals with other conglomerates. And Google and News Corp are basking in the halo effect of their popular purchases.

So which will cave first, Facebook or Yahoo — or will Google snatch up Facebook too?

Yahoo's Talks With Facebook Get Bogged Down [Wall Street Journal, free]