CyberSleuths - LexisNexis Wants YOU!

LexisNexis has started the new year with a new service - a news service that looks somewhat like Google News but taps the power of the Lexis-Nexis news database.

I just looked in on Hillary Clinton, and popped up a Dec 28 transcript from the Situation Room with Tucker Carlson - you won't get that on Google News.

And what is the business model?  Beats me - the Dec 28 transcript was free, and I do see some advertising on the site.  But maybe they are just offering free crack to junkies like me, and hoping I will pay up for some old Hillary gabfests buried in their archives.

Check it out - I have also been pleased with the poor man's LexisNexis "A La Carte" search service.  Registration and searches are free; the thrill of finding a three year old transcript that ices your case is priceless (and consequently represents a great value at $3).

MORE:  Here is James Risen with Katie Couric from yesterday.  VERY cool.  (And I am curious to see how well these links hold up.)

Comments

[kim]

A great irony coming? Simon and Schuster's higher pay grades are soon going to have to decide whether to listen to their lawyers, or their sales managers. Someone elsewhere wondered why Bush hadn't called the head of S&S into the Oval Office. I wonder if the NYT publishing first doesn't give some leeboard to S&S for the legal storm. I also wonder what other connections, besides promotional ones, there are between S&S and the NYT. I've been sneered at by a sophisticated observer of the scene, who seems unaware that there can be any connection absent ownership in common. This connection is surely part of the back story.

The link to Couric worked fine, thanks.
=========================================

[Bill in AZ]

Where's my beloved Senator McCain?? Gotta shut this thing down now! Can't let "the people" have easy access to this much information when we already have The New York Times who provides everything we need. Bad. Very bad.

[Dwilkers]

I know its off topic, but can I bitch about innacurate newspaper reports for a second? Good, thanks.

I saw this the other day in my local paper, the day the DoJ investigation was announced. Notice the spin.

"The U.S. Justice Department has started investigating the assumed leak about the government's secret domestic eavesdropping on terrorism suspects........

Now the NSA, rather than the White House, has asked the Justice Department to look into an alleged leak of classified information......."

Assumed leak? Alleged leak? On what planet is there any question that this was a leak?

"The initial article (referring to the original NYTimes article) gave no details on how the newspaper got the information."

Which was news to me, since I had read the Times article, and it clearly said "Nearly a dozen current and former officials, who were granted anonymity because of the classified nature of the program, discussed it with reporters for The New York Times because of their concerns about the operation's legality and oversight." and that struck me as detailish.

This is how the news gets filtered down to folks that get their news from my local paper. There is an "alleged" leak, and there are "no details" about where it came from.

OK, rant off.

[Napoleon]

Q: And what is the business model?

A: Volume!

[kim]

Oh, boy, you're right that interview is cool. Risen brings up Plame to contrast the 'whistleblowing' in the two cases. If he keeps doing that your question is going to occur to the audience even if the Talking Head doesn't bring it up.
================================

[kim]

The New York Times is so foolish about this. For the next decade, any terrorist attack deconstructed afterwards will show methods in planning that take the Times disclosures into account.

I really think Pinch has lost it. Just another clue. The whole media world is in an uproar over the lack of transparency in the Times decisions about this story, becasue Calame can't get Pinch or Bill to talk about it. Apparently they haven't even told Calame that the lawyers have muted them. That Pinch doesn't care if his actions are interpreted as insane seems diagnostic. Where's the certificate? I'll sign.
===================================================

[topsecretk9]

The whole media world is in an uproar over the lack of transparency in the Times decisions about this story, because Calame can't get Pinch or Bill to talk about it. Apparently they haven't even told Calame that the lawyers have muted them.

Which begs a question...how is it that the NYT's can conduct "secret operations" under the guise of the publics right to know (i.e. greater good) by writing a story thats intentions are to condemn and vilify the POTUS for doing the same?

Further....by "working" with the aggressive Pelosi, whose aide informs she is "hopeful" her work will generate more stories, how can the organ "claim" neutrality, greater goodness at the same time condemn the US's paying for stories on "good" things in Iraq? What is the difference?

Political capital is the same as paper money, actually worse?

[maryrose]

The NYT has their own opinions about "which good stories " and what good spin they can collaborate on with the House Minority leader. It doesn't matter that the public doesn't support the view, the public isn't " as smart" as Pelosi et al and must be educated in the "right thinking".

[maryrose]

After reading the Couric/Risen interview, I have to tell you calling it a public service and a happy ending is just plain absurd. It appears more to me as people trying to justify what they know deep down is wrong, just to sell a book. It's the Me generation come a cropper.

[maryrose]

Dwilkers,
I sympathize our local paper does the same thing and we periodically get MODO for free.

[Jeff]

This is the kind of thing the regular population won't much care about, but which bloggers will love. Which is to say, I love it.

[Specter]

I really think that the problem is that the NYT thinks that if they say it long enough people will start taking it as fact. Before blogging, the MSM was it, and people believed it no matter what was said. With the explosion of people turning to alternate news sources - if nothing else to just do some fact checking - MSM is not longer the only game in town. Unfortunately, "old school" publishers just don't get it.