Archives par mot-clé : video

Marketing Visions: Revitalizing Video Marketing with Simple Tools

Sixteen.

That’s the number of times your team has shared the same year-old brand video in the past two months. Between your social publishing platform and emails to your audience, your video marketing has been getting progressively staler over the past year, and you’re concerned it’s becoming a bit too obvious.

But your team’s hands are tied. You don’t have the equipment to produce high-quality photo or video, and you don’t have the budget to outsource that kind of production to an external team. This leaves your team making use of what they have, using the occasional cell phone photo or in-house graphic. You bide your time until the end of the quarter in hopes of juggling the budget to make a new round of video content—only to release it into a marketplace totally oversaturated with video content.

It’s not difficult to see why some content teams find themselves in a video marketing rut. Whether it’s out of habit or a lack of resources, brands sometimes find themselves falling behind the competition, but can’t seem to find a way to break out of the pattern without investing large portions of their budget or time. The good news is that with the increasing popularity of visual content, there are more ways than ever for marketers to take advantage of fresh new tactics and quality equipment, without disrupting spending and workflows.

Fresh Approaches

When it comes to cleaning up a brand’s video presence, it’s easy to get caught up in thinking about the video itself. How should it look? How long should it be? How intense of a production are we signing up for here? But if you’re just planning on producing content and posting it to your YouTube channel, then your team is likely missing out on a number of opportunities in terms of your video format.

One of the more popular contenders in this space right now is live video, and it’s not difficult to see why. Live video offers marketers an easy way to make timely, relevant content without the expectation of studio level production values (though if you’re lucky enough to have a team equipped to pull this off, it can help you stand out from the competition). What’s more, the relatively new nature of live video means that users find it interesting, and the platforms investing in it tend to give live content a free boost.

Using live video can be an easy way to get your team’s feet wet with impromptu video production, while more formal projects can provide a lot of value later. For instance, your team could produce an informative live webcast that addresses some of your audience’s consistent problems, and then turn the recording of that webcast into gated content down the road. Just like that, you have two lead-generating video projects for the price of one livestream.

For teams that aren’t ready to dive right into new production, however, there might be fresh opportunities in creating micro content. Over the past few years, the popularity of GIFs has skyrocketed across the web, making them a powerful marketing tool. Consider combing through some of your older video content and creating informative clips that highlight specific tips or insights, which can then be used to drive interest across your social media publishing platforms. Using GIFs isn’t difficult and can double your team’s visual content inventory—so long as you know how to implement them in a way that fits for your brand.

Hand holding a phone taking a picture

Image attribution: NeoNBRAND

New Toys

Even with some new formats under your team’s belt, every marketer would love to have a budgeted way to improve their visual quality. As long as you know where to look, you don’t have to spend a fortune to make dramatic improvements to your video production.

The Camera in Your Pocket

Often the best place to start improving your team’s visual quality is your cellphones. From social updates to live video, phones tend to be the most convenient equipment at your team’s disposal, but often produce the lowest quality of work. Small investments in cell phone tripods, unlocked photo and video apps, or, for the most ambitious teams, cell phone lens kits, can help you make huge strides towards improving video quality.

Cinema Equipment, But Smaller

One of the most common techniques for making studio grade video so excellent is advanced stabilization. Gimballed devices help filmmakers keep their video looking smooth even while running, jumping, or simply panning across a nice vista. For a small bump in price, it’s now possible for your team to take advantage of this same tech for your video content. Whether you just want a system that will stabilize your cell phone video or an entry-level camera with built in stabilization, your team can now have all the tools necessary to produce cinema-style content—for the price of a video freelancer’s daily rate.

Widen Your Scope

Not many brands have taken advantage of 360-degree content, though it’s been available for several years. But producing 360-degree video and photography isn’t as daunting or expensive as you might think. Consumer grade 360-degree cameras can provide your brand with a relatively cheap way to see if this format might work for you. For a slightly higher price point, your brand could be one of the first to produce 360-degree video by using a multi-GoPro rig— a system not necessarily for the faint of heart, but also not impossible for mid-size content teams.

Camera equiment on a table

Image attribution: Jakob Owens

It’s not hard to see why so many mid-size marketing teams end up with stale video marketing. The marketplace moves fast, audiences have short attention spans, and finding the time or budget to produce even one video can seem like an overwhelming task alongside your already breakneck publishing schedule. By thinking carefully about what might interest your audience, taking advantage of opportunities afforded by new video formats, and by making a handful of relatively cheap purchases to equip your team, it’s possible for savvy marketers to turn their otherwise stale video marketing scheme into a well-oiled machine producing cinema-quality content.

Subscribe to the Content Standard

Featured image attribution: pixabay

Jury to hear Bill Cosby’s testimony about quaaludes and sex

Jurors at Bill Cosby’s sexual assault trial have heard excerpts from the comedian’s lurid, decade-old deposition, but explosive sections about him obtaining quaaludes and giving them to women before sex are yet to come.

Prosecutors on Friday are expected to continue focusing on Cosby’s testimony, giving jurors a look at his view of women, sex and the night in January 2004 that Andrea Constand says he drugged and violated her at his suburban Philadelphia home.

The 79-year-old Cosby has said he will not testify, giving his deposition from Constand’s civil lawsuit and a prior police interview added weight as jurors consider charges that could put him in prison for the rest of his life.

A detective on Thursday read portions of the deposition covering what Cosby described as several sexual encounters with Constand, including one before the alleged assault where he said he found himself « somewhere between permission and rejection. »

Friday’s excerpts are expected to include an exchange where Cosby, once known as America’s Dad, acknowledges using quaaludes in his pursuit of women for sex.

« When you got the quaaludes, was it in your mind that you were going to use these quaaludes for young women that you wanted to have sex with? » Cosby was asked.

« Yes, » he replied.

Cosby testified in 2005 and 2006 as part of a lawsuit brought against him by Constand, the former director of women’s basketball operations at his alma mater, Temple University.

Constand testified this week she rejected Cosby’s advances and would have fought him off again had the pills not left her paralyzed and semi-conscious.

He has said the sexual encounter was consensual.

Cosby eventually settled with Constand for an undisclosed sum, and his deposition was sealed for years, until a judge released parts of it in 2015 at the request of The Associated Press.

A detective said Thursday the investigation was reopened just seven days after the deposition excerpts were unsealed.

Constand, 44, testified that Cosby penetrated her with his fingers against her will after giving her pills that left her so limp that she was unable to push him away or tell him to stop.

In the deposition, Cosby said he gave Constand three half-tablets of the cold and allergy medicine Benadryl before the « petting » began.

Prosecutors have suggested he drugged her with something stronger, perhaps the quaaludes he admitted obtaining decades ago.

Also Thursday, a detective testified that Bruce Castor, the district attorney who decided more than a decade ago not to bring charges against Cosby, shut the investigation down in 2005 while police were still working the case.

Cheltenham police Sgt. Richard Schaffer’s testimony could blunt efforts by Cosby’s lawyers to exploit the fact that Castor saw no case. Castor, who has long been out of office, is on the list of potential witnesses at the trial.

Castor ended the investigation after four weeks.

He testified last year that he had talked with Cosby’s lawyer before making his decision and that it was intended to let Cosby speak freely at a potential civil deposition — the same deposition that prosecutors are now relying on at his trial.

Some 60 women have come forward to say Cosby sexually violated them, but the statute of limitations for prosecution had run out in nearly every case. Constand’s case is the only one in which Cosby has been charged.

The Associated Press does not typically identify people who say they are victims of sexual assault unless they grant permission, which Constand has done.

———

For more on Cosby, including trial updates, historical photos, videos and an audio series exploring the case, visit: http://www.apnews.com/tag/CosbyonTrial

Hung Parliament: Q&A guide to what happens when no-one wins the election

Houses of ParliamentImage copyright
Getty Images

The general election has ended in a hung Parliament, meaning no party can reach an overall majority. So what happens now?

Will the party with the most MPs form the next government?

Not necessarily. The party with the most MPs, when the votes have been counted in all 650 constituencies, is normally described as the winner and its leader nearly always goes on to become the next prime minister.

But that might not happen this time with an inconclusive result. It is possible for the party that came second to form a government with the help of other parties.

How does someone win the election?

The easiest way to become prime minister is to win what is called a majority in the House of Commons – a majority is where your party has more MPs than all the other parties put together.

The finishing line is 326. That would be enough for a government to vote through new laws without being defeated by their opponents. If they don’t reach that number we have got what is called a hung Parliament.

What is a hung Parliament?

When no single party can get enough MPs to form a majority on its own the Parliament is said to be « hung ». This happened at the 2010 general election.

What happens now?

In a hung parliament, the Conservative government will remain in office – and Theresa May can live in Downing Street – until it is decided who will attempt to form a new government or unless she decides to resign.

There will be another frenzied round of talks between the party leaders and their negotiating teams, as they try to put together another coalition government or a looser deal to put either Mrs May or Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn (the only two people with a realistic chance) into power as prime minister.

Or one of the two party leaders could opt to go it alone and try to run a minority government, relying on the support of smaller parties when needed to get their laws passed.


Image copyright
Getty Images

Who gets the first go at putting together a deal?

Theresa May can stay on as prime minister while she tries to put a majority together.

If it becomes clear that she can’t and Jeremy Corbyn can then she will be expected to resign. Mr Corbyn would then become the prime minister.

But the Labour leader does not have to wait until Mrs May has exhausted all her options before he starts trying to put a deal of his own together. He can hold talks with potential partners at the same time as Mrs May. They may even be talking to the same people.

How long will it take?

There is no official time limit. It took five days to put the coalition together in 2010 but it is generally expected to take longer than that.

Negotiations can’t go on indefinitely, surely?

At the moment the first deadline is Tuesday 13 June, when the new Parliament meets for the first time. Mrs May has until this date to put together a deal to keep herself in power or resign, according to official guidance issued by the Cabinet Office.

But Mrs May must be clear that Jeremy Corbyn can form a government and that she can’t. She is entitled to wait until the new Parliament to see if she has the confidence of the House of Commons.

What if it is still not clear a new government can be formed?

The government needs to see if it can assemble the votes it needs to get its programme of proposed new laws passed in the Queen’s Speech, which is scheduled for Monday 19 June.

Theresa May may opt to remain in power and gamble on getting enough votes from other parties to get her programme passed. If she has already resigned and handed over to Mr Corbyn, this will be the key test of whether the Labour leader can form a government.

What will happen to the Brexit talks?

They could be delayed if there is a hung Parliament or Jeremy Corbyn becomes PM. The talks are currently due to begin on 19 June but if it takes a while to form a government it could ask the EU for a delay.

What role does the Queen play?

The leader of the party that can tell the Queen they have a workable Commons majority is the one Her Majesty will authorise to form a government.

By convention, the Queen does not get involved in party politics, so there are no circumstances in which she would choose the prime minister.

There have been suggestions that she may not deliver the Queen’s Speech in person if there’s a question mark over whether it will get voted through.


What is a coalition?

Image copyright
PA

A coalition is when two or more parties join forces to govern as a single unit. The junior partners are given ministerial jobs and a joint programme for government is set out.

Will there be another coalition this time?

It seems less likely than in 2010. It depends on four factors:

  • Whether the potential coalition partners have enough MPs between them to command a workable majority.
  • Whether the biggest party wants to do it or would prefer to try governing alone as a minority government.
  • Whether the potential partners can convince their respective parties that it is a good idea.
  • Whether they can find enough common ground on policy – the junior partners will inevitably have to ditch some of their policies but they will insist on keeping others.

Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionist Party has suggested it could back the Tories and would be vital in helping form a government in a hung parliament.

Jeremy Corbyn could lead a coalition with the SNP and the Lib Dems – although this is something he has so far said he would not do.

But his shadow foreign secretary Emily Thornberry said the party would attempt to force through a Queen’s Speech and ask the SNP, Lib Dems and Greens to back it.

The Lib Dems have said that there will be « no coalition » and « no deals » from them while SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon said she « would look to be part of a progressive alliance that pursued progressive policies ».

But she also criticised Mr Corbyn, saying he was not « credible as an alternative prime minister ».

The Green Party, which currently has one MP, said it would never back a Tory government but could support Labour on a vote-by-vote basis.


What is a minority government?

If the Conservatives or Labour are unable to put together a coalition or decide to go it alone, they can form a minority government, filling all the ministerial positions themselves.

This party would be unable to pass laws and legislation without the votes of other parties that are not part of the government.

For example, Labour could be a minority government with Jeremy Corbyn as prime minister – but would likely require the votes of the Scottish National Party and Liberal Democrat MPs to get things done.

How many MPs would a minority government need for it to be a feasible option?

A party could fall well short of an outright majority and still run a minority government.

A new Conservative or Labour government would also face a fractured opposition. For it to be defeated, the Lib Dems, SNP, UKIP, Plaid Cymru, the Greens and the DUP would all have to gang up together to vote against it. This would not happen very much in practice. It is not enough for the losing parties to have more MPs than the « winner ». They have to be able to form a coherent alternative.

So the party that finishes second in the election could form a government?

Yes. Although there is a question mark over whether the public would accept it.

How stable would a minority government be?

Britain has had minority governments before, although they have rarely lasted long.

The SNP governed in Scotland as a minority government between 2007 and 2011. It means the government has to form alliances and deals with smaller parties to secure their support in Commons votes – but they can achieve some stability by entering into a « confidence and supply » agreement with another party.


Will there be another election?

Image copyright
PA

Possibly. In the past, when minority governments have been formed at Westminster, the prime minister has held another election at the earliest opportunity to try and gain a working majority. Or the opposition has forced another election by tabling a « confidence » motion.

The Fixed-Term Parliament Act – passed by the Lib Dems and Conservatives to make their 2010 coalition less likely to collapse – means an election can only be held if:

  • Two-thirds of MPs vote for it. In practice, it would need to be supported by both Labour and the Conservatives
  • If MPs pass a motion of no confidence in the government AND an existing or new government cannot win a confidence vote in the Commons within 14 days of the no-confidence vote

After Parliament is dissolved there are 25 working days until an election is held.

Is there any way round this?

We are in uncharted waters here. Britain does not have a written constitution and experts are divided over what may happen if no one can form a government.

Here are some alternative scenarios:

  • If a « no confidence » motion is passed in the Commons, the prime minister could hand the party leadership to a colleague, who could have another try at winning a confidence vote before the 14 day grace period is up
  • The prime minister could resign, after being defeated on the Queen’s Speech for example, and hand power to the leader of the opposition, who would then attempt to govern. This raises the prospect of a change of governing party without an election – something that has never happened in Britain and would be likely to trigger a constitutional crisis

Comey: White House lied about me, FBI

Former FBI director James B. Comey on Thursday used a dramatic appearance before a national audience to sharply criticize the character of the president, accusing Trump of firing him over the Russia investigation and then misleading the public about the reasons for the dismissal.

Trump and his team, Comey said, told “lies, plain and simple,” about him and the FBI in an effort to cover up the real reason for his sudden sacking last month. Comey said that after one particularly odd private meeting with the president, he feared Trump “might lie” about the conversation, prompting him to begin taking careful notes after each encounter.

Comey revealed that after he was fired, he leaked notes on his interactions with Trump to the media, hoping that sharing the information would prompt the appointment of a special counsel to investigate the administration over possible links to Russia.

“It’s my judgment that I was fired because of the Russia investigation,” Comey said. “I was fired, in some way, to change — or the endeavor was to change the way the Russia investigation was being conducted.”

Comey’s testimony threatened to deepen the legal and political crisis engulfing the White House, which has struggled to respond to growing questions about the president’s conduct.

“I can definitely say the president is not a liar,” said White House deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders after the hearing. “I think it’s frankly insulting that that question would be asked.”

Over nearly three hours of testimony in a packed hearing room, Comey grimly recounted the events that he said showed the president sought to redirect the Russia probe away from his former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, and get the FBI to publicly distance the president himself from the probe.

As Comey spoke, most senators on the dais sat spellbound. Republican members of the Senate Intelligence Committee sought to soften Comey’s version of events, noting that Trump never ordered him to drop the Flynn investigation but merely “hoped” he would. Democrats tried to build a case that Trump had obstructed justice by firing Comey.

Pressured by the administration to focus on the president’s legislative ambitions rather than the politically consuming investigation, Republican leaders defended the president after the hearing, with House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (Wis.) casting Trump as a political novice who isn’t “steeped in the long-running ­protocols” of Washington and is “just new to this.”

Comey declined to say whether he thought the president had obstructed justice, saying that was a determination to be made by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III.

In response to Comey’s testimony, Trump’s personal lawyer, Marc Kasowitz, released a statement saying the president “never, in form or substance, directed or suggested that Mr. Comey stop investigating anyone.”

Kasowitz also accused Comey of trying to “undermine this administration with selective and illegal leaks of classified information and privileged communications.”

Comey and Trump’s interactions: what we know so far View Graphic Comey and Trump’s interactions: what we know so far

The hearing, broadcast nationally by at least 12 television networks, was held in a cavernous space in the Hart Senate Office Building with hundreds of seats to accommodate the intense interest. Several lawmakers who do not serve on the committee took seats in the audience, a rarity on Capitol Hill. Most were Democrats eager to hear Comey’s claims of presidential impropriety.

Inside the hearing room, people audibly groaned or gasped when Comey said he had “no doubt” that Russian government officials were behind the hacking of the Democratic National Committee last year.

Anticipation for the hearing stretched far beyond the Hill. Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) walked into the hearing with a binder that included 20 of more than 600 questions he said were submitted to him by constituents.

Comey began his testimony by saying he became “confused and increasingly concerned” about the public explanations by White House officials for his firing on May 9, particularly after the president said in an interview that he was thinking about the Russia investigation when he decided to fire him.

The former director wasted little time repudiating White House statements that he was fired in part because of low morale among FBI employees who supposedly had soured on his leadership. Comey said the administration “chose to defame me and more importantly the FBI.”

“Those were lies, plain and simple,” Comey said. “And I’m so sorry that the FBI workforce had to hear them, and I’m so sorry the American people were told them.”

His most damning remarks were directed at the president, but in the course of his testimony, Comey also raised doubts about the judgment of a host of other people, including Justice Department officials such as former attorney general Loretta E. Lynch and current Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

During questioning, Comey said that while the Hillary Clinton email case was ongoing, Lynch asked him to refer to the probe as a “matter” rather than an “investigation.”

The former FBI director said he thought that that wording “gave the impression that the attorney general was looking to align the way we talked about our work with the way the campaign” talked about it. “That was inaccurate,” he said. “That gave me a queasy feeling.”

Regarding Sessions, Comey said he took his concerns about one particular conversation with Trump to the new attorney general and said he did not want to be left alone again in a room with the president. Comey said Sessions’s body language gave Comey the impression there was nothing to be done.

Comey described his state of mind as he tried to navigate a number of tense conversations with the president about the investigation into possible coordination between Trump associates and Russian operatives.

In his written testimony, released Wednesday, Comey described being summoned to a private dinner at the White House in January with the president, who told him: “I need loyalty. I expect loyalty.”

Comey said the conversation, in which Trump asked whether Comey intended to stay on as FBI director, despite three prior discussions in which Comey had said he did, raised concerns in his mind.

“My common sense told me what’s going on here is he’s looking to get something in exchange for granting my request to stay in the job,” Comey testified.

Comey made clear he felt the discussions were improper since Trump repeatedly pressed him about specific investigations that involved people close to the president.

The former FBI director described another interaction in February, one day after Flynn was forced to resign as national security adviser for misleading Vice President Pence about his contacts with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

A number of senior officials had met with the president in the Oval Office to discuss terrorism. At the end of the meeting, according to Comey, Trump asked everyone to leave but Comey.

Sessions, the attorney general, lingered until the president told him to leave, too, Comey said.

“My sense was the attorney general knew he shouldn’t be leaving, which is why he was lingering,’’ Comey said. “I knew something was about to happen which I should pay very close attention to.”

Once they were alone, Comey said, the president told Comey he hoped he could let go of the investigation into Flynn.

“When it comes from the president, I took it as a direction,” Comey said.

At the time Flynn was fired, he was being investigated for possibly lying about his conversations with the Russian ambassador, Comey said.

He said he was shocked and concerned about the president’s request, but decided not to tell Sessions about it because he expected that the attorney general would soon recuse himself from the Russia probe, which he eventually did.

It was after this meeting that Comey went to Sessions about never being left alone with Trump again.

Comey’s account made clear that his relationship with Trump was fraught from their very first meeting, which occurred before the inauguration, when he told the president-elect that a dossier of unsubstantiated allegations against him had been circulating around Washington.

“I didn’t want him thinking that I was briefing him on this to sort of hang it over him in some way,” Comey said. “He needed to know this was being said, but I was very keen to not leave him with the impression that the bureau was trying to do something to him.”

Comey acknowledged, as the president has claimed, that he repeatedly told Trump that he was not personally under investigation. But he also said that in private meetings and one-on-one phone calls, the president repeatedly asked him to say publicly that he was not personally under investigation — something Comey did not want to do.

After firing Comey, the president tweeted a suggestion that there could be tapes of their private talks.

“The president tweeted on Friday after I got fired that I’d better hope there are not tapes,” Comey said. That made the ex-FBI director think any such tapes would back up his account of Trump’s improper statements, so he said he asked a friend of his to share with a reporter a memo he had written about the February conversation.

“I thought it might prompt the appointment of a special counsel,” Comey said.

Asked by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) why he felt he had the authority to do that, Comey replied: “As a private citizen, I felt free to share that. I thought it was very important to get it out.”

The friend is Daniel Richman, a law professor and a former federal prosecutor who confirmed his role but declined to comment further. The reporter is Michael Schmidt of the New York Times, who declined to comment.

A special counsel was appointed — Mueller, who is a former colleague of Comey’s — and Comey has provided him with his memos, he testified Thursday.

Comey said he still has no idea whether the president has tapes of their conversations, but he said: “I hope there are, and I will consent to the release of them. . . . The president surely knows whether he taped me, and if he did, my feelings aren’t hurt.”

When the hearing was over, Sens. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and Mark R. Warner (D-Va.), the two senior members of the committee, walked out to greet reporters camped in the hallway outside.

“This is nowhere near the end of the investigation,” Burr said.

Study: 64% make a purchase after watching marketing videos on …

Dive Brief:

  • Animoto today released its The State of Social Video 2017: Marketing in a Video-First World report with the key takeaway that marketers should focus on social media channels and mobile in their video marketing strategies, per a press release made available to Marketing Dive.
  • Illustrating the importance of the social media and mobile combination, 84% of consumers reported watching social video content on mobile devices, and 81% of marketers reported optimizing social videos for mobile including using tactics like planning for views with the sound off.
  • The report also found that social media video drives brand engagement and sales with 83% of marketers reporting they are confident Facebook video content will drive purchases and 64% of consumers reporting making a purchase after watching a marketing video on Facebook in the last month.

Dive Insight:

Video has become an integral part of content marketing and digital advertising. As a result, marketers have to learn to “speak video fluently” in order to connect with consumers on social media, said Brad Jefferson, CEO of Animoto, in the press release.

As consumption of branded video increases, marketers are ramping up production. Animoto found 47% of marketers are publishing four or more marketing videos in an average month, with 92% repurposing assets they already have.

Facebook and YouTube were the top two platforms cited by marketers in the Animoto report across a range of criteria including views, purchases, engagement, and both current and future investment for marketing video, echoing results from last year’s report.

On the consumer side, Facebook and YouTube also led the engagement category. However, when it came to actually watching videos daily, Facebook made a sweep of the entire report in the top spot. Instagram Stories took the second spot followed by Snapchat with YouTube in fourth place.

One interesting finding from the report was the popularity of live video. Even though live streaming video on social media is a relatively new feature, 47.8% of consumers reported preferring live video compared to 52.2% for pre-recorded video.

How Durant pushed Cavs to brink

7:19 AM ET

CLEVELAND — Kevin Durant pulled down a defensive rebound and headed up the court. The Golden State Warriors were down by two with less than a minute to play in a hostile Quicken Loans Arena.

Waiting for him on the other end of the court was LeBron James.

The Warriors’ 6-foot-11 small forward didn’t survey the court. He wasn’t looking to set up a play. He wasn’t calling a timeout. He dribbled right toward James and, without hesitation, pulled up for a 26-foot 3-pointer that found nothing but the net.

That audacious shot single-handedly crushed the Cleveland Cavaliers’ spirits and, from there, crushed what’s left of the Cavs’ season.

« He knew he was taking that shot the whole way, » Warriors forward Draymond Green said. « That was huge. He wanted that moment. »

Durant’s arrival into this rivalry has placed the Warriors on the verge of returning the favor to the Cavaliers. An historic 3-1 comeback by the Cavs a year ago is close to being upstaged by not only a sweep of the series, but also a never-before sweep of the playoffs.

« Now that we’re in this situation, why not take care of business and finish the job, » Warriors guard Stephen Curry said.

Golden State won Game 3 of the NBA Finals on Wednesday night, 118-113. Durant poured in 14 of his team-high 31 points in the final quarter to go with eight boards and four assists. The Warriors are one win away from collecting their second Larry O’Brien trophy in the past three years.

Durant has been criticized in the past for shying away from the big moment, and being intimidated by situations that could potentially lead to massive failure.

That narrative is rapidly disintegrating. He’s outperforming James in the fourth quarters this series, with a scoring output of 31 to 11. Durant has shot 13-of-21 for 31 points when defended by James. Those are the most points Durant has scored on any defender in the playoffs, surpassing the 29 points he scored against Utah Jazz forward Gordon Hayward.

Ever since the Utah Jazz series in the second round, Durant began increasing his workout regimen during morning shootarounds and has continued it throughout the rest of the playoffs, a source told ESPN.

And his demeanor has shifted from easy-going and talkative, to calm and standoff-ish. Those close to him say they’ve never seen him in this space before. Durant understands the magnitude of what’s at stake in these Finals and he’s determined to swing for the fences.

« He took over, » Warriors coach Steve Kerr said. « You can tell, he knows this is his moment. He’s been an amazing player in this league for a long time and I think he senses this is his time, his moment, his team. »

It was the biggest basket of the season for the Warriors, but Durant refused to revel in the enjoyment of sinking that shot on such a grand stage, and on such a grand opponent.

« We’re still playing, » Durant told ESPN. « This isn’t over. I can’t say if it’s the biggest. »

James was right: Durant is the difference-maker of this robust Warriors squad. Teaming up with three All-Stars has made life miserable for James, the four-time Finals MVP.

« It’s probably the most, most firepower I’ve played [against] in my career, » James said. « I played against some great teams, but I don’t think no team has had this type of firepower. »

When there was approximately 6 minutes, 30 seconds left in the game with the Warriors trailing 104-99, Kerr, ESPN was informed, told his team that they were capable of rattling off 20 more points and stealing this game.

They put up 19, and outscored the Cavaliers 11-0 in the final 2:45. Durant (seven) and Stephen Curry (four) scored all the points during that span.

It has come back full circle: The Warriors didn’t score in the final 4:39 of last year’s Finals Game 7. On Wednesday, the Cavaliers failed to score in the last 3:09.

Durant has scored at least 25 points in all eight of his NBA Finals games. He’s one of only three players in NBA history to accomplish that feat in each of their first eight Finals games along with Shaquille O’Neal (21 straight) and Michael Jordan (20).

His scoring has been needed.

San Antonio Spurs.

But Durant said this isn’t the time to get complacent.

« It’s not over, » he said. « Job’s not done. … We still got a lot of work left to do. »

In this series, he has been the real MVP.

A viewer’s guide to the James B. Comey hearing: Who are the senators asking him questions?

The Senate Intelligence Committee hosts the most-anticipated congressional hearing of the year Thursday, when former FBI director James B. Comey is scheduled to testify and share details of his firing by President Trump and the conversations they had about ongoing investigations into Russia’s alleged meddling in U.S. elections.

Rarely do congressional hearings draw global attention anymore — mostly because it’s become a tired, predictable format where witnesses read pre-written statements and lawmakers lob either softball or gotcha questions designed to win favor with a certain constituency or score press attention.

This hearing, scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. ET Thursday, will have all of that — but the subject matter is far more intriguing. The first indication that this is a big deal is the locale, Room 216 of the Senate’s Hart Building, a massive space built in the 1970s to accommodate the increasingly mass media nature of Washington. The room includes hundreds of seats for reporters, plus special TV and radio suites that overlook the room — just like press booths used by announcers in sporting arenas.

There are 15 full-time members of the committee — eight Republicans and seven Democrats — and the panel is considered to be one of the last bastions of bipartisanship on Capitol Hill.

The committee is led by Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and Vice Chairman Mark R. Warner (D-Va.). Burr is widely credited with leading an above-the-fray investigation that is far more advanced and devoid of partisan bickering than the similar probe underway in the House. Warner has been by his side the entire time.

Burr has said that the single biggest question his panel hopes to answer is what, if any, knowledge Trump had of the purported Russian plot.

“We know that our challenge is to answer that question for the American people,” he said when the committee intensified its investigation in March.

“We’re going to get it right,” Warner added.

Burr is the son of a minister and played football at Wake Forest University. He spent 17 years selling lawn equipment before winning a House seat in 1994. Beyond his current perch, he’s known as a quirkier member, known for wearing loafers with no socks and owning a Volkswagen Thing that he parks prominently near the U.S. Capitol.

Warner is a Connecticut native who attended George Washington University and worked on Capitol Hill before becoming a multimillionaire technology executive and then launching his political career.

Burr became committee chairman in 2015 when Republicans seized control of the Senate. Warner became top Democrat on the panel this year when Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) dropped one slot in the pecking order so she could take the top Democratic seat on the Judiciary Committee. Democrats see the new assignment  as a way to keep Warner — a former governor who has admitted to presidential aspirations — happy, and to help him fully embrace his senatorial role.

While Burr is mostly keeping his head down and trying to avoid making much of a splash, Warner is far more willing to call out Trump’s comments and actions. Warner has been especially distressed by reports that Trump criticized Comey during his meeting with Russian officials in the Oval Office last month.

Thursday’s hearing will present a huge global stage for the committee’s members — perhaps the biggest of their careers. And yet most committee members are not familiar faces beyond Washington, so here’s a review of who they are and how they might use their allotted time.

REPUBLICANS:


Sen. James E. Risch (R-Idaho), foreground, laughs with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) as they walk to a hearing May 18. (Mary F. Calvert/Reuters)

James E. Risch (Idaho): One of Trump’s biggest supporters on Capitol Hill, he is likely to use his question time to press Comey more aggressively than others about why he didn’t take steps sooner or publicly to raise concerns with the president’s statements and alleged attempts to quash the FBI probe. Risch is among the Republicans especially concerned about ongoing leaks to the news media. In recent interviews, he’s called on the Justice Department to root out the “weasel” leaking the information. He’s served on the panel since 2009 — making him one of the longer-serving members.


Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) arrives for a closed-door committee meeting in the Hart Senate Office Building on June 6. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Marco Rubio (Fla.): The former presidential candidate is among the Republicans willing to criticize Trump publicly. But he dined with Trump at the White House on Monday night — a sign that he’s also eager and willing to maintain ties to his former rival.

The tone that Rubio takes during his allotted time could give early indications of how much trouble Trump faces with fellow Republicans. For example, Rubio’s aggressive questioning of Rex Tillerson at his January confirmation hearing to serve as secretary of state signaled that the former oil executive faced an uphill battle to convince GOP senators that he was up to the job. The senator earned a seat on the committee after his 2010 election, an assignment that allowed him to start building national security credentials ahead of his 2016 presidential bid.


Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), on March 28. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP)

Susan Collins (Maine): On the committee since 2013, Collins is also among the president’s most vocal critics in regards to the Russia affair — so her turn on the dais will also be worth watching. She is eager to quiz Comey about Trump’s comment that the former director had told the president “on three separate occasions” that the president wasn’t the subject of the FBI investigation.

“I find that phrase to be very curious,” she said this week, adding that she could “see no reason why” Comey wouldn’t be forthcoming on the subject. “It makes a big difference what the exact words were, the tone of the president, the context of the conversation,” Collins added later.


Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.). (Zach Gibson/Bloomberg)

Roy Blunt (Mo.): A member of Senate GOP leadership, he’s among a handful of senators in both parties who pressured Burr to intensify the committee’s investigation of Russian meddling this year. During one particularly intense exchange on the Senate floor in February, Blunt and other senators told Burr that if the intelligence panel didn’t step up, other committees would fill the void. But Blunt has signaled that he plans to press Comey to explain himself.

“I haven’t frankly understood much of what Comey has done since about a year ago. And his decisions have been, I think, highly questionable,” he told “Fox News Sunday.” Blunt served on the committee during his first two years in the Senate (2011-2012) and rejoined the panel in 2015 after serving in the interim on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

James Lankford (Okla.): The Oklahoma senator joined the committee in 2015 and is among those that welcomed Comey’s firing. But he’s a staunch defender of the committee’s Russia probe, even in the face of criticism that it is complicating Trump’s presidency. He said he’s focused on how Russia’s meddling may have hampered the nation’s public institutions. Comey’s testimony “will hopefully help end speculation lead us to facts,” he tweeted last week.

“If there is any American that is engaging with a foreign power to try to affect our elections, that’s a real problem. … We’ve got to clear them up both for the sake of the president and the presidency,” he also told “CBS This Morning” last week.


Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) speaks during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on May 11. (Jacquelyn Martin/AP)

Tom Cotton (Ark.): A staunch supporter of Trump’s foreign policy, he also dined with the president Monday at the White House. He’s cast doubt on the reports of Trump and Comey’s interactions and whether the president asked the director to back off Flynn.

“The accounts of these memos he allegedly wrote would be at least triple hearsay, what Donald Trump said, according to Jim Comey, according to someone who saw the memo, according to the New York Times’ reporter who had it read to him, didn’t even read it,” Cotton told “The Hugh Hewitt Show.” “So I don’t know what Mr. Comey will say on any of these matters beyond what he said to Congress in the past.”


Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) leaves a closed meeting with Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein on May 18. (Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images)

John Cornyn (Tex.): The second-ranking Republican senator, he’s also a Trump ally and far less willing to be critical of the president — other than to voice concern with how the investigations and Trump’s response distract from Republican legislative priorities.

“This is sort of a new world with Russian involvement in one our most democratic of institutions, that is the election,” he told a San Antonio radio station last week. “People can make allegations. They can guess, they can gossip but none of that really matters. What we need to do is get to the bottom of it and get the facts, and that’s what we’re going to do.”

DEMOCRATS:


Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) on May 23 on Capitol Hill. (Joshua Roberts/Reuters)

Dianne Feinstein (Calif.): The former committee chairwoman is the only member who also sits on the Judiciary Committee, which has oversight of the FBI, Comey’s former employer. She’s also one of the few lawmakers who got a personal heads-up from Trump that he was dismissing Comey.

She said this week that she thinks Comey’s testimony “is getting overexaggerated.”

“It’s an opportunity for Director Comey to say everything he wants to say in the way in which he wants to say it and for us to ask him some questions,” she said.

But she has described herself as “incredulous” over Comey’s dismissal and is likely to use her time to give Comey the time and space to explain his interactions with Trump.


Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) during an interview May 19. (Joshua Roberts/Reuters)

Ron Wyden (Ore.): He’s one of the longest-serving committee members, on the panel since 2001. He’s also known as a fierce critic of the intelligence community and has sparred with Comey in the past. But now he’s eager to give the former director a chance to share his side of the story. Expect him to serve up volleys that give Comey time to share his thoughts.

“Having more details — fleshing out what was said, who was involved, was it documented — I think will very much clarify where things were at the time Mr. Comey was fired,” Wyden said this week. “I said an hour after the president had fired Mr. Comey the single most important thing now is to get Mr. Comey in front of a public forum, the Intelligence Committee. We’re getting that now.”


Then-senator-elect Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) speaks to supporters Nov. 6, 2012. (AP)

Martin Heinrich (N.M.): An engineer by training, the New Mexico senator keeps a low profile but has been on the committee since he joined the Senate in 2012. Unlike some colleagues more interested in grandstanding, Heinrich usually uses his question time to extract actual information. He also regularly challenges witnesses for not being more forthcoming with information. During Wednesday’s contentious hearing with top national security officials, Heinrich repeatedly pressed them to share details of their interactions with Trump, to no avail.

Recently, it was Heinrich who got FBI acting director Andrew McCabe to dispute assertions by Trump and his aides that the FBI rank-and-file had lost faith in Comey. “Director Comey enjoyed broad support within the FBI and still does today,” McCabe told Heinrich.


Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) asks questions at a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on June 7. (Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)

Angus King (Maine): The committee’s only independent senator will probably be one of the more matter-of-fact and studious inquisitors. King has been totally uncompromising in promoting the committee’s probe in the face of pressure from the FBI.

The Comey testimony “is a step in the process for the investigation,” he said this week. “I don’t think we should assume the world is going to look different the next day. We’re going to gain some information I hope and that will be part of all the information we’re assembling.”


Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) listens during a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing on May 25. (Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg)

Joe Manchin III (W.Va.): He’s the only committee member to have outsourced his question-writing — well, sort of. Manchin asked West Virginians last week to submit questions he could ask Comey during the hearing — a rare move for a senator, but perhaps understandable given that Manchin is up for reelection next year.

“The question for West Virginians is, ‘If you knew, or you thought that there was obstruction of justice, why didn’t you act on it?’ ” Manchin told CBS this week. “What were his concerns and if there were deeper concerns, why wasn’t anything done at that time?”

Manchin added that he wants to know, if Comey was so concerned by what Trump told him earlier this year, why “was that concern filed away and for what purpose?”


Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.) at the U.S. Capitol on May 16. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Kamala D. Harris (Calif.): The former California attorney general is the only first-term senator on the committee and is often mentioned as a potential 2020 presidential candidate — so Thursday’s hearing provides her a huge opportunity to shape early impressions ahead of a potential bid. Remember when then-Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama quizzed Gen. David Petraeus about the Iraq War in 2007? This is a moment like that for Harris.

Regarding the committee’s Russia investigation, “I do become a bit impatient with the case, I do believe we need to pick it up,” she told the San Diego Union-Tribune last week.

She wants to press Comey on “whether he was told, in any way, to manipulate the investigation.” And she told the San Diego newspaper that she hopes to ask whether Comey believes the FBI’s investigation has proceeded appropriately since his departure.

Supporting characters: Don’t be surprised if you see Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Jack Reed (D-R.I.) show up to ask questions or take a seat on the dais. All four are “ex officio” members of the committee given their Senate leadership positions (McConnell, Schumer) or leadership of the Senate Armed Services Committee (McCain, Reed).

Other senators who are not members of the committee, including Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), have said they may come and watch the hearing in person.

Karoun Demirjian contributed to this report.

Everything has the first video game trailer eligible for an Academy Award

Qualifies as an animated short film.

Published 07/06/2017

The 11-minute trailer for philosophical pontificating simulator Everything is eligible for an Academy Award – a first for a video game promotion, boasted game developer David OReilly.

The marketing material in question is included under the Academy’s category « [best] animated short film », which it become eligible for after winning the Jury Prize for animation at the VIS Vienna Shorts film festival.

Everything’s lengthy trailer focuses on the correlation between the universe’s smallest, biggest, and most remote entities, all while being narrated by the late British philosopher Alan Watts.

You can watch the full short film right here:

The VIS Vienna jury called Everything’s trailer « a film, which beyond being entertaining has a strong poetic and philosophical theme. »

« It serves a highly educational purpose, including an important political statement, that encourages to let our egos dissolve and gain a new perspective on the world, » the jury stated in its announcement.

While the trailer is indeed mesmerising, one shouldn’t discount the actual game either, as Eurogamer contributor Simon Parkin called it « an astonishing work, one that broadens the definition of what a video game can be. »

OReilly is no stranger to film though, as he created the holographic video game sequences in Spike Jonze’s Her – a movie that similarly explores our connection to those a million miles away.

About Jeffrey Matulef

Jeffrey Matulef is the best-dressed man in 1984. Based in Portland, OR he operates as Eurogamer’s US news editor.

Comments (12)

  • Loading… hold tight!

How New York’s The Cut is betting big on video

New York Media’s The Cut is getting serious about video, rolling out its first original series “Face Race,” which debuted last week.

“Face Race” is part of a larger effort by New York to create more video series across its brands. Grub Street, the company’s food blog, just wrapped a limited-run series tied to its “Best of New York” pop-up blog, which highlights some of the best food in the city across different categories. Its entertainment vertical, Vulture, just debuted a series called “Broadway Charades,” which tests the music knowledge of two singers or actors. New York’s video department, which produces these series, is currently made up of 11 people.

The Cut had previously only dabbled in video, with no series or recurring formats. Instead, it would rely on one-off, social-friendly videos like “Men Try On Rompers for the First Time” and “Working Moms React to Ivanka Trump’s ‘Women Who Work,’” and the woke, like “What TV Is Getting Wrong (and Right) About Abortion.”

Hosted by the site’s senior beauty editor, Ashley Weatherford, the show pits two top makeup artists against each other in a competition to recreate iconic beauty looks — from Beyonce in “Mine” to Madonna in “Who’s That Girl” — in under seven minutes. Taking a page from campy reality shows like “America’s Next Top Model” and “Ru Paul’s Drag Race,” Weatherford sits on a gilded throne as the artists go to work, and the winners inexplicably receive an inflatable pool swan. A new episode will roll out every Friday for the next nine weeks.

“We’re excited to launch this video as the first of what will hopefully be many exciting video projects on The Cut,” said Stella Bugbee, who was just promoted to the website’s president and editor-in-chief. “Video is a big part of our strategy for the future, and the ‘Face Race’ represents the humor and originality of our site.”

video screengrab copyThe Cut’s senior editor Ashley Weatherford stars in new series “Face Race”

The series is sponsored by TNT’s upcoming show “Claws,” a dark comedy that follows a group of manicurists working in a Florida nail salon, premiering on June 11. Other than an opening ad for the show, “Face Race” episodes do not mention it. It is part of a larger marketing campaign that includes branded content on the site, a “Claws”/The Cut manicure truck activation in New York City this Friday and a TNT sponsorship of New York Magazine’s annual summer party for readers and friends of the company.

“We’re always brainstorming ideas for video, and since Ashley is a star in the making (and a big reality TV fan), we wanted to have her try a beauty series,” said Bugbee. “Given that [its new] show is about a group of manicurists, it was the perfect alignment opportunity for both sides,” she said.

The launch comes on the heels of The Cut -receiving its own URL at www.thecut.com this month, and it hints at further efforts to build out the website’s popular brand beyond its roots in fashion and beauty to become more akin to Refinery29. (The top story on the site currently is, “Texas’s Governor Just Signed a Sweeping Anti-Abortion Law.”)

The first episode of “Face Race” features two relative unknowns in the artist category, though they boast past clients like YSL and Vogue. The team could not reveal who else would be featured in the future.

the cut homepage with ad copy
The Face Race is sponsored by TNT’s new series “Claws”