BESTSALVIA.INFO

Television original meaning (from the Greek tele, meaning "far," and the Latin visio, meaning "sight") is a telecommunication system for broadcasting and receiving moving pictures and sound over long distances. In other words, it is a system, that would naturally endow those using it to show things and events that were happening somewhere else from where the audience would be.

But, most of what we see today on TV is very rarely "reality" as it is happening somewhere else. Even newscasts and sports events now are strongly pre-packaged for television programming with lots of predetermined breaks and sequences that influence quite significantly the type of event you get to be looking at.

As far as I am concerned, live television is all to be re-invented and the new real-time video broadcasting tools that allow just about anyone to switch on their personal broadcasting stations is a tremendous opportunity to leverage this huge entertainment, informational and learning opportunity.

So, as the number ofmobile video streaming services increases each month, the real battle is not so much for who has the best performance or video quality, or even the greatest number of videos or viewers, but for who can best create relevant context around such sometimes great, yet so diverse and unpredictable content.

This is why, while John just got excited with QIK and its cool relationship with social media tool Twitter, I am instead sliding down my enthusiasm for the platform which has seen much improvement in its looks, reliability and feature-set, but has made too little progress on creating valuable context around the content its users create. Nonetheless QIK has created a site, Qiklife, entirely devoted to this very specific task, creating context around content, I feel it has not yet succeeded in giving the right exposure and context to the many quality clips submitted daily to its service.

The mistake may be not peculiar toQIK, but representative of a trend that most other personal live video broadcasting services are experiencing. Just like for non-live video on YouTube and other major video sharing sites, it took and it is still taking some time for these services to develop cool and simple ways for quality content to emerge and to be associated with relevant related context.

In fact, it is exciting to see how many new web-based services such as Splashcast, Magnify, Panjea and Videocrawler and many other ones, have been created to leverage the bottom-up, grassroots, spontaneous ability of people like you to create the valuable context and content aggregation without which, whatever gems you have get lost in an ocean of noise.

So, if you are hungry to start experimenting with your own ability to broadcast live from wherever you are check out one of these tools:

• QIK


• Pocketcaster


• Flyxwagon


• Kyte


• Bambuser


• Seero


• Next2friends

If instead, you want to get a deeper feel for what this new media trend is all about, here's John Blossom's own view on the fascination and potential created by the synergy of live mobile video casting and the real-time social news spreading ability of social networking communities as Twitter.

Check it out:

Intro by Robin Good

A Quick Take on Qik: Mobile Social Media is Here. Kind Of.

by John Blossom

In days past people would tune in to late-night talk shows on the television to catch up with banter from stars, politicians and comedians. These days the bleary-eyed can look forward to "tweets" - messages from Twitter members - inviting people to join them in a Qik session.

What is Qik And How You Can Use it

Qik enables people with video-enabled mobile phones to stream their video to the Web and to join in text chats with people who've been notified of their instant events or leave comments. Your Qik videos are stored at Qik's site for later retrieval, building a library of online conversations and events.

A nifty concept, but one that is, like the Twitter network on which people tell people about Qik happenings, a work in progress.

When you first connect to a Qik it's kind of neat - you see people milling about, things happening, so you type in a chat message and then...nothing happens. In the few Qiks that I've received so far, the signal drops within a few minutes at most and there doesn't seem to be any self-sustaining chats.

Like in Twitter's early phases (and for that matter until the code jocks arrived there a few days ago) Qiks come and go with the tantalizing promise of something interesting that isn't delivering up to its potential just yet.

I was especially intrigued by Robin Good 's late-night visit to a jazz club in Rome - a lot more fun to be part of that than your typical conference mixer. Robin Good has made active use of Qik for several months, but the use of Twitter in combination with Qik adds a real-time messaging aspect to the service for people on the go that enables them to catch things as they're happening.

Qik includes GPS-enabled location information as well, so a quick tweet can let you peek in on a scene and see if it's worth checking out and then check the location information to see where it is.

Business For Qik

It's not clear that there's much of a business model for Qik - probably destined for an exit in the next year would be my guesstimate - but in the meantime I think that it's bringing us one step closer to mobile video calls that will provide meaningful personal content to both personal and general audiences.

As with Twitter, Qik seems to have its own personal protocols that need to be mastered - do that many people know how to get people to put on a good video show? - but short of that with the combo of Twitter and Qik I think that we'll be hearing a lot more about mobile video in the year ahead. I'm waiting for a Qik driver that works with my phone (or for a new phone later this year) but I think that I'll give it a shot the next time that I am at a trade show. It would be a lot nicer to shoot Qik segments of vendors and then just line up links to them on my blog than to fuss with stringing together video segments into a cohesive video blog entry.

Looking forward to yourQik tweets!

Originally written by John Blossom for Content Nation and first published on 24th June 2008 as "A Quick Take on Qik: Mobile Social Media is Here. Kind Of."

John Blossom's career spans more than twenty years of marketing, research, product management and development in advanced information and media venues, including major financial publishers and financial services companies, as well as earlier experience in broadcast media.

Mr. Blossom founded Shore Communications Inc. in 1997, specializing in research and advisory services and strategic marketing consulting for publishers and consumers of content services.

Photocredits
A Quick Take on Qik: Mobile Social Media is Here. Kind Of: Leah-Anne Thompson
Business For Qik: Eray Haciosmanoglu

June 19: With his huge fundraising advantage, Barack Obama reversed course and opted out of public campaign financing. Does that make Obama a hypocrite, a smart politician or both? A Hardball panel discusses. (Hardball)

From: 381030_17a War Of The Worlds - Uncut 57:17 Min <> 13.1 Mb ---------------------------------------------- War of the Worlds Panic By Tom Ferguson On October 30, 1938 Orson Welles and the Mercury Theater of the Air presented The War of the Worlds by H.G. Wells. Over a million people panicked thinking it was real and that Mars was invading the Earth. To understand this phenomenon, we must examine Orson Welles, the Mercury Theater ensemble, the show itself and the times it was presented in. Orson Welles was a great artist and a grand showman in equal measure. His creativity has been compared to an open fire hydrant; it took his partnership with John Houseman to bring it into its best use. As much as he revered classical literature (from Shakespeare to Kafka), he also adored popular cultural forms like the magic show and genres like thrillers, horror tales and melodramas. Crucially, Welles never kept art and show business separate; he played everything both for sensational thrills and for poetic resonance. Although Welles can often seem like a prophet of the postmodern, few today are able to work on these dual levels in the way he did. Orson Welles insisted on doing an adaptation of H.G. Wells War of the Worlds for his Halloween show even though his advisors thought that it would prove too boring for the radio audience. Originally Lorna Doone was to air but three weeks before the broadcast, Welles told producer, John Houseman and writer, Howard Koch of the change. Under Welles direction, Koch set the Martian invasion in modern America. To add impact, the first half of the drama was written and performed so it would sound like a news broadcast about an invasion from Mars. This was the first time that this technique had been used. Koch, fearing that the play would be a flop, went to bed early that night, missing the show. What added the greatest impact to the show was the incredible timing. Welles directed the actors, sound effects, dialog, and music like it was a complex symphony. In all of the Mercury Theater’s work the use of George Herrmann's music is sparing and precise; Welles once said that he worked closely, note for note, with the composer. Equally sparing is Welles' use of sound effects. Also, keep in mind that in 1938, radio broadcasts were presented live. As for the show itself, on Sunday evening, at 8 p.m. Eastern time, a voice on CBS said: "The Columbia Broadcasting System and its affiliated stations present Orson Welles and the Mercury Theatre of the Air in 'The War of the Worlds,' by H.G. Wells." The play itself started off in a quiet and somewhat boring way with a simulated radio program featuring dance music. As the play unfolded, the dance music was interrupted a number of times by fake news bulletins reporting that a "huge flaming object" had dropped on a farm near Grovers Mill, New Jersey. The bulletins started just over five minutes into the show. Just before this on another network, Edgar Bergen and Charley McCarthy show had just finished their opening skit and many people started the 1938 version of channel surfing and landed on the Mercury Theater’s news bulletins. For the next half hour the intensity of the news bulletins increased. The broadcast contained several explanations that it was all a radio play, but if members of the audience missed a brief explanation at the beginning, the next one didn't arrive until 40 minutes into the program. At one point in the broadcast, an actor playing a newscaster in the field described the emergence of one of the aliens from its spacecraft. "Good heavens, something's wriggling out of the shadow like a gray snake," he said, in a dramatic tone. "Now it's another one, and another. They look like tentacles to me. There, I can see the thing's body. It's large as a bear and it glistens like wet leather. But that face. It... it's indescribable. I can hardly force myself to keep looking at it. The eyes are black and gleam like a serpent. The mouth is V-shaped with saliva dripping from its rimless lips that seem to quiver and pulsate.... The thing is raising up. The crowd falls back. They've seen enough. This is the most extraordinary experience. I can't find words. I'm pulling this microphone with me as I talk. I'll have to stop the description until I've taken a new position. Hold on, will you please, I'll be back in a minute." Later, we hear the reporter’s death and an ominous thud as the microphone hits the ground and then several seconds of silence. Listening to the simulated newscasts, 1.2 million people concluded that they were hearing an actual news account of an invasion from Mars. People packed the roads, hid in cellars, loaded guns, and even wrapped their heads in wet towels as protection from Martian poison gas, in an attempt to defend themselves against aliens. One man ran out to his kennel of great danes and upon releasing them shouted “Fend for yourselves boys!” While there were no actual fatalities, one man arrived at home just in time to stop his wife from taking poison so she wouldn’t fall into Martian hands. At the end of the broadcast, police raided the studio confiscating scripts and segregating the players. The cast was made to think that thousands died. Houseman thought that the ditches were choked with copses. In a column, in the New York Tribune, Dorothy Thompson foresaw that the broadcast revealed the way politicians could use the power of mass communications to manipulate the public. "All unwittingly, Mr. Orson Welles and the Mercury Theater of the Air have made one of the most fascinating and important demonstrations of all time," she wrote. "They have proved that a few effective voices, accompanied by sound effects, can convince masses of people of a totally unreasonable, completely fantastic proposition as to create a nation-wide panic. "They have demonstrated more potently than any argument, demonstrated beyond a question of a doubt, the appalling dangers and enormous effectiveness of popular and theatrical demagoguery.... "Hitler managed to scare all of Europe to its knees a month ago, but he at least had an army and an air force to back up his shrieking words. "But Mr. Welles scared thousands into demoralization with nothing at all." To understand how all this could happen, you must look at what was happening in the world. On March 11, 1938 Germany invaded Austria. May 20th, the “May Crisis” with Germany threatening war in Czechoslovakia. On May 28th, Hitler told his generals, "It is my unshakable will that Czechoslovakia shall be wiped off the map." He instructed them to develop a plan for completing this by October 1st. September 12th, Hitler makes his speech at the Nuremberg Rally. On Thursday, September 29th, the four powers, Germany, England, France and Italy met in Munich to decide the fate of Czechoslovakia and on October 1st Germany occupies the Sudeten German territory in Czechoslovakia. Also in October the Spanish Civil War raged. Over the Ebro front the Fascists operate up to 200 planes at the same time, a number never seen in any war on the world before. The Republican Army of the Ebro is bombed to pieces. On October 21st, the Spanish government pulls back the International Brigades. In other parts of the world, on October 21st Japan occupies Canton and other important Chinese cities. All of this was reported on the radio in a constant stream of news bulletins. They all knew a world war was coming, is it no wonder that they were ready to panic at the drop of a hat?

brownfemipower recently argued (here, http://brownfemipower.com/archives/2617) that, as a woman of color (and her perspective only she hastened to add), she couldn’t sympathize with white feminists being upset at the loss of clinton’s candidacy for president. among her argument was that, of course, as a latina woman, she wasn’t sad that a candidate who supported militarizing the borders didn’t win the nomination. were i interested in participating in blog conversations, i might have posted a comment to point out that such rhetoric makes it appear that obama is an improvement. which, it seemed to me, seemed to contradict her earlier stated position that all the screaming about who’s sexist and who’s racist in the democratic run off was making it difficult to talk about issues of concern to women of color *as* women of color — and not, as some like to say, women who are also black or women who are also brown. i point to that latter way of phrasing it because i read it the other day, and it highlights how, even people who consider themselves white women who “get it” such phrasing doesn’t really “get it” at all.

but the issues that mattered to women of color, brownfemipower seemed to argue, were issues that recognized the inadequacies of *both* candidates. (she wrote this in comments here, http://elleabd.blogspot.com/2008/05/trying-to-understand-division.html#comment-6878230785463181948)

On my view, of course, they are humpty and dumpty, tweedledee and tweedledum. they both run to the right, they both triangulate, they both are paltry advances over the alternatives from the republican party. there was very little, substantively, that made these two candidates different. which is why, it seemed to me and what i told charles brown at lbo, there should be utterly no shame in voting for a candidate because of his race or her gender. if they are both essentially the same, how can you possible decide on substance? it has to be on an issue besides substance.

it kind of killed me to watch the tube and listen to the radio, where this was widely acknowledged. the candidates acknowledged that they were largely the same, policy-wise. but the last few months have been a ridiculous pretense, on behalf of supporters, that they are not, that there’s something different worth voting *for* obama or something different worth voting *for* clinton.

the mantra of the last few elections cycles, Anybody But a Republican, followed by a sigh of resignation was common among radical leftists. even among the pwogs. but this year? when the candidates for the dem nomination were more alike than ever before –christ, we had sharpton one year! — hardly anyone who was entrapped by the bullshit of electoral politics uttered the phrase that, at one time, seemed to be the only reason anyone voted for a dem: less evil, anybody but a republican.

finally, finally, i heard it: someone who supported obama honestly. ta-nehisi coates said it well the other day, at the brecht forum debates on obama. (link for an mp3 of the discussion here, http://www.wallstreetthebook.com/BrechtObamaPanel.mp3) from a radical left (not progressive, but radical left) perspective, obama had a lot of faults, and coates reeled them off. he knows all that, he told us. but, in the end, he couldn’t help get excited. he couldn’t help getting swept up in the emotions at a picnic for black men he attended earlier in the day, where people who stoked about seeing a black man on t.v. who wasn’t the face in a mug shot. his discussion was admirable because he didn’t ignore the reality: there is a lot, from a radical left perspective, that is reprehensible about obama. there is nothing, he said, substantive in his positions that is worthy of voting *for*. nothing, that is, that truly distinguishes obama from clinton or anyone else that had been a contender. there may be one slightly more progressive thing here, such as not sounding like pat buchanan on militarization of the border, but then there was another issue where clinton might be slightly more ‘left’ (to use the term loosely) and obama slightly more right. it was a wash.

i admire coates for his honesty. i can respect that reasoning. it makes sense to me. he did not try to argue that electing a black man as cheif operating officer of the imperial state would actually change race relations or improve his life or the life of other people of color. he simply said, basically (and to paraphrase): can you dig it? it makes me feel good to see a good looking, smart black man representing. it improves my well-being and there’s a little bit of bounce ot our collective steps these days because of it.

he’s not blowing smoke up my ass trying to convince me that there was ever a substantive difference between them or that, somehow, obama is only saying what he has to say to get elected or that, in fact, his positions are really progressive, maybe even radical!

i could be almost convinced to vote for obama if i thought that the radical leftists supporting him could get behind coates’ program. but they’re not. instead, either overtly or inadvertantly, they insist or let leak out their true feelings: their shared delusion that obama is and remains different, an improvement over clinton, someone who will not triangulate, someone who will not pander to the right to win, someone who is really a progressive, someone who is more honest than your typical politician. the list is endless as to the bullshit i’ve read at lbo.

the wall st. journal today decided that obama is the new bush. bush’s third term. ayup. of course, putting on my cynical, love-to-analyze-the-horse-race-and-psych-out-republican- strategy hat, my guess is that the wall st. journal is laying the ground work for a values attack on obama as a liar, waffler, etc. this becomes really obvious at the end. nonetheless, the rest of what they have to say is worth considering.

i think especially so because noam chomsky and doug henwoud have both frequently pointed out that you can always tell what the rulling class is thinking simply by reading the wall st. journal and other organs of the ruling class. noam chomsky doesn’t have to consult obscure sources to document the atrocities of u.s. imperialism, he finds his sources in the wall st. journal, the new york times, etc. etc.

and you can read what the ruling class is thinking on the op-ed pages of the wsj. at least one sector of the ruling class — the one that closely articulates the business sector’s interests (’coz the ruling class is never a monolith of same opinion and thankd og for that) — happns to be apalled by some aspects of obamas running dog conservativism. (Yes, I know, the real etymology behind ‘running dog’. work with me heeyah. :)

who knows what will happen with obama. at this point, i honestly don’t think he will win, and it won’t be because some white women voted for mccain because they were pissed about clinton. it’ll be because obama hardly distinguishes himself from mccain.

Wall Street Jounral - July 2, 2008

Bush’s Third Term

We’re beginning to understand why Barack Obama keeps protesting so vigorously against the prospect of “George Bush’s third term.” Maybe he’s worried that someone will notice that he’s the candidate who’s running for it. Most Presidential candidates adapt their message after they win their party nomination, but Mr. Obama isn’t merely “running to the center.” He’s fleeing from many of his primary positions so markedly and so rapidly that he’s embracing a sizable chunk of President Bush’s policy. Who would have thought that a Democrat would rehabilitate the much-maligned Bush agenda?

Take the surveillance of foreign terrorists. Last October, while running with the Democratic pack, the Illinois Senator vowed to “support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies” that assisted in such eavesdropping after 9/11. As recently as February, still running as the liberal favorite against Hillary Clinton, he was one of 29 Democrats who voted against allowing a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee reform of surveillance rules even to come to the floor.

Two weeks ago, however, the House passed a bill that is essentially the same as that Senate version, and Mr. Obama now says he supports it. Apparently legal immunity for the telcos is vital for U.S. national security, just as Mr. Bush has claimed. Apparently, too, the legislation isn’t an attempt by Dick Cheney to gut the Constitution. Perhaps it is dawning on Mr. Obama that, if he does become President, he’ll be responsible for preventing any new terrorist attack. So now he’s happy to throw the New York Times under the bus.

Next up for Mr. Obama’s political blessing will be Mr. Bush’s Iraq policy. Only weeks ago, the Democrat was calling for an immediate and rapid U.S. withdrawal. When General David Petraeus first testified about the surge in September 2007, Mr. Obama was dismissive and skeptical. But with the surge having worked wonders in Iraq, this week Mr. Obama went out of his way to defend General Petraeus against MoveOn.org’s attacks in 2007 that he was “General Betray Us.” Perhaps he had a late epiphany.

Look for Mr. Obama to use his forthcoming visit to Iraq as an excuse to drop those withdrawal plans faster than he can say Jeremiah Wright “was not the person that I met 20 years ago.” The Senator will learn ­ as John McCain has been saying ­ that withdrawal would squander the gains from the surge, set back Iraqi political progress, and weaken America’s strategic position against Iran. Our guess is that he’ll spin this switcheroo as some kind of conditional commitment, saying he’ll stay in Iraq as long as Iraqis are making progress on political reconciliation, and so on. As things improve in Iraq, this would be Mr. Bush’s policy too.

Mr. Obama has also made ostentatious leaps toward Mr. Bush on domestic issues. While he once bid for labor support by pledging a unilateral rewrite of Nafta, the Democrat now says he favors free trade as long as it works for “everybody.” His economic aide, Austan Goolsbee, has been liberated from the five-month purdah he endured for telling Canadians that Mr. Obama’s protectionism was merely campaign rhetoric. Now that Mr. Obama is in a general election, he can’t scare the business community too much.

Back in the day, the first-term Senator also voted against the Supreme Court nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito. But last week he agreed with their majority opinion in the Heller gun rights case, and with their dissent against the liberal majority’s ruling to ban the death penalty for rape. Mr. Obama seems to appreciate that getting pegged as a cultural lefty is deadly for national Democrats ­ at least until November.

This week the great Democratic hope even endorsed spending more money on faith-based charities. Apparently, this core plank of Mr. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” is not the assault on church-state separation that the ACLU and liberals have long claimed. And yesterday, Mr. Obama’s campaign unveiled an ad asserting his support for welfare reform that “slashed the rolls by 80 percent.” Never mind that Mr. Obama has declared multiple times that he opposed the landmark 1996 welfare reform.

* * *

All of which prompts a couple of thoughts. The first is that Mr. Obama doesn’t seem to think American political sentiment has moved as far left as most of the media claim. Another is that the next President, whether Democrat or Republican, is going to embrace much of Mr. Bush’s foreign and antiterror policy whether he admits it or not. Think Eisenhower endorsing Truman’s Cold War architecture.

Most important is the matter of Mr. Obama’s political character ­ and how honest he is being about what he truly believes. His voting record in the Senate and in Illinois, as well as his primary positions, would make him the most liberal Presidential candidate since George McGovern in 1972. But he clearly doesn’t want voters to believe that in November. He’s still the Obama Americans don’t know.

Tim Russert died on Friday. I never met the guy, but I sure was familiar with his work.

I thought he personified what was wrong with the political process, and I said so. It would be hypocritical now for me to say he was a great man, because I don't think he was. Sometimes I felt the politician he was crossing was well-equipped to speak honestly for himself, and I wanted to hear what he or she had to say, and Russert interfered. It came up in his interview this spring with Ron Paul, who actually had some new ideas that I felt deserved airing, but he couldn't get much of that past Russert, who applied his inside-the-Beltway logic. I noticed he was a lot harder on outsiders. And he was always easy when interviewing members of his profession, who he let speak without interruption, without interrogation. An odd exception, I thought -- it would be nice if they took as much care with their own consistency as they do with the people they interview

Of course his death is a sad thing, for everyone. And I did enjoy Russert enough to listen every Sunday to Meet The Press. Through the magic of podcasting, I never had to miss one. And there's a chance that this ultimate insider would have discovered the power of the rest of us, not only in the aggregate, but as individuals as well. I think they pay lip service to it, and keep it far away and abstract, content to live with their view of the world, as revolving around them, which of course in some ways, it does.

The most poignant eulogy for me came from Bob Schieffer, longtime host of Face the Nation (CBS), who was clear up front, Russert was a competitor, and both of them took the competition seriously. He said that he and Russert were also friends. This is what I want for us in the blogosphere and we don't have it. Competition here is so cutthroat, so personal, that it's impossible to have a relaxed conversation, to learn from people who compete. It would be nice if we could get to that place, if Schieffer wasn't exaggerating for effect, marking the sadness that comes with anyone's passing, even someone whose success you envy.

Update: Arianna apparently sees it the same way.

Constantly updating below...

>The Newseum, which Russert helped make a reality, pays tribute...

>Doctors confirm that the cause of death was a heart attack.

>How the papers covered it...(all front page)

Washington Post:

New York Times:

Washington Examiner:

NY Post:

Washington Times:

Newsday:

New York Daily News:

>The Buffalo News remembers a "favorite son."

>David Broder looks at the "many gifts of Tim Russert." Todd Gitlin talks of a "loss in the family." Tom Shales on a "smile that lit up journalism." Dan Balz: "On Tim Russert."

>MSNBC.com's online discussion boards feature emotional notes of support to Tim's son, Luke.

>Woodward on "Today": There was always a bit of Columbo in him.

>MSNBC shows an old tape of "Meet" EP Betsy Fischer: He's just a guy you want to have a beer and watch football. ... And yet he's brilliant at the same time.

>Brian Stelter on Russert's turnaround of "Meet." Sewell Chan on Russert and NY Politics.

>From a tipster:

Tim Russert: a class act, a huge sports fan, a journalist whose habits are worth emulating by anyone who conducts interviews for a living -- that would be all of us. RIP.

>Last night's Nightly News opened with the theme song to "Meet the Press."

>Via Playbook:

Jay Leno recalled last night than he made so many jokes about the "Florida, Florida, Florida” dry-erase board that "one Christmas, he came on, and he presented me with this, which hangs in my office" -- a board saying, "Jay! Jay! Jay!"

>Brokaw: Do me a favor and say a prayer for 'ol Timmy.

>President Bush, in Paris: "America lost a really fine citizen yesterday when Tim Russert passed away. ... I foudn him to be a hard working thorough, decent man."

>Politico: "Prepping for Russert." "Memorable Tim Russert moments."

>The Today show focuses on Russert this morning. A special Saturday edition of "Morning Joe" does the same on MSNBC.

>Obama on "Today": We prepared a lot more for Meet the Press.

>Washington City Paper: "If a recreational trail is ever built in Klingle Valley, it might be appropriate to name it in the memory of Tim Russert."

>Politicker has a cartoon:

So does Roll Call:

>David Gregory to Mika and Scarborough: "Tim so enjoyed the show that you two have created."

>Slate's John Dickerson tells FishbowlDC: "He was a great interviewer and he knew the right questions to ask. The thing that always struck me though was that at the top of his game I saw him do two things people at the top of their game don't often do: he was generous and kind to people of no stature or note and he went out of his way to credit the work of journalists who had reported something first or who had come up with an idea first."

>NBC's Ron Allen tells FishbowlDC: " First and foremost my wife Adaora and I want to express our deepest heartfelt sympathy to Tim's family. It's especially tragic and unbelievable when anyone so young is taken from us without warning and so much too soon. Tim seemed to be in stride and in the prime of his life...at a time in our national life that was calling out for him. I last saw him in Washington about a week ago....to experience the honor of appearing on his program.....and as always he was so engaged, excited, and present while kicking around everything politics. Over the years, Tim was always supportive and thoughtful... the kind of guy you could always have a down to earth conversation with...no nonesense....just being real. He showed us all how to be prepared and to know what we're talking about, how to be tough and always fair. He showed us all how the best at what we do spend their lives seeking the truth."

>ABC's Terry Moran tells FishbowlDC: "What Tim Russert did was put passion into political journalism at a time it was sorely needed. He loved the game, he loved the tactics and strategy--but he also loved the substance of our politics, the real debates over the real choices we face in coming to grips with our real problems. His enthusiasm for what matters in politics, which stemmed from his palpable love for our country, was a rare quality. And it remains an inspiration."

>Some coverage plans, from the release:

SATURDAY, JUNE 14:

8 AM -- 12 PM ET: Morning Joe -- LIVE Remembering Tim Russert

12 PM ET: Dateline -- "Remembering Tim Russert"

1-6 PM ET -- MSNBC LIVE -- Special Coverage -- Remembering Tim Russert

6 PM ET: Dateline -- Remembering Tim Russert

>You'll notice that Russert has been removed from MSNBC's regular promos.

>

>My Examiner colleague Jeff Dufour writes an obit...

>Statement from Bob Wright, former chairman and CEO of NBC Universal:

I met Tim when I first came to NBC 22 years ago. He was a fireball of news energy. He loved life, his wife Maureen and his son Luke. There was no news assignment that he wasn't part of. Our Washington Bureau was forever changed by his presence and management. Meet The Press was reborn with Tim and continues today as his signature program. Tim was a big part of the launch of MSNBC, the Today Show's political coverage, Nightly News, and all of NBC's political coverage. He was generous, thoughtful, inspired and a tireless journalist who will never be forgotten!

>Tom Brokaw:

Tim was a man of many passions -- his family most of all, his faith, his country, political journalism, baseball and the Buffalo Bills.

As a working class Irish-American with a Jesuit education his range was wide and deep -- from the sensibilities of blue-collar voters to the politics of the Vatican, from the power plays on Capitol Hill to the power plays on network television.

Almost all of our conversations – and they went on every day – ended with some version of, "Can you believe how lucky we are to be doing this?"

>Brian Williams:

Tim Russert is gone. He was a giant in our company, in our lives, and in the combined fields of journalism and politics. He was my friend for many years, and my on-air partner during the most exciting political year in generations. The members of Tim's NBC News family are thinking only of the members of Tim's own family in the wake of this staggering, overpowering and sudden loss.

>Terry McAuliffe on Larry King Live:

I couldn't believe it today. I had been on Tim's show many, many times. And I was never on a panel. I was always the one he was asking the tough questions of. But, you know, he was always fair. He was a tough interview. When I went on his show, I knew I had to be prepared. I felt like I was cramming for exams again.

At the end of the interview, you never felt that he took any cheap shots. He let you answer the questions. And Tim and I talked an awful lot. We talked about sports. He loved politics, both from upstate New York.

I'm devastated by the news. No one will ever be able to replace Tim Russert. When I was chairman of the party, I would go on right before every election and Tim would say, all right, Terry, I'm going to take some bets with you. So I would always have to bet money. And he would always take the toughest races. And as chairman of the party, I could never say we were going to lose. Every year, I had to spend thousands of dollars giving to the Boys and Girls Club of Washington that Tim always supported.

But I'm going miss him. We did a lot of battles together. But, more importantly, we were great friends. And I think I speak for a lot of people who sat in the hot seat for many years, you know what, you'd never give a day back. He was spectacular. KING: Wolf, we know how much you work. Do you take heed with what Ted Koppel said?

>Kimmy Kaplan, a former "Meet" intern, tells FishbowlDC:

I'm not a politician. I'm not a network news anchor. I'm only a fresh faced recent graduate and an aspiring journalist who had the opportunity to intern at Meet the Press and for Tim Russert this past fall. So many internships are about the skills you obtain, but that internship was more about the intangible things I learned. Sitting in that studio and watching Tim in action each Sunday was memorizing, not only because of the careful, insightful and fair questions he asked the world's greatest leaders and newsmakers, but because he was one of the hardest working news people in the business. So many people on air today are simply talent reciting the news that their production teams have worked so hard to report, but Tim was not only a member of his team, he was the captain. He worked side by side with his producers and researchers, while leading and inspiring everyone he came into contact with. He will be greatly missed by all of those people and by the audience with whom he connected on a weekly basis. I know that I will keep him and the way he did his job in the back of my mind everyday as I continue to work towards my goals and I hope that his presence will have had the same effect on all he came to contact with, whether it was through a personal relationship or through their television screens.

>Dick Cheney on "Today":

It's a great tragedy. I was stunned yesterday to learn of Tim's passing. ... It' a tremendous loss. ... He was never into gotcha journalism, he'd ask you tough questions, remind you of quotes you had made in previous settings...so you never got away with anything. ... It wasn't just politics, it was substance. ... we certainly want to extend our prayers to Tim's family. He was a remarkable individual. We are all better for having known him.

>Obama on NBC: He was a great example of a good guy.

>Recollections: Howard Fineman, Joe Klein, NYDaily News, Bill Kristol

>Chris Matthews remembers:

>"Tribute to a Buffalo boy who made it":

>Big Russ & Me:

>The Life of Tim Russert:

>Charlie Rose remembers:

>John Edwards remembers:

>Colin Powell remembers:

>Chuck Todd remembers:

>Al Hunt:

>Ethel Kennedy:

>A giant in journalism:

>Florida! Florida! Florida!

>All the Tim Russert news you could ever want...

>Tim's books are #1 and #2 on Amazon.com:

>You can email memories to RussertCondolences@nbcuni.com

New Career Opportunities Daily: The best jobs in media

The show started late because of Geoff!

Geoff and Aaron broke down the morning’s social media 101 event, at which Geoff keynoted and appeared on three panels, but Aaron was stone-walled.

Aaron remarked there were a lot of hot girls at the event., but both Geoff and Aaron quickly bailed on what could have been DC’s Sexy Geek Girls episode.

Aaron ragged on Matt from R2Design, while Geoff made cheap excuses for him.  But then they talked about how Geoff got cut off on the mobile question, one of Geoff’s areas of domain expertise.

Geoff went into his white paper. Then they ragged on the widget answer.  A great chat about the future of mobile and social continued.

Then they discussed how Facebook is the world’s most trafficked social network. Most of this traffic comes on the mobile phone.

Lauren Vargas called in briefly. Later she wins a present.

Then Geoff and Aaron had some good natured fun at Scoble and Gary Vaynerchuk’s behalf.  Aaron discussed the great tie between Scoble and politics that occurred.

Aaron was particularly impressed with the accessibility of politicians on Twitter. We discussed if it was bettering democracy. Then we discussed astroturfing and blaming the intern.

Qui Diaz interrupted Aaron to ask if he had her cell # programmed. Aaron got defensive.

A give away ensured. Discussion of Scoble event continued.  Geoff broadcasted he wasn’t going to show. And then the show ended early.

Episode 24 - MP3