Barbara Walters Tells Bill O’Reilly: You’re Jealous Of Glenn Beck (VIDEO)

Barbara Walters appeared on "The O'Reilly Factor" Wednesday night to promote her "10 Most Fascinating People" special on ABC, which was set to air Wednesday night as well.

Walters told Bill O'Reilly that he was so jealous of his Fox News colleague, Glenn Beck, who was named to her list.

"Doesn't this just run down your whole show, picking him?" O'Reilly said of the Beck choice.

Walters, who described Beck as a "pussycat," told O'Reilly, "You are so jealous."

"You know, you're absolutely right, I am so envious," O'Reilly said.

Walters said that Beck is fascinating because of his rapid burst into American consciousness.

"Two years ago, we didn't know who this guy was," Walters said. "Has a terrible childhood, mother commits suicide, he's a drunk, he's on drugs, pulls himself together...and is now, in spite of your jealousy, one of the biggest voices on television in a time period not as good as yours, Bill."

Walters added that in person, Beck was "really very sweet."

WATCH:


Charles Warner: The Dallas Morning News Is On the Right Track

Many traditional journalists were up in arms last week when the Dallas Morning News announced that senior editors in the sports and entertainment departments would report to executives from the business side of the newspaper. Purists accused the A.H. Belo paper of breaking down the traditional wall between the editorial and business/sales sides of the business.

Really? The newspaper Titanic is sinking fast and the journalism dinosaurs are arguing about the proper color of life preservers.

Dallas Morning News Executive Sports Editor Bob Yates said in a phone interview with Richard Prince of the Poynter Institute, "To me, this is nothing new for the newspaper. Editors of the paper report to the publisher. It's the same pattern."

And it's been the same pattern in television and magazines for decades, but the arrogant journalism elitists who benefitted from newspaper monopolies that were sustained by massive barriers to entry looked down their noses on considering the interests of consumers and customers as crass. Journalists had no concept of or interest in the business of news and thought that people in management and, especially, in sales were the bad guys, which I know from first-hand experience because I taught at the oldest journalism school in the country for ten years.

As early as the 1970s television executives, including those in TV news at ABC and at local stations, realized they were not in the news business but in the advertising delivery business and that the goal was to attract eyeballs - get ratings - not necessarily to produce what newspeople thought was good journalism.

Time, Inc. launched People magazine in 1974 not because Time, Inc. thought it was great journalism, but because it realized that the People section of Time magazine was the most popular section in the magazine and celebrity and human interest stories were what consumers (readers) and customers (advertisers) wanted, and People soon became the most profitable magazine in the world.

The internet brought down the barriers to entry into the news business and eliminated the basis for many local newspaper monopolies. So what was the response of journalists at these papers? Often they decry massive layoffs. But the The Dallas Morning News is doing something radical; it isn't crying, it's on the right track and trying to deal with the problem.

Maybe the business people will suggest to the editorial people in the sports and entertainment sections, which are the only ones affected at this time, to think about what readers are interested in. Maybe they will encourage the reporters to start conversations with their readers, because that's one of the things the internet does best, facilitate communication and conversations.

Salespeople know how to develop relationships with their customers, maybe the newspeople will learn to do the same thing with their readers like Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times is doing.


Why Vevo Will Fail

It makes sense that Vevo, the music video site that launched as a joint venture between Universal Music and Sony Music yesterday, is trying to cast itself as MTV meets Hulu. An unlikely underdog when it entered the scene back in early 2007, Hulu — a video platform backed by major broadcasters — sounded to many like a recipe for disaster. We gleefully ridiculed the venture, calling it names and predicting its imminent demise.

Boy were we wrong. At least in the U.S., Hulu has become practically synonymous with watching TV online. The site served an astonishing 856 million streams in October alone, according to comScore, and a few missteps along the way haven’t managed to substantially hurt the venture. Clearly, Vevo would like to follow Hulu’s rise to fame. I just don’t think it will happen. Vevo, in its current form, is doomed to fail.

It’s not even the ownership that’s bugging me, even though there is much to be bugged by. Vevo is jointly owned by Sony Music and the Universal Music Group, with an investment coming from the Abu Dhabi Media Group. This isn’t the first time Sony and Universal have tried to cook up something together; they formed an online music joint venture called Pressplay back in the heydays of Napster.

Pressplay was supposed to be “on the leading edge of music” by offering pricey, DRM-laden subscription packages to people used to free downloads. EMI was wise enough not to join the venture, thought it ended up licensing its music. But while Pressplay went nowhere, the very same ownership and licensing structure is now in place with Vevo.

Nor is it the fact that Vevo.com has been struggling for the better part of yesterday and today, serving up 503 error messages and at times even going completely blank, that leads me to believe it will fail. Even though that’s pretty embarrassing for a site backed by two major labels and sitting atop Google’s infrastructure.

No, what really bothers me is the fact that Hulu for music videos is a fundamentally misguided idea, one that ignores key differences between music and TV programming. TV is for the most part still a lean-back medium. Sure, we love to surf the web and send out tweets while we watch the latest Heroes episode, but we’re not interacting with the show in the same way that we would with a song, or even a music video. Not to be too poetic here, but one could argue that we create our own music videos every time we listen to music. The same can’t be said of TV shows. I don’t really act out too many Heroes episodes in my head.

But music videos have become a participatory medium. Cases in point: The tens of thoudsands of OK GO music videos from high schools and bored teens all around the world, the JK Wedding Entry Dance and the thousands of wedding dance clips it inspired, never mind the countless uploads of fan-filmed live shows and remixes. Heck, if I search for Bono on Vevo, all I get is a handful of clips. Do the same search on YouTube, and you’ll get the official footage, plus dozens of live gigs from all around the world.

The idea is not to separate music videos from all these user contributions, but to embrace them, much in the same way Warner did with the JK wedding video, which helped to propel the Chris Brown song used in the video to the top of various download charts. In other words, if you want to have a Hulu-like success story for music videos, you shouldn’t build another Hulu, but something with an upload button.

Of course, there’s already a site that offers music videos, fan remixes and participation that goes far beyond leaving a comment or rating a video: YouTube. Trying to build a separate location for content that’s such an integral part of YouTube without tapping into its user-generated content — that’s a recipe for failure.



AOL Sets Out on Its Own

Closing the book on its disastrous merger with Time Warner, AOL's spinoff becomes official Thursday, when it begins trading on the Big Board.

Woods’s Sponsors Wait and See

Most of Tiger Woods's corporate sponsors appear to be waiting to gauge any long-term fallout from his scandal to consider letting contracts lapse when they come up for renewal.