Bartiromo wrote a Q&A column called FaceTime, which consisted of her asking questions of some business guy each week. She's not a bulldog questioner, but she's not incompetent either. Her strongest point was access: Hank Greenberg, Tim Geithner, and Jeffrey Katzenberg have all sat for her in the past month.

Her downsides: She's perceived as friendly to CEOs, which is part of the reason she gets that access. And whatever they pay her for that column is certainly inflated by her own celebrity, which is hard to justify when Bloomberg's getting ready to lay off a bunch of BW staffers. They'll be able to get good access with a much cheaper columnist, anyhow; who else will CEOs rattle off talking points to, bloggers? LOL!

Don't feel bad, Maria. Gurl U no Wall St luvs U no matta wut. Gurl let Jamie Dimon buy U a drank.

King, a former Associated Press reporter, is a devotee of the old school. He once freaked out on CNN management after Larry King hosted an inaugural event for George W. Bush and hugged him on the air. It's kind of quaint, really. Replacing Dobbs' xenophobic self-regarding bluster with King's reasonable, if horserace-obsessed, demeanor is a conscious effort on CNN's part to distance itself from cable demagoguery. From CNN chief Jon Klein's conference call with staffers, via the New York Times:

"John doing that show is obviously a statement about the importance of real nonpartisan news to CNN, and also the importance of political coverage to CNN," Jonathan Klein, the president of CNN/U.S., told employees on a conference call Thursday morning.

We don't really know what to say about CNN. This is the right strategy, but it's a losing strategy. And it can't last long.

Broadcasting & Cable's Marisa Guthrie surveys the market for on-air experts to talk about stuff on cable news and and morning shows, and finds that, like everything else, it has collapsed:

There was a time, not long ago, when on-air contributors with expertise on a particular topic would command lucrative contracts from networks, sometimes earning as much as $5,000 for one appearance on a network morning show. But the financial contraction has choked off many of these deals. Now, networks pony up very little or, in most cases, nothing at all for talking heads.

According to Guthrie, some analyst contracts used to range into the six figures or higher for a few dozen appearances per year. So what happened when the networks reined in those outrageously cushy deals?

One agent recalls a multi-year deal worth nearly $250,000 for a medical expert. When the deal expired, according to the agent, the network suggested a strikingly different arrangement: The client could continue to appear-without getting paid.

There are of course innumerable people willing to go on TV for free, which places something of a drag on wages for those who would like to be paid. Guthrie cites Rosalind Wiseman, a child-care "expert" who's happily made the rounds at Today, Good Morning America, The Early Show, and CNN without earning a cent. As one agent told the paper, "Anyone can talk about anything. But if someone has perspective or access to specific information that the network can't get anywhere else, the network is probably more flexible." So basically you can be on TV if you want to just talk. If you actually know something worth talking about, you might get paid. But when was the last time you saw anyone on TV who knew something worth talking about?

Yeah, it's funny because she sort of looks exactly like the weird hooker in the actual movie. (And Fisher is pretty much a deadringer for a Psycho-era Bale.) So, like her doppleganger, Hearst has a creepy threesome with Patrick Bateman and some doomed socialite. There's lots of bouncing.

Look! Screencaps! I've embedded the video itself down in comments if you want to hear the surprisingly good song. New comments are good for something after all.

The image associated with this post is best viewed using a browser.While the first video clearly shows how the media's interpretation of today's events was all over the map and sort of ridiculous at various points, the one thing they were all unanimously sure of was that they were moved. Very, very moved.

Thanks to intern Cassie Seale for putting together the second video.

Well, simple say TV talking heads: just imagine if there was an Olympic sport in which Elvis, Frank Sinatra, the Beatles and Mozart duked it out with nuclear weapons. Maybe that would be a bigger deal than what's going on at the Staples Center.

Bush torture memo-crafter John Yoo thinks that Obama's pick is nothing more than race-pandering for votes:

Obama had some truly outstanding legal intellectuals and judges to choose from-Cass Sunstein, Elena Kagan, and Diane Wood come immediately to mind. The White House chose a judge distinguished from the other members of that list only by her race. Obama may say he wants to put someone on the Court with a rags-to-riches background, but locking in the political support of Hispanics must sit higher in his priorities.

Sotomayor's record on the bench, at first glance, appears undistinguished. She will not bring to the table the firepower that many liberal academics are asking for. There are no opinions that suggest she would change the direction of constitutional law as have Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court, or Robert Bork and Richard Posner on the appeals courts. Liberals have missed their chance to put on the Court an intellectual leader who will bring about a progressive revolution in the law.

Matthew Yglesias likes Sotomayor's life story:

The argument is going to be out there that this isn't irrelevant, but I think to a normal person something that immediately leaps out about Sonia Sotomayor is that for someone who has all the usual qualifications to be a Supreme Court Justice, she also has an unusual life story. She's been on the Appeals Court and before that the District Court, and she went to Yale Law School. But she also grew up in a housing project in the Bronx, after her parents moved to New York from Puerto Rico.

It's the kind of story that makes you feel good about America and that still resonates as quintessentially American even though social mobility in the United States isn't quite what we like to think.

Politico's Jonathon Martin is sort of impressed at Obama's lack of risk in the Sotomayor pick:

In picking the candidate whose name surfaced within hours of first leak about Justice David Souter's retirement, Obama is also demonstrating the same profile in caution that has colored previous big decisions, such as who to name as his running mate.

George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr called her "a liberal mirror image of Samuel Alito" - a child of the meritocracy with a resume that is big on credentials and low on controversy.

It's hard to be breathtaking and boring, but Obama somehow finds a way.

TNR's legal analyst Jeffrey Rosen, one of Sotomayor's most vocal critics to date, is throwing her his tepid support while voicing displeasure over conservatives twisting his words to suit their cause:

Conservatives are already citing my initial piece on Sotomayor as a basis for opposing her. This willfully misreads both my piece and the follow-up response. My concern was that she might not make the most effective liberal voice on the Court—not that she didn't have the potential to be a fine justice. Questions of temperament are often overlooked, but history suggests that they are the most relevant in predicting judicial success. (Justice Scalia may be a brilliant bomb-thrower, but has failed in his attempts to build coalitions and bipartisan majorities.) Now is the time to think more broadly about the role Justice Sotomayor is likely to play on the Supreme Court, and I look forward to doing that in the weeks ahead.

The Weekly Standard's Michael Goldfarb sees Sotomayor as Obama's Harriet Myers:

She will, presumably, be a reliable liberal vote — nothing more, nothing less. Conservatives could have done much worse, but we're getting a liberal Harriet Miers instead of a liberal Alito. The real danger for conservatives is that Sotomayor becomes a Hispanic icon who's seen as being unfairly maligned by Republicans. That could further alienate Hispanics from the party and do lasting damage to the conservative revolution in ways that Sotomayor herself never could.

Marc Ambinder says that Obama is sending a clear message with the pick, one that he's been secretly enthused about:

Obama is sending a few different messages to a few different audiences. To liberals, the pick sells itself — a progressive superstar with fantastic academic credentials. Obama is addressing conservatives only because he wants to get his judge confirmed by a wide margin. To the rest of the country, the Sotomayor pick will embody Obama's judicial philosophy — going beyond theory to, as the talking points say, "ensure consistent, fair, common-sense application of the law to real-world facts."

"I strive never to forget he real world consequences of my decisions," Sotomayor said today.

On Thursday, Obama was in a jaunty mood after he interviewed Sotomayor. A few groups of reporters were meeting in the West Wing with senior officials, and the President decided to stop by. He was an in expansive mood and riffed about the direction of the court. He did not tip his hand about the interview or the identity of his pick, and he asked that his musings be shared off the record. But it was clear that he was excited about how his pick would energize the court.

Rush Limbaugh predictably thinks that the Republicans need to "go to the mat" to fight the nomination, which he thinks proves once and for all that Obama is a "reverse racist":

She is the embodiment of the criticism of a judge or a justice who is all wrong for the highest court in the land. So of course the Republican Party should go to the mat on this because in the process of doing so, the American people will find out more about Barack Obama and who he really is; what he really believes in. And her choice, this choice helps to tell the real story of Barack Obama. This is a debate worth having...Obama is the greatest living example of a reverse racist, and now he's appointed one.

Ann Althouse, who likes the pick, thinks that Republicans can learn a lot and in turn do some good for the future of their party by acting like mature adults through the upcoming confirmation process:

If confirmation is about agreeing with the ideology, then Republicans might want to vote against Sotomayor. But confirmation should not be about ideology, and conservatives ought to want to prove that principle by their votes. Use the confirmation hearings to delineate what liberal judicial ideology is and why people ought to reject it. Then get a good presidential candidate for 2012 and make Supreme Court nominations an issue. Is that too hard? Does that take too long? Too bad! You say you want a Justice who will tell the truth about what the Constitution means. But here's something about what the Constitution means: The President has the appointment power.

Former Bush Attorney General Alberto Gonzales sang the pick's praises to CNN's Wolf Blitzer:

This is a powerful message, a powerful message of hope and opportunity through this appointment, just like there's a powerful message sent when an African-American is elected president or an African-American or a Hispanic is appointed as attorney general of the United States. It's a powerful message that a president listens to. And this president obviously did.

Harvard economist Greg Mankiw takes issue with Sotomayor's lack of savings:

Some people with low incomes manage to scrimp and save (I always think of my grandmother), and some people with high incomes spend most everything they earn.

Apparently, the new Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is an example of the latter. The Washington Post reports that the 54-year-old Sotomayer has a $179,500 yearly salary but

On her financial disclosure report for 2007, she said her only financial holdings were a Citibank checking and savings account, worth $50,000 to $115,000 combined. During the previous four years, the money in the accounts at some points was listed as low as $30,000.

My grandmother would have been shocked and appalled to see someone who makes so much save so little.

Nate Silver takes Greg Mankiw to his statistical woodshed for his comments about Sotomayor's spending habits:

Mankiw's critique is a bizarre on several levels. For one thing, while a $179,000-per-year income is quite a lot wherever one lives, it doesn't go as far in New York City as in almost any other place. State taxes in New York are pretty high for the upper income brackets, and New York City also charges a city tax of 3.648%. As a single filer, Sotomayor's income tax burden, counting her federal nut, is probably something like $65,000.

In addition, New York City is an expensive place to live: particularly on the Island of Manhattan, and even more particularly in the West Village neighborhood where Sotomayor has her apartment. The average price of a two-bedroom rental apartment apartment in a doorman building in Greenwich Villiage is $5,396 per month, or about $65,000 per year. (Sotomayor, from what I can gather, in fact still rents her space). So considering her tax bill and the cost of her apartment, Sotomayor is down to "only" about $50,000 in disposable income per year. A single person can certainly live very well on that sort of income — even in Manhattan — but would probably not live what we'd ordinarily consider an extravagant lifestyle. It would be quite easy to spend a good chunk of that $50,000 on utilities, transport, groceries, and extra medical care (Sotomayor is diabetic); throw in a couple of nice meals out every month, tickets to a dozen Yankees games each year, and maybe a week's worth of vacation, and you're not going to have a whole heck of a lot left over. And of course, if one is generous with one's friends, or gives money to one's extended family or to charity, the money will go even faster. Sure, it's a pretty full life. But it's not likely that Sotomayor is downing bottles of Cristal and snorting coke in the bathroom every Friday at Hotel Gansevoort, or having four-martini lunches with the Sex and the City girls at Bryant Park.

We've been waiting to hear Andrew Sullivan's and Michelle Malkin's thoughts on Sotomayor, but haven't seen any updates from either of them yet. We'll update the post when we do.

What The Sonia Sotomayor Pick Says About Barack Obama [Politico]
Sotomayor: No Threat to the Revolution [Weekly Standard]
Empathy Triumphs Over Excellence [John Yoo]
Rush Limbaugh Advises Republicans to "Take It to the Mat" [Ann Althouse]
GOP Must Go to Mat on Sotomayor to Tell Real Story of Barack Obama [Rush Limbaugh]
Alberto Gonzales: Sotomayor Pick Gives Hope [CNN]
Obama's Pick, From the Start [Marc Ambinder/Atlantic]
The Sotomayor Nomination [TNR]
The Sotomayor Story [Matthew Yglesias]
SCOTUS Appointee is a Spender [Greg Mankiw]
Grandmother of World's 23rd Best Economist Posthumously Offeneded by Sonia Sotomayor's Spending Habits; Will Obama Withdraw Nomination? [FiveThirtyEight]

Ari is in PR. So he should really, you know, be great at tapping into the public consciousness, right? And what issue will resonate with the broke, unemployed citizens of our recession-wracked nation now more than this: Poor people should pay more taxes!

If you thought Bernard Madoff's Ponzi scheme was bad, wait until you hear about the inverted pyramid scheme the federal government is working on. While Mr. Madoff preyed on people who trusted him with their money, the federal government has everyone's money, and the implications of its actions are worse.

This dreadful pyramid scheme: progressive taxation. The rich are paying most of the taxes—meanwhile, the poor get off scott free! Ari Fleischer has a plan to end this outrage and he tells you all about it in his op-ed, but he forgot that nobody gives a fuck what he thinks since he's just an eloquent blank wall and the only reason people listened to him before is because they were obligated to because he spoke for the president, and he also forgot he's an asshole and everybody's poor now so maybe he should just shut his mouth for once. [WSJ]

Ha, joking, Air America! We're just saying it's maybe not the biggest thing Montel has ever done...

For 17 years, Williams was host and executive producer of The Montel Williams Show, one of the longest running daytime Talk shows in TV. He is currently launching a multimedia business based on his "Living Well with Montel" brand. He's also published eight best-selling books.

Bonus benefit: there is once again at least one black person working in the media. That was quick! USA! [Mediaweek]

Truth be told, both sides are laying it on pretty thick. [Clips edited by Mike Byhoff, Daniel Caron, Georgina Devine of the Gawker video team.]

Profiles of Smith from the Observer and New York magazine have hinted at his sexuality in the past, but they've both been reluctant to come right out and say he's gay. But the anchor's new profile on Cityfile sums it up thusly:

Smith has repeatedly dodged the question of his sexuality, but in 2005 he was outed in a column in the Washington Blade. Kevin Naff, the managing editor of the gay weekly, said that Smith "chatted me up in a New York City gay piano bar, bought me drinks, and invited me back to his place." He lives in a two-bedroom West Village loft that he purchased for $1.87 million in 2004. Fashion designer (and fellow gay) Michael Kors lives in the same building.

Fox News has, essentially, a ready-made conservative counterpart for Anderson Cooper just waiting to be promoted correctly. Having Smith as the face of the network could go a long way towards imbuing it with a slightly more open image—a hint of progressivism, with all the staid respectability that the middle American audience expects in its newsmen. And once Obama is elected and the backlash against the Bush years begins in earnest, Fox News will need someone less harsh than Bill O'Reilly to make peace with the national mood.

It is, in all seriousness, a fine idea. Fox News should give it some consideration.

[Huffpo, CityFile, Previously]

Among them, according to the conference's inexplicably McSweeneyish website: What Makes Us Laugh, in which humor editor John Hodgeman will interview Ricky Gervais, and What We Eat, in which food editor Amanda Hesser will talk to Sysco president Rick Schnieders, a chef, and a "greenmarket pioneer" (that means foodie!). Then there's How We Innovate, featuring MySpace creator Tom Anderson, and How We Make Movies featuring Luke and Owen Wilson.

Each talk costs $25 — which, admit it, is less than you usually pay for conversation — and the Ricky Gervais one, be advised, is already sold out. The two main events, though, as far as Gawker Weekend is concerned, are both still wide open. They are: How We Obsess (Over Dogs), starring such "dog-human behavior experts" as inveterate giggle-inducer William Wegman, and How We Live Post 9/11, a conversation between Gerry Marzorati and Don DeLillo, whose new novel Falling Man "reflects how we live now: with our doubts, our fears and our new, shifting world." Of course, some readers of his last novel Cosmopolis might object that DeLillo better belongs on that dog panel. Zing!

All in all, the lineup beats last year's — the biggest stars then were Howard Dean and Randy "Moral Relativism" Cohen. (Incidentally, we're assuming that the Times is in fact asking questions with their talk titles, and not just maniacally screaming things like "How We Innovate!" and "How We Live Post 9/11!" Dr. Seuss-style.)

For planning purposes, note that the New Yorker Conference — which is a brand-new vernal celebration not to be confused with the end-of-harvest New Yorker Festival — takes place after Sunday With The Magazine. Well, that's not entirely true, because the "two nights — one day" gathering is actually happening May 6 and 7, a couple of weeks before the Times state fair. But it is mostly true, since this isn't the the 2007 New Yorker Conference we're talking about; no, according to the shiny official website, David Remnick's kickin' slumber party is to be called The New Yorker Conference / 2012: stories from the near future. And, as if to prove time ain't nothing but a number, it's all going down at that new Frank Gehry office building/melting ice cube on the Chelsea riverfront.

So what will 2012 be like? Well, surprisingly, sound-bite sociology will still be around; that is to say, Malcolm Gladwell is slated to attend. Also, the World Beat music sound will be as popular as it is today, as Talking Head David Byrne will testify to next month/five years from now. Newark mayor Cory Booker, SimCity programmer Will Wright, and architect-in-theory Zaha Hadid will also remain luminaries. And still so much science!

Through exclusive interviews, vivid presentations, and in-depth discussions, you will learn what the future holds. It's the ultimate insider's look at the works in progress that will shape our world, from boardrooms to courtrooms, from biology labs to design studios.

Times Magazine or New Yorker; New Yorker or Times Magazine? Oh, who are we kidding — we're going to both; Lynne Hirschberg and Henry Finder are worth a little starvation. Alternative revenue streams for dead-tree Manhattan media: My, how they innovate! —Jon & Leon