Yahoo on The Huffington Post

Yahoo Closing Offices For Holidays In Cost-Cutting Move

2009-12-22T08:19:07Z

SUNNYVALE, Calif. — Yahoo says it will close its offices from Christmas through New Year's to help save money. The cost-cutting move ends a year in which Yahoo's revenue declined for the first time since 2001.

It's the first time that Yahoo has required most of its 13,200 employees to use vacation time or unpaid leave during the holidays. Only employees performing essential duties will be working from Dec. 25 through Jan. 1.

Jose Antonio Vargas: With The Rise of Social Media, No Privacy for Tiger Woods

2009-12-16T10:56:10Z

What do Google CEO Eric Schmidt, the Supreme Court of the United States and golfing giant Tiger Woods have in common?

Privacy.

More specifically, how we define privacy in our texting, tweeting, Facebooking, YouTubing, Googling era.

Earlier this month, after Sprint, Verizon and Yahoo were blasted following revelations that they've shared customer data with the authorities, Google's Eric Schmidt declared in an interview with CNBC: "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." Boom! It was as if Schmidt had planted a bomb in the blogosphere. And he wasn't done: Since Google is subject to the country's Patriot Act, "it is possible that information could be made available to the authorities," Schmidt went on. Ka-boom! Quite a statement coming from the head honcho of the Internet's biggest company. The reaction was swift and damning. Wrote John C. Dvorak of Market Watch: "For a chief executive to make what amounts to a threat to its users is absolutely astonishing."

And it's not just about Google. It's about privacy in our digital world at large, where data is shared in computers and phones, where information spreads from one social network to another. The issue has finally reached the highest court in the land. As the New York Times reported Monday, the Supreme Court will decide whether the Ontario Police Department in southern California violated the constitutional privacy rights of Sgt. Jeff Quon. The department inspected Quon's text messages that were sent and received on a government pager -- many of them "sexually explicit in nature," The Times wrote.

In an interview, Marc Rotenberg of the D.C.-based Electronic Privacy Information Center told me that Quon's case is "without question the most important online privacy case, addressing all sorts of questions that we've all been grappling with." Rotenberg, one of the leading experts on digital privacy rights, defined what he calls "modern privacy" in a blog for HuffPostTech in September. First, "modern privacy begins with the understanding that personal information will be widely accessible," he wrote. In other words, we all leave digital footprints -- in our blogs, Twitter feeds and Facebook updates, etc. Second, "modern privacy is about what happens to information once it's held by others -- whether it's a government agency, a bank, a cell phone company, or a social network site." Translation: It's not about the technology, it's about how people use the technology. It's about our behavior.

More than a decade ago, Rotenberg predicted that "privacy will be to the information economy of the next century what consumer protection and environmental concerns have been to the industrial society of the 20th century." He was absolutely right. And privacy in our information economy extends far beyond our own individual, ordinary lives. It also impacts how we view others.

Which brings us to Tiger Woods, arguably the most private of our sports stars.

Last Friday, Woods posted a 165-word statement on his site, apologizing to his family and fans for his "infidelity." The statement ended with, "Again, I ask for privacy..." But the moment Woods crashed his Cadillac Escalade and hit a fire hydrant nearly three weeks ago, his privacy was gone. An unstoppable flood of information -- a hurricane, really -- continued circulating online: the list of women, the text messages from his phone, the voice mail he allegedly left to Jaimee Grubbs. And we -- yes, we , you and me -- started spreading them around. On Twitter, where #tigerwoods has been a popular hashtag since Thanksgiving weekend. On Facebook, where we posted the news and shared it with our "friends." There's even a Facebook group called "I Have Also Slept With Tiger Woods," and it has more than 139,000 members.

The relationship between athlete and fan, between celebrities and the people who follow their every move, has changed. In the past, celebrities dealt with only the media -- mainstream news organizations, from Sports Illustrated to 60 Minutes, but also the tabloids. It was the National Enquirer, after all, that published the story of Woods' alleged affair with nightclub manager Rachel Uchitel. But now, in addition to traditional media, celebrities are dealing with the rise of social media. That means us. As we pass around each nugget of Woods-related information -- may it be gossip or innuendo, serious or silly -- we chip away at the very privacy that Woods has asked for.

Privacy, as Woods probably defines it, is dead. Not even a billionaire athlete can afford to buy it. But "modern privacy," as Rotenberg explained it, is just beginning.

Rotenberg said: "This will be the defining issue of the next decade" -- whether you're Tiger Woods or just an ordinary citizen tweeting, Facebooking, YouTubing and Googling away.

Yahoo Adds Twitter To Search

2009-12-10T18:17:31Z

SUNNYVALE, Calif. — Yahoo is including more Twitter messages in its search results to give people a better sense about what's happening on the Web.

Thursday's expansion is the latest move to underscore the growing importance of Twitter's short posts, or "tweets," to Internet search engines. Both Google and Microsoft are paying Twitter for better access to the millions of tweets shared each day.

Tiger Woods Scandal Better For Yahoo Than Jacko's Death (UPDATED): Carol Bartz

2009-12-08T13:53:20Z

UPDATE:
The AP reports on the investor meeting with Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz:

Known for her off-color commentary, Bartz told financial analysts Tuesday that the Woods story is "better than Michael Jackson dying" for helping Yahoo make money, because it is easier to sell ads against salacious content than morbid stories.

"It's kind of hard to put an ad up next to a funeral," she said.

* * * *

Tiger Woods's recent scandals may be costing him popularity points with the general public -- but not with Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz.

"God bless Tiger," Bartz told audiences at the UBS Media Conference December 8, 2009.

Bartz emphasized how terrific the golfer's scandals have been for Yahoo, as hungry users comb the site, from front-to-back, homepage to sports section, for the latest photos, videos, and gossip related to his myriad rumored lovers.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

When asked if Mr. Woods would help the Internet company make the quarter, she said, "Oh, absolutely," and added that he's fueling more visits than Michael Jackson's death.

During the investors meeting, Bartz reported that Yahoo has been serving up around 10 billion ads per day ("You can buy a Super Bowl [sized audience] every day," she said), and that the site is attracting a large share of teens and twentysomethings, who are not restricting themselves to Facebook ("They're smarter than that -- they're open to other things, occasionally").

Follow HuffPostTech On Facebook And Twitter!

Yahoo's 'Secret' Guide To Getting Users' Private Data LEAKED

2009-12-07T11:10:55Z

On December 23, 2008, Yahoo (YHOO) created a "complicance [sic] guide for law enforcement," detailing what kinds of user data the company keeps and for how long, and how government officials should go about requesting it.

Microsoft, Yahoo Finalize Search Alliance: Get Ready, Google

2009-12-04T20:18:19Z

SAN FRANCISCO — Microsoft Corp. and Yahoo Inc. have signed off on their plan to team up against Google Inc. in the lucrative Internet search market.

The step announced Friday seals the terms of a preliminary agreement announced in late July. The 10-year contract was to be signed by late October, but Microsoft and Yahoo held off to work out some fine points.

Anis Shivani: "Don't Be Evil": How Larry Page and Sergey Brin Really Think and Should We Worry About Google's Dominance

2009-12-03T11:26:38Z

INSIDE LARRY & SERGEY'S BRAIN
By Richard L. Brandt
Portfolio, 244 pages. $24.95

'Searching and organizing all the world's information is an unusually important task that should be carried out by a company that is trustworthy and interested in the public good."
--Larry & Sergey's statement to Wall Street in their 2004 IPO filing.

The challenge for any chronicler of a Silicon Valley company is to distinguish between hype and reality. In Google's case, because of its indisputable financial success, the task becomes harder. After all, when Google has cornered $20 billion of advertising revenue a year--revenue that has come from struggling newspapers and other traditional producers of "content," which are in danger of losing their footing altogether--the vast flows of money can hide many simmering problems. It is remarkable that after ten years of escalating market dominance, Google's one truly successful innovation remains its search engine; it has developed more than 150 other applications, but they're either not as popular as competitors' products, or have failed to generate revenue.

The first question Richard L. Brandt addresses is Google's ambition to be the world's librarian. Google has always been very clear that it wants to digitize every bit of information. This raises obvious questions about the power Google possesses over this information. Why is it that the world's governments are not organizing and digitizing this information? Obviously, it's natural to worry about a single corporation becoming the potential gateway to everything that has ever been written or said. Since Brandt did not have personal access to the Google founders, one might have expected greater skepticism toward the self-proclaimed ethical motivations of Google's founders--embodied in their ubiquitous motto, "Don't be evil." This ethos must be seen in the context of the period of Google's emergence; the great computer giant of its era, Microsoft, was being assailed from all corners--the public, competitors, and governments alike--for being the epitome of evil.

Libraries, it is to be noted, do not charge for their content. So far, neither does Google. But we are at a very early stage yet in the life of the Internet, and it remains to be seen how this evolves. That the gatekeeper should be a single private entity, which moreover imposes its own model of advertising (which may or may not work for every content provider), should provoke concern. It is the business model inside Google's algorithms--Google's own brain--that we should be concerned about, rather than the degree to which Larry Page and Sergey Brin's brains might be virtuous and ethical.

Google is the single greatest force currently putting pressure on existing business models for publishing, broadcasting, communications, and entertainment. Google, with its Android phone software, has entered the telephone business. The way Google looks at it, all forms of communication can be redefined as search--search according to Google, that is. Google is wary of competing portals--such as Facebook, or the iPhone, or anywhere else users congregate and feel most comfortable--posing a challenge to its preeminence as the Internet's homepage of choice. It has tried to keep the homepage simple, free as it is of clutter and distractions, and has not shown any inclination to be a portal, such as AOL, paradigmatically, tried to do.

But as time goes by and we get more and more used to Google as the homepage, it becomes more and more difficult for any competitor to pose a challenge. Inertia is a large part of the explanation, but so is ease of use--in that sense Google harkens back to the revolutionary Mosaic and Netscape browsers, which made the Internet accessible to all. Undoubtedly, Google's search produces better results than any competitor's, which is partly due to the self-reinforcing nature of Google searches. The more consumers use Google search (yielding cookies that refine future searches by the same user), the better it gets at what it does. In all these ways, Google gives us what we need, with the least friction possible; yet in all these ways Google also poses a potential danger of a monopoly using the wealth of the world's knowledge and information for its commercial purposes.

Certainly, reading about Google's success story is a restorative counterpoint to the legends of evil committed in the recent past by Wall Street, Detroit, and other American corporations, which created little value yet rewarded executives extravagantly. Google has fundamentally altered the world, probably far exceeding the capacity of any single government to do so. Politics is now potentially more transparent and accountable than ever before. Users can find information cheaper and quicker and better than ever before. There is no aspect of our lives that hasn't shifted, sometimes crucially, in response to the revolution of information Google has been instrumental in bringing about. Yet Google aims to be all-encompassing, and that always has to bring its own hazards. As Brandt notes, Google claimed it wasn't interested in developing a browser, but it did, with Chrome. Google is posing a direct challenge to Apple's iPhone, with its Android telephone software, available through Verizon. When Google introduced Gmail, it was revealed that information compiled from emails would be used to target advertisements to users.

Brandt, like other chroniclers of Google, emphasizes Larry & Sergey's similar intellectual upbringing, their common Montessori background, and their shared experience at Stanford graduate school, all of which are generally said to be the source of the free-flowing environment at the company. Yet this is too banal to be given much explanatory credence when it comes to Google's eventual success. There is nothing particularly new in this, as far as Silicon Valley goes. The challenge for a chronicler of Google is to separate the corporate mythology--the way the Google founders talk about the 20% time engineers are allowed to devote to their own projects, or the way the company has bent over backwards to provide food and daycare, and even massages, on campus--from the corporate business philosophy.

To the extent that Larry & Sergey are math prodigies--or computer geeks, if you will--and lack the humanistic dimension, we are carried forth into the brave new world on the wave of their shortcomings. They both seem to display a cavalier disregard for the value of content, as Brandt suggests at numerous points. Why would authors write books for free? Only to enrich Google with advertising dollars? What would be the quality of free books? If the existing publishing, journalistic, and broadcasting environments entirely collapsed tomorrow, one suspects Larry & Sergey wouldn't be too unhappy. Content--some sort of content--can always be procured. Free, as Chris Anderson recently pointed out in his new book, can work for authors, musicians, and other content producers, but why should advertising be the sole support for creative work? Surely that would have an effect on the quality of journalism or writing, if that were the case. Yet Google's brain knows no other dimension than to capture advertising dollars through the greatest possible numbers of clicks.

Outside Google, the talk may all be about controlled chaos, yet hierarchies obtain--as they must--within Google. Engineers are a cut above nonengineers. The company makes no bones about it. Again, this reflects Larry & Sergey's bias that data drives everything, that there is no other calculus for decision-making. One might argue that this dilutes the quality of Google's search. It's better than anything else out there, but what is out there is pathetic, as measured by the utterly soulless efforts of Microsoft, Yahoo, and AOL, which wanted to serve as portals where users were captured and walled-off from other options, rather than as neutral arbiters of information. So Google search is an advantage over these barbaric early manifestations of what search never should have been, yet the vaunted PageRank algorithm often fails to value quality over quantity. And moreover, Google doesn't seem particularly interested in measuring the quality of, say, a New York Review of Books article on a particular subject, or of a scientific journal's, compared to the random musings of some uninformed ignoramus, should that have succeeded in getting the most views. The elevation of the engineer's data-driven, linear, antihumanist mind might have something to do with this manifestation in search results.

PageRank, Larry's great innovation, we learn from Brandt's interviews with Google's competitors, might not have been such a great innovation after all. The technology was open and available to others to exploit; the fact that they didn't do so speaks to Google's competitors' disinterest in making the Internet experience pleasurable and efficient and quick for users. Yet the public mythology of Google's discovery of its magic algorithm needs to be brought down a few further notches. CEO Eric Schmidt--who was brought on with some reluctance at first, after insistence by Google's venture capitalists--is variously seen as not being particularly effective, or as the genius who produces the first part of the "controlled chaos" equation. Actually, it doesn't take a genius to be the CEO of a corporation in as dominant a position, relative to its competitors, as Google currently is.

There's no denying that Google's corporate vision includes making things as easy for the user as possible. After all, the dominant late-nineties Internet portal was AOL, and we all remember how user-friendly that was! And we all remember the horrendous banner advertisements flashed on MSN. Google has insisted on not including advertisements on its homepage. Advertisements, when they do appear to the side of search results, are unobtrusive. Yet, again, there is a sense in which advertising--because it is so effective in the form Google uses it--has become the engine of growth, rather than being the outcome of the growth of valuable information on the Internet. It makes no difference to Google what viewers view, as long as it results in advertising dollars. AdWords, borrowed form GoTo (later renamed Overture), which places advertising on search pages, and AdSense, which places ads on other Web sites, are the two key innovations. In response, competitors like Microsoft have eyed Yahoo to try to develop a counter to Google's dominance of the advertising market, but nothing has come of it so far. The logical conclusion to what Google is doing would seem to be the eventual end of all forms of middlemen, so that advertising becomes completely automated, without the human touch. Not everyone will lament the end of the advertising executive or salesman, but there will be other consequences for content should that happen--consequences we ought to think about.

We have let Google slide on many things--its China censorship, to allow it to remain viable in that huge market (though nothing Google does seems to stall the rise of Baidu, the local search engine); its occasionally cavalier public posture toward privacy; and its indifference toward copyright laws--because we feel good about Google. That is both the most tremendous asset (unmatched by, say, Microsoft) and also perhaps the weakest foundation on which to build the world's greatest library. On the other hand, Brandt is right to wish that Google might become an ISP. Our experience of accessing the Internet would probably become much better. We shall see if Larry & Sergey's collective brain can keep up with the spontaneous evolution of the Internet, as embodied in the worldwide community of users. That is the greatest logic of all, and it may supersede the planning and visionary capacities of any Internet corporation--even one as sanctified and mythologized as Google.

Yahoo Plugs In To Facebook To Become More Popular

2009-12-02T09:44:42Z

SAN FRANCISCO — Yahoo Inc. will lean more heavily on Facebook's popularity as it tries to give people more reasons to stay on its Web site.

The expanded partnership announced Wednesday will enable Yahoo users with Facebook accounts to blend material from the two Web sites without having to leave one destination for the other.

Yahoo, Verizon: Spying Abilities Would 'Shock,' 'Confuse' Consumers

2009-12-02T07:56:38Z

Want to know how much phone companies and internet service providers charge to funnel your private communications or records to U.S. law enforcement and spy agencies?

That's the question muckraker and Indiana University graduate student Christopher Soghoian asked all agencies within the Department of Justice, under a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed a few months ago. But before the agencies could provide the data, Verizon and Yahoo intervened and filed an objection on grounds that, among other things, they would be ridiculed and publicly shamed were their surveillance price sheets made public.

Google's 'First Click Free' Will Allow Newspapers To Limit Access To Stories

2009-12-01T21:29:42Z

LONDON — In a move that could help improve relations between Google Inc. and the media industry, the Internet search company is offering publishers a way to build more solid "pay walls" around their online stories while still appearing in search results.

In an official blog post Tuesday, Google said it will let publishers limit the number of restricted articles that readers can see for free through its search engine.

Yahoo! To Include Twitter Messages In Search Results

2009-11-19T15:41:08Z

SAN FRANCISCO — Yahoo Inc. is jumping on the Twitter bandwagon in its latest attempt to get people to use its Internet search engine more frequently.

Beginning Thursday, Yahoo will mine the short messages posted on Twitter to find fresher information about hot topics.

Utkarsh Srivastava: Twitter Nabs Senior Scientist From Yahoo

2009-11-11T16:06:23Z

Yahoo seems downright incapable of keeping its best people motivated enough to stay on in Sunnyvale.

The latest person to jump ship is Utkarsh Srivastava, who has resigned from his position as Senior Research Scientist at Yahoo! Research to join micro-sharing sensation Twitter

New Yahoo Campus: Plans To Build Enormous Headquarters Unveiled (PHOTOS, VIDEO)

2009-10-30T10:50:01Z

In the next few years, Yahoo (YHOO) wants to build a huge new campus in Santa Clara, California. Marketwatch broke the story yesterday. Since then, we've landed photos and video of the proposed project.

Carol Bartz: Yahoo 'Got Boring,' Margins Are 'Pathetic,' CEO Declares

2009-10-28T14:09:09Z

Bartz, known for her no-nonsense demeanor and spicy vocabulary, spoke with more vehemence than usual, labeling her company's 6 percent operating margin as "pathetic" and acknowledging Yahoo "somehow got boring" and confused users, clients and analysts about its mission.

GeoCities Closing: Yahoo GeoCities To Shut Down October 26

2009-10-25T13:51:31Z

GeoCities, once the Internet's third most visited domain, will be shutting down on Oct. 26, taking with it thousands of user home pages and decades of data. All that information will be history.... Fortunately, some historians are making sure it's not lost to the annals of time.

Carl Icahn Quits Yahoo's Board, Praises CEO Carol Bartz

2009-10-23T18:42:23Z

SAN FRANCISCO — Activist investor Carl Icahn has decided his work is done at Yahoo Inc. after muscling his way on to the slumping Internet company's board nearly 15 months ago.

In a resignation letter Friday, Icahn said he felt like it was time to leave Yahoo so he could spend more time on his investments in other companies.

Ben Cohen: Yahoo Profits are Symbol of Broken System

2009-10-21T14:05:53Z

According to Tech Crunch, Internet giant Yahoo tripled its profits this quarter, boosting its income by $130 million.

As a share holder, you'd be pretty pleased, and as part of management, the picture is decidedly better than it was last year when its share price plummeted after it rejected an offer from Microsoft.

However, if you worked for Yahoo, you probably lost your job.

It turns out, Yahoo's profits are based almost entirely on the $169 million cost cutting measures it took (2400 workers were let go), while of course protecting corporate bonuses. According to the San Fransisco Business Times, new CEO Carol Bartz was paid a $1 million salary with a possible $2 million bonus. She was also paid an "annual equity grant" of $8 million and is eligible for a "make-up grant" worth $10 million, a quarter of which is paid in cash.

Those millions of dollars going to Bartz's third and fourth vacation homes could have been used to save hundreds of jobs. But it wasn't, and those people must now find their way in the worst jobs market in 80 years.

This isn't a hit piece on Bartz -- she probably worked extremely hard to get where she is, and deserves to be paid well for her services.

The problem is the system that allows such massive discrepancies in earnings and puts profits before people. The sad fact is that Yahoo was still profitable before it made the cuts, bringing in a net profit of $54 million in the same quarter last year. Profits were down, but given the atrocious state of the economy, it was to be expected.

A corporations sole aim is to maximize profit for its share holders. It is legally bound to deliver those profits, and a structure is in place ensure it does so regardless of the economic times. Yahoo did what was necessary to deliver those profits by stripping away its work force, revealing the ugly truth behind the modern corporate system:

A company has no duty is not to its employees. It has a duty to profit.

Why do we accept living in a society that treats us like expendable cogs in a wheel? That sacrifices families for the sake of executive bonuses?

You can spend decades building a company, pouring your life and soul into it only to be 'let go' when management can find someone cheaper. Our brightest students are taught that this 'efficiency' in business is good - that profit trumps all, that people are expendable and can be replaced. But those people are our neighbors, our friends, and our families. It is an external cost that business school does not account for.

It is insane that we accept this as a fact of life, because really, it is evil.

Ben Cohen is the Editor of TheDailyBanter.com and founder of BanterMediaGroup.com

Yahoo: Lap Dancers Star At Company's Hacker Event In Taiwan

2009-10-20T08:07:49Z

One word: Shameful.

So, no surprise that Yahoo (YHOO), which is trying mightily to burnish its image worldwide, quickly apologized for the presence of women lap dancers onstage at its Open Hack Day in Taiwan last weekend.

Yahoo's People Problems: Top Talent Flees Yahoo, It 'Doesn't Make Sense' To Stay

2009-10-16T15:02:34Z

A source familiar with the situation tells us that Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz is "doubling down" on the business after taking a closer look over the summer. Apparently, it's "kicking ass."

Unfortunately for Yahoo (YHOO), this new enthusiasm isn't keeping top talent from fleeing the company.

Report: Google Is Largest Source Of Internet Traffic; 6% Of All Global Traffic

2009-10-14T10:44:47Z

The largest source of traffic is Google (NSDQ: GOOG), which accounts for 6% of all Internet traffic globally, according to Arbor Networks' 2009 Internet Observatory Report.

The End Of The Email Era

2009-10-11T21:18:12Z

Email has had a good run as king of communications. But its reign is over.

In its place, a new generation of services is starting to take hold--services like Twitter and Facebook and countless others vying for a piece of the new world. And just as email did more than a decade ago, this shift promises to profoundly rewrite the way we communicate--in ways we can only begin to imagine.

Andy Plesser: Video: Yahoo to Expand Original Video Production and Content Acquisition

2009-10-06T22:45:15Z

Yahoo! has a checkered history with original entertainment content. The Web giant famously tried and failed to make a splash in Hollywood when it hired television programmer Lloyd Braun.

Now, the Sunnyvale, California Internet giant is trying again and this time Yahoo! appears to have a more methodical and circumspect approach to Web-centric programming.

Beet.TV caught up with Yahoo's VP of Media Jimmy Pitaro in New York during Advertising Week.

He told us the company is looking to invest in short-form, original content that meets a specific audience need. Presently, 10 percent of Yahoo's video programming is original and that will increase, he says.

Translation: Yahoo has abandoned the quest for the big, broad hit, and is instead focused on reaching particular audiences within news, TV, finance and other areas. The company will also license existing content, develop new material and hire bloggers and writers, Pitaro said.

"There are two components to original content," he said. "There is text and video and we plan to invest in both. We plan on hiring writers, bloggers, editors on the text side and producing more original programming that responds to the audience needs."

Shows are Finding Growing Audiences

Yahoo! has done a good job building up a stable of steady performers in video. That includes "TechTicker" on Yahoo! Finance, which launched in February 2008. The show is sponsored by Scottrade and averages 350,000 streams per week, a spokesperson told Beet.TV.

There's also the popular primetime recap show "Primetime in No Time" that premiered in March 2008. Verizon is the advertiser and Yahoo said the show has earned 280 million streams to date with peak days bringing more than 7 million users.

Several other Yahoo originals are sponsored too, including "The 411 on omg!" sponsored by Starburst, "This Week in Music," launched last week and sponsored by Target, and "Yahoo! Sports Minute," sponsored by Dunkin Donuts. That show averages 115,000 streams per day, we have been told

Those are the kind of shows Pitaro said he will look to build because they reach specific audiences. The process of picking shows involves early outreach to advertisers on how to partner, collaborate and create a differentiated show. "Our number one priority is growing engagement," Pitaro said.

Pitaro spoke with Variety's Diane Garrett for this related story about Yahoo's video programming plans.

You can find this post up on Beet.TV

Read more: Online Video, Yahoo, Technology News

Reese Schonfeld: News Viewers: Fox -- News Users: CNN

2009-10-01T15:28:13Z

The full third quarter cable news ratings are in, and nothing has changed very much. Fox News still has more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined. CNN and MSNBC are way down from their 2008 numbers: Last year was the election year and both CNN and MSNBC profited. But now CNN is down 30% in primetime viewing, and MSNBC has dropped 10%. It's even worse in the key demographic area (25-54s) where CNN is down 39% and MSNBC is down 21%. In the meantime, Fox has shown single-digit percentage gains in both areas. The same is true of total day views, where CNN is down 15% and MSNBC is down 17%. In another key demographic, CNN is down a shocking 67% and MSNBC not much better, down 48%.

If one believes that news viewing reflects public attitudes, as I do, these numbers are very disturbing. However, as an optimist, I would like to report one mitigating statistic. In doing so, I admit that I have absorbed some of the comments made about the last piece I wrote on this subject, "CNN Has Lost Its Way", and now agree that the Internet must be taken into account.
Here the news has been much better for CNN. Quantcast lists CNN as the top ranked news site with 25,900,000 monthly visitors. Yahoo is in second place with 18,800,000 visitors, Digg is third at 12,300,000 and The New York Times is fourth with 12,200,000. In contrast, Fox News in eleventh place receives only 7,600,000 visitors. (For HuffPost fans, Huff ranks tenth, one position ahead of Fox, with 11,100,000 visitors.)

I do not have access to the demographics of the "visitors", so we're handicapped there, but I'd like to believe that they're younger and better educated than the television audience at large. If that's the case, then there's some hope for the rationality of American news consumers.

If I were Jeff Bewkes, the CEO of Time Warner, I'd compare the results of CNN's website with the performance of CNN cable news. The person running the website is a CNN veteran going back to my days there. The person running the cable channel has a CBS background. Perhaps if changes were made, CNN's cable channel might restore its past glory.

Yahoo Commercial: $100 Million "Y!ou" TV Ad Launched (VIDEO)

2009-09-28T13:40:18Z

Yahoo recently launched a $100 million marketing campaign with a new slogan, a new angle, and now a new TV commercial, all focused on one thing: "Y!ou."

"Watch and wonder in new ways -- in you ways," the ad tells viewers as several thousand clubbers do a Bollywood-style dance in a giant "Y-O-U" formation seen from above.

Yahoo, according to the peppy commercial, is a place that will launch "a billion yodels." We have to wonder: is that really such a good thing?

WATCH:

Follow HuffPostTech On Facebook And Twitter!