Unnamed: 0.1 int64 10 100k | Unnamed: 0 int64 10 100k | date stringdate 2016-01-01 00:00:00 2019-07-13 03:00:00 | year int64 2.02k 2.02k | month float64 1 12 | day int64 1 31 | author stringlengths 4 69 ⌀ | title stringlengths 6 139 | article stringlengths 20 88.5k | url stringlengths 40 195 | section stringclasses 192 values | publication stringclasses 7 values | text_before stringlengths 0 57.3k | completion stringlengths 1 835 | text_after stringlengths 0 54k | cursor_pos int64 0 57.3k | pos_type stringclasses 3 values | word stringlengths 1 21 | remove_mode stringclasses 2 values | user_message stringlengths 90 67.7k | messages listlengths 2 2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
58,588 | 58,588 | 2019-06-10 00:00:00 | 2,019 | 6 | 10 | Hilary Russ | REFILE-U.S. millennials prefer video games to traditional pay TV -survey | (Removes typographical error in paragraph 3) By Hilary Russ NEW YORK, June 10 (Reuters) - More American millennials now subscribe to a video game service than to a traditional paid television service, according to a survey on Monday, as consumers favor new forms of entertainment that are shifting the broader media landscape. About 53% of people born between 1983 and 1996 now pay for gaming services, versus 51% who pay for television, according to a survey from the accounting and professional services firm Deloitte. That is compared with Deloitte’s survey last year, in which paid subscriptions among millennials were 44% for video games and 52% for television. Paid television through cable, satellite or fiber - for instance Comcast Corp’s Xfinity, Dish Network Corp or AT&T Inc’s U-verse TV - has been challenged by changing viewer habits, particularly the rise of direct-to-consumer streaming services. At the same time, video games and e-sports have soared in popularity, giving rise to an industry of competitive professional and amateur games watched in person and online by fans, alongside more casual gaming on mobile phones. Players can subscribe to games like World of Warcraft from Activision Blizzard Inc. Riot Games Inc, a unit of Tencent Holdings Ltd, is working on a streaming mobile version of its hit League of Legends desktop game. Electronic Arts Inc offers subscriptions to its games - which include FIFA 18, Madden NFL 19, The Sims 4, Star Wars Battlefront II and more - for Microsoft Corp’s Xbox and Sony Corp’s PlayStation. In March, Alphabet Inc’s Google unveiled Stadia, its new browser-based video game streaming service to launch this year through its cloud technology. The same month, Apple Inc also introduced a new digital video game subscription service called Apple Arcade. Kevin Westcott, who leads Deloitte’s U.S. telecom, media and entertainment practice, said increased game consumption comes as more people fill their spare time playing on mobile devices instead of reading and other activities. Gaming can provide social ties and communities of fans and players. “Gaming companies have also been developing more compelling content and interaction with their consumers,” Westcott said in an email. Deloitte’s 13th annual digital media trends survey was fielded by an independent research firm from December 2018 to February 2019 online among 2,003 U.S. consumers. Reporting by Hilary Russ
Additional reporting by Helen Coster; Editing by Lisa Shumaker | https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-videogames-television/refile-us-millennials-prefer-video-games-to-traditional-pay-tv-survey-idUSL2N23H0SG | Company News | Reuters | (Removes typographical error in paragraph 3) By Hilary Russ NEW YORK, June 10 (Reuters) - More American millennials now subscribe to a video game service than to a traditional paid television service, according to a survey on Monday, as consumers favor new forms of entertainment that are shifting the broader media landscape. About 53% of people born between 1983 and 1996 now pay for gaming services, versus 51% who pay for television, according to a survey from the accounting and professional services firm Deloitte. That is compared with Deloitte’s survey last year, in which paid subscriptions among millennials were 44% for video games and 52% for television. Paid television through cable, satellite or fiber - for instance Comcast Corp’s Xfinity, Dish Network Corp or AT&T Inc’s U-verse TV - has been challenged by changing viewer habits, particularly the rise of direct-to-consumer streaming services. At the same time, video games and e-sports have soared in popularity, giving rise to an industry of competitive professional and amateur games watched in person and online by fans, alongside more casual gaming on mobile phones. Players can subscribe to games like World of Warcraft from Activision Blizzard Inc. Riot Games Inc, a unit of Tencent Holdings Ltd, is working on a streaming mobile version of its hit League of Legends desktop game. Electronic Arts Inc offers subscriptions to its games - which include FIFA 18, Madden NFL 19, The Sims 4, Star Wars Bat | tlefront II and more - | for Microsoft Corp’s Xbox and Sony Corp’s PlayStation. In March, Alphabet Inc’s Google unveiled Stadia, its new browser-based video game streaming service to launch this year through its cloud technology. The same month, Apple Inc also introduced a new digital video game subscription service called Apple Arcade. Kevin Westcott, who leads Deloitte’s U.S. telecom, media and entertainment practice, said increased game consumption comes as more people fill their spare time playing on mobile devices instead of reading and other activities. Gaming can provide social ties and communities of fans and players. “Gaming companies have also been developing more compelling content and interaction with their consumers,” Westcott said in an email. Deloitte’s 13th annual digital media trends survey was fielded by an independent research firm from December 2018 to February 2019 online among 2,003 U.S. consumers. Reporting by Hilary Russ
Additional reporting by Helen Coster; Editing by Lisa Shumaker | 1,483 | inside_word | Battlefront | remove_one_sentence | <url>
https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-videogames-television/refile-us-millennials-prefer-video-games-to-traditional-pay-tv-survey-idUSL2N23H0SG
</url>
<text>
(Removes typographical error in paragraph 3) By Hilary Russ NEW YORK, June 10 (Reuters) - More American millennials now subscribe to a video game service than to a traditional paid television service, according to a survey on Monday, as consumers favor new forms of entertainment that are shifting the broader media landscape. About 53% of people born between 1983 and 1996 now pay for gaming services, versus 51% who pay for television, according to a survey from the accounting and professional services firm Deloitte. That is compared with Deloitte’s survey last year, in which paid subscriptions among millennials were 44% for video games and 52% for television. Paid television through cable, satellite or fiber - for instance Comcast Corp’s Xfinity, Dish Network Corp or AT&T Inc’s U-verse TV - has been challenged by changing viewer habits, particularly the rise of direct-to-consumer streaming services. At the same time, video games and e-sports have soared in popularity, giving rise to an industry of competitive professional and amateur games watched in person and online by fans, alongside more casual gaming on mobile phones. Players can subscribe to games like World of Warcraft from Activision Blizzard Inc. Riot Games Inc, a unit of Tencent Holdings Ltd, is working on a streaming mobile version of its hit League of Legends desktop game. Electronic Arts Inc offers subscriptions to its games - which include FIFA 18, Madden NFL 19, The Sims 4, Star Wars Bat<cursor_is_here> for Microsoft Corp’s Xbox and Sony Corp’s PlayStation. In March, Alphabet Inc’s Google unveiled Stadia, its new browser-based video game streaming service to launch this year through its cloud technology. The same month, Apple Inc also introduced a new digital video game subscription service called Apple Arcade. Kevin Westcott, who leads Deloitte’s U.S. telecom, media and entertainment practice, said increased game consumption comes as more people fill their spare time playing on mobile devices instead of reading and other activities. Gaming can provide social ties and communities of fans and players. “Gaming companies have also been developing more compelling content and interaction with their consumers,” Westcott said in an email. Deloitte’s 13th annual digital media trends survey was fielded by an independent research firm from December 2018 to February 2019 online among 2,003 U.S. consumers. Reporting by Hilary Russ
Additional reporting by Helen Coster; Editing by Lisa Shumaker
</text>
| [
{
"content": "<url>\nhttps://www.reuters.com/article/usa-videogames-television/refile-us-millennials-prefer-video-games-to-traditional-pay-tv-survey-idUSL2N23H0SG\n</url>\n<text>\n(Removes typographical error in paragraph 3) By Hilary Russ NEW YORK, June 10 (Reuters) - More American millennials now subscribe ... |
20,790 | 20,790 | 2019-06-13 00:00:00 | 2,019 | 6 | 13 | null | UPDATE 1-Kinnevik drops planned Millicom sale, cites market conditions | (Adds background, detail) June 13 (Reuters) - Swedish investment company Kinnevik on Thursday scrapped plans to exit its holding in telecommunications firm Millicom through a public offering and distribution to Kinnevik shareholders, citing unfavorable market conditions. Millicom shares fell 9 percent as Kinnevik announced its initial plan earlier this month and said it would revise its shareholder payout policy from next year. “It has become clear that unfavorable market conditions mean that the envisioned two-step divestment cannot be concluded in its current form and on terms which Kinnevik finds sufficiently attractive for its shareholders,” Kinnevik said in a statement. The company added that its previous amendment of its shareholder payout policy was revoked. “Kinnevik remains firmly committed to continuing to strengthen its financial position and evolve its portfolio towards a higher proportion of growth companies, including through maximizing returns from a successful and long-standing investment such as Millicom,” Kinnevik said. Kinnevik is Millicom’s largest owner with a 37% stake. (Reporting by Rama Venkat in Bengaluru and Johannes Hellstrom in Stockholm; Editing by Sandra Maler and Niklas Pollard) | https://www.reuters.com/article/kinnevik-divestiture-millicom-intl/update-1-kinnevik-drops-planned-millicom-sale-cites-market-conditions-idUSL8N23K0NS | Financials | Reuters | (Adds background, detail) June 13 (Reuters) - Swedish investment company Kinnevik on Thursday scrapped plans to exit its holding in telecommunications firm Millicom through a public offering and distribution to Kinnevik shareholders, citing unfavorable market conditions. Millicom shares fell 9 percent as Kinnevik announced its initial plan earlier this month and said it would revise its shareholder payout policy from next year. “It has become clear that unfavorable market conditions mean that the envisioned two-step divestment cannot be concluded in its current form and on terms which Kinnevik finds sufficiently attractive for its shareholders,” K | innevik said in a statement. | 658 | inside_word | Kinnevik | remove_all | <url>
https://www.reuters.com/article/kinnevik-divestiture-millicom-intl/update-1-kinnevik-drops-planned-millicom-sale-cites-market-conditions-idUSL8N23K0NS
</url>
<text>
(Adds background, detail) June 13 (Reuters) - Swedish investment company Kinnevik on Thursday scrapped plans to exit its holding in telecommunications firm Millicom through a public offering and distribution to Kinnevik shareholders, citing unfavorable market conditions. Millicom shares fell 9 percent as Kinnevik announced its initial plan earlier this month and said it would revise its shareholder payout policy from next year. “It has become clear that unfavorable market conditions mean that the envisioned two-step divestment cannot be concluded in its current form and on terms which Kinnevik finds sufficiently attractive for its shareholders,” K<cursor_is_here>
</text>
| [
{
"content": "<url>\nhttps://www.reuters.com/article/kinnevik-divestiture-millicom-intl/update-1-kinnevik-drops-planned-millicom-sale-cites-market-conditions-idUSL8N23K0NS\n</url>\n<text>\n(Adds background, detail) June 13 (Reuters) - Swedish investment company Kinnevik on Thursday scrapped plans to exit its h... | |
87,384 | 87,384 | 2019-07-02 00:00:00 | 2,019 | 7 | 2 | William Schomberg | Brexit crisis wallops UK builders, survey shows | LONDON (Reuters) - Britain’s Brexit crisis tipped the country’s construction industry into its sharpest fall in a decade in June, a survey showed on Tuesday, in a stark sign of how quickly the world’s fifth-biggest economy is slowing. The IHS Markit/CIPS construction Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI) plunged to 43.1, the lowest reading since April 2009 when the country was gripped by the global financial crisis and way below any forecast in a Reuters poll of economists. The yield on 10-year British government bonds sank to its lowest level in nearly three years as investors, already anxious about the prospect of a no-deal Brexit under the country’s next prime minister, took fright at the scale of the fall. Construction accounts for only 6% of Britain’s economy and economists say the PMI surveys can overstate the degree of turning points in gross domestic product. But there have been other signs that overall activity has stalled, and possibly even contracted, in the second quarter. On Monday, a PMI for Britain’s manufacturing sector — which represents 10% of the economy — also showed a fall in activity in June as the global economic slowdown hit demand for exports, adding to the drag from Brexit worries. Bank of England data meanwhile revealed the slowest growth in five years in borrowing by consumers, whose spending has helped cushion the economy from Brexit. (GRAPHIC: UK construction PMI falls to lowest since 2009 - tmsnrt.rs/2FN8LZV) Samuel Tombs, an economist with consultancy Pantheon Macroeconomics, said the construction survey was “a worrying sign that the damage wrought by Brexit uncertainty is building”. The hit was felt across the breadth of the sector: homebuilding shrank for the first time in 17 months, commercial work fell for the sixth consecutive month and civil engineering contracted by the most since October 2009. Shares in UK housebuilders Persimmon (PSN.L), Taylor Wimpey (TW.L) and Barratt Developments (BDEV.L) all fell while the broader UK stock market was up. Tim Moore, associate director at IHS Markit, said it was “almost impossible to sugarcoat” the survey. “In particular, new orders dropped to the largest extent for just over 10 years, while demand for construction products and materials fell at the sharpest pace since the start of 2010,” he said. There was one potential silver lining: job cuts were marginal and some firms said they had retained staff in anticipation of a recovery in sales. Tombs at Pantheon Macroeconomics said the sector could experience a quick recovery around the turn of the year, if the Brexit deadline of Oct. 31 is delayed again. In campaigning for the leadership of the ruling Conservative Party, both candidates to replace Theresa May as prime minister have said they are prepared to take the country out of the European Union without a transition deal if necessary. The second-quarter slowdown in the economy contrasts with a strong start to 2019, when companies rushed to get ready for the original March 29 Brexit deadline. A PMI for Britain’s dominant services sector, which is due to be published on Wednesday, is expected to show only marginal growth in June, according to economists polled by Reuters. Writing by William Schomberg, Graphic by Andy Bruce, Editing by Catherine Evans | https://www.reuters.com/article/britain-economy-pmi/update-1-brexit-crisis-wallops-uk-builders-survey-shows-idUSL8N2431ON | Brexit | Reuters | LONDON (Reuters) - Britain’s Brexit crisis tipped the country’s construction industry into its sharpest fall in a decade in June, a survey showed on Tuesday, in a stark sign of how quickly the world’s fifth-biggest economy is slowing. The IHS Markit/CIPS construction Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI) plunged to 43.1, the lowest reading since April 2009 when the country was gripped by the global financial crisis and way below any forecast in a Reuters poll of economists. The yield on 10-year British government bonds sank to its lowest level in nearly three years as investors, already anxious about the prospect of a no-deal Brexit under the country’s next prime minister, took fright at the scale of the fall. Construction accounts for only 6% of Britain’s economy and economists say the PMI surveys can overstate the degree of turning points in gross domestic product. But there have been other signs that overall activity has stalled, and possibly even contracted, in the second quarter. On Monday, a PMI for Britain’s manufacturing sector — which represents 10% of the economy — also showed a fall in activity in June as the global economic slowdown hit demand for exports, adding to the dra | g from Brexit worries. | 1,205 | inside_word | drag | remove_all | <url>
https://www.reuters.com/article/britain-economy-pmi/update-1-brexit-crisis-wallops-uk-builders-survey-shows-idUSL8N2431ON
</url>
<text>
LONDON (Reuters) - Britain’s Brexit crisis tipped the country’s construction industry into its sharpest fall in a decade in June, a survey showed on Tuesday, in a stark sign of how quickly the world’s fifth-biggest economy is slowing. The IHS Markit/CIPS construction Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI) plunged to 43.1, the lowest reading since April 2009 when the country was gripped by the global financial crisis and way below any forecast in a Reuters poll of economists. The yield on 10-year British government bonds sank to its lowest level in nearly three years as investors, already anxious about the prospect of a no-deal Brexit under the country’s next prime minister, took fright at the scale of the fall. Construction accounts for only 6% of Britain’s economy and economists say the PMI surveys can overstate the degree of turning points in gross domestic product. But there have been other signs that overall activity has stalled, and possibly even contracted, in the second quarter. On Monday, a PMI for Britain’s manufacturing sector — which represents 10% of the economy — also showed a fall in activity in June as the global economic slowdown hit demand for exports, adding to the dra<cursor_is_here>
</text>
| [
{
"content": "<url>\nhttps://www.reuters.com/article/britain-economy-pmi/update-1-brexit-crisis-wallops-uk-builders-survey-shows-idUSL8N2431ON\n</url>\n<text>\nLONDON (Reuters) - Britain’s Brexit crisis tipped the country’s construction industry into its sharpest fall in a decade in June, a survey showed on Tue... | |
16,060 | 16,060 | 2017-10-10 00:00:00 | 2,017 | 10 | 10 | Tim Reid, Alex Dobuzinskis | New timeline in Vegas shooting raises questions on police response | (Reuters) - Las Vegas police faced new questions on Tuesday over their response to last week’s deadly mass shooting, after releasing a revised chronology in which the gunman shot a security officer before, not after, opening fire from his high-rise hotel window. The updated timeline for the bloodiest case of gun violence in recent U.S. history raised new uncertainty over why Stephen Paddock ceased firing on concertgoers once he began, and whether hotel security and police coordinated as well as first believed. Aden Ocampo-Gomez, spokesman of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, declined to comment on the revised chronology, saying the agency would discuss the implications later. Paddock, 64, killed 58 people and injured hundreds in a hail of bullets from his suite on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay hotel, overlooking a music festival, and then shot himself to death before police could storm his room. Nine days later, his motive remains a mystery. Clark County Sheriff Joseph Lombardo, who oversees the police department, on Monday said Paddock shot a hotel security guard six minutes before beginning to fire on the crowd. By coincidence, the security officer, Jesus Campos, had been sent to check an open-door alarm on the same floor. Officials initially said Paddock began raining gunfire onto the concert first, then stopped shooting after strafing the 32nd-floor hallway through the doorway of his room, when Campos was apparently detected via security cameras the gunman had set up outside his suite. Earlier police accounts said a wounded Campos helped direct police to the room occupied by Paddock, who had quit firing on concertgoers by then. Lombardo originally said police officers reached the 32nd floor within 12 minutes of the first reports of the attack. That sequence of events was changed in Monday’s new timeline issued by Lombardo. “What we have learned is (the security guard) was encountered by the suspect prior to his shooting to the outside world,” Lombardo said. Lombardo did not address whether the mass shooting could have been prevented, or halted sooner, based on the new chronology, but said it remained unclear why Paddock stopped firing on the concert when he did. In an active shooter situation, response time can be as fast as three minutes, said Sid Heal, a retired Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department commander and tactical expert. He questioned why it took police as long as it did to reach the room, if hotel security had called them immediately. “Someone needs to account for those minutes,” he added. Nevada Lieutenant Governor Mark Hutchison acknowledged to CNN on Tuesday that Paddock did not stop firing because of the guard, Jesus Campos, as had been assumed initially. Campos immediately alerted the hotel’s in-house security team after he was shot at 9:59 p.m., six minutes before Paddock first opened fire on the concert, according to Lombardo. But police were not aware Campos had been shot until they met him in the hallway, Lombardo said on Monday. The sheriff has estimated the time of their rendezvous at 10:18 p.m., three minutes after Paddock had stopped firing. Rather than storm Paddock’s suite immediately, police paused to assemble their SWAT team and burst into his room to find him dead 81 minutes after the shooting began, according to the original account. Protocol for Las Vegas hotels and casinos is to barricade the corridor where a shooting takes place and wait for police to arrive, said David Shepherd, a security expert who advises Las Vegas police and who ran the security team at the Venetian hotel on the Vegas Strip for eight years. Police are trained to wait and negotiate with a shooter, rather than storm the room immediately, he said. Initial reports of multiple shooters at several hotels that night would also have confused police, he added. “One of the biggest priorities is not to lose the life of a police officer,” Shepherd said by telephone. “So in those six minutes, it is highly unlikely police would have stormed that room.” Police and security officers acted as quickly as possible in the circumstances, said David Hickey, the president of the union that represents Campos, based on what he had heard. Officials with MGM Resorts International, which owns the Mandalay Bay, questioned the latest chronology from police. “We cannot be certain about the most recent timeline that has been communicated publicly, and we believe what is currently being expressed may not be accurate,” the company said in a statement late on Tuesday. Reporting by Tim Reid, Alex Dobuzinskis and Keith Coffman; Writing by Ben Klayman; Editing by David Gregorio and Clarence Fernandez | https://www.reuters.com/article/us-lasvegas-shooting/new-timeline-in-vegas-shooting-raises-questions-on-police-response-idUSKBN1CF2YI | U.S. | Reuters | (Reuters) - Las Vegas police faced new questions on Tuesday over their response to last week’s deadly mass shooting, after releasing a revised chronology in which the gunman shot a security officer before, not after, opening fire from his high-rise hotel window. The updated timeline for the bloodiest case of gun violence in recent U.S. history raised new uncertainty over why Stephen Paddock ceased firing on concertgoers once he began, and whether hotel security and police coordinated as well as first believed. Aden Ocampo-Gomez, spokesman of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, declined to comment on the revised chronology, saying the agency would discuss the implications later. Paddock, 64, killed 58 people and injured hundreds in a hail of bullets from his suite on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay hotel, overlooking a music festival, and then shot himself to death before police could storm his room. Nine days later, his motive remains a mystery. Clark County Sheriff Joseph Lombardo, who oversees the police department, on Monday said Paddock shot a hotel security guard six minutes before beginning to fire on the crowd. By coincidence, the security officer, Jesus Campos, had been sent to check an open-door alarm on the same floor. Officials initially said Paddock began raining gunfire onto the concert first, then stopped shooting after strafing the 32nd-floor hallway through the doorway of his room, when Campos was apparently detected via security cameras the gunman had set up outside his suite. Earlier police accounts said a wounded Campos helped direct police to the room occupied by Paddock, who had quit firing on concertgoers by then. Lombardo originally said police officers reached the 32nd floor within 12 minutes of the first reports of the attack. That sequence of events was changed in Monday’s new timeline issued by Lombardo. “What we have learned is (the security guard) was encountered by the suspect prior to his shooting to the outside world,” Lombardo said. Lombardo did not address whether the mass shooting could have been prevented, or halted sooner, based on the new chronology, but said it remained unclear why Paddock stopped firing on the concert when he did. In an active shooter situation, response time can be as fast as three minutes, said Sid Heal, a retired Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department commander and tactical expert. He questioned why it took police as long as it did to reach the room, if hotel security had called them immediately. “Someone needs to account for those minutes,” he added. Nevada Lieutenant Governor Mark Hutchison acknowledged to CNN on Tuesday that Paddock did not stop firing because of the guard, Jesus Campos, as had been assumed initially. Campos immediately alerted the hotel’s in-house security team after he was shot at 9:59 p.m., six minutes before Paddock first opened fire on the concert, according to Lombardo. But police were not aware Campos had been shot until they met him in the hallway, Lombardo said on Monday. The sheriff has estimated the time of their rendezvous at 10:18 p.m., three minutes after Paddock had stopped firing. Rather than storm Paddock’s suite immediately, police paused to assemble their SWAT team and burst into his room to find him dead 81 minutes after the shooting began, according to the original account. Protocol for Las Vegas hotels and casinos is to barricade the corridor where a shooting takes place and wait for police to arrive, said David Shepherd, a security expert who advises Las Vegas police and who ran the security team at the Venetian hotel on the Vegas Strip for eight years. Police are trained to wait and negotiate with a shooter, rather than storm the room immediately, he said. Initial reports of multiple shooters at several hotels that night would also have confused police, he added. “One of the biggest priorities is not to lose the life of a police officer,” | Shepherd said by telephone. | “So in those six minutes, it is highly unlikely police would have stormed that room.” Police and security officers acted as quickly as possible in the circumstances, said David Hickey, the president of the union that represents Campos, based on what he had heard. Officials with MGM Resorts International, which owns the Mandalay Bay, questioned the latest chronology from police. “We cannot be certain about the most recent timeline that has been communicated publicly, and we believe what is currently being expressed may not be accurate,” the company said in a statement late on Tuesday. Reporting by Tim Reid, Alex Dobuzinskis and Keith Coffman; Writing by Ben Klayman; Editing by David Gregorio and Clarence Fernandez | 3,951 | beginning_of_word | Shepherd | remove_one_sentence | <url>
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-lasvegas-shooting/new-timeline-in-vegas-shooting-raises-questions-on-police-response-idUSKBN1CF2YI
</url>
<text>
(Reuters) - Las Vegas police faced new questions on Tuesday over their response to last week’s deadly mass shooting, after releasing a revised chronology in which the gunman shot a security officer before, not after, opening fire from his high-rise hotel window. The updated timeline for the bloodiest case of gun violence in recent U.S. history raised new uncertainty over why Stephen Paddock ceased firing on concertgoers once he began, and whether hotel security and police coordinated as well as first believed. Aden Ocampo-Gomez, spokesman of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, declined to comment on the revised chronology, saying the agency would discuss the implications later. Paddock, 64, killed 58 people and injured hundreds in a hail of bullets from his suite on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay hotel, overlooking a music festival, and then shot himself to death before police could storm his room. Nine days later, his motive remains a mystery. Clark County Sheriff Joseph Lombardo, who oversees the police department, on Monday said Paddock shot a hotel security guard six minutes before beginning to fire on the crowd. By coincidence, the security officer, Jesus Campos, had been sent to check an open-door alarm on the same floor. Officials initially said Paddock began raining gunfire onto the concert first, then stopped shooting after strafing the 32nd-floor hallway through the doorway of his room, when Campos was apparently detected via security cameras the gunman had set up outside his suite. Earlier police accounts said a wounded Campos helped direct police to the room occupied by Paddock, who had quit firing on concertgoers by then. Lombardo originally said police officers reached the 32nd floor within 12 minutes of the first reports of the attack. That sequence of events was changed in Monday’s new timeline issued by Lombardo. “What we have learned is (the security guard) was encountered by the suspect prior to his shooting to the outside world,” Lombardo said. Lombardo did not address whether the mass shooting could have been prevented, or halted sooner, based on the new chronology, but said it remained unclear why Paddock stopped firing on the concert when he did. In an active shooter situation, response time can be as fast as three minutes, said Sid Heal, a retired Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department commander and tactical expert. He questioned why it took police as long as it did to reach the room, if hotel security had called them immediately. “Someone needs to account for those minutes,” he added. Nevada Lieutenant Governor Mark Hutchison acknowledged to CNN on Tuesday that Paddock did not stop firing because of the guard, Jesus Campos, as had been assumed initially. Campos immediately alerted the hotel’s in-house security team after he was shot at 9:59 p.m., six minutes before Paddock first opened fire on the concert, according to Lombardo. But police were not aware Campos had been shot until they met him in the hallway, Lombardo said on Monday. The sheriff has estimated the time of their rendezvous at 10:18 p.m., three minutes after Paddock had stopped firing. Rather than storm Paddock’s suite immediately, police paused to assemble their SWAT team and burst into his room to find him dead 81 minutes after the shooting began, according to the original account. Protocol for Las Vegas hotels and casinos is to barricade the corridor where a shooting takes place and wait for police to arrive, said David Shepherd, a security expert who advises Las Vegas police and who ran the security team at the Venetian hotel on the Vegas Strip for eight years. Police are trained to wait and negotiate with a shooter, rather than storm the room immediately, he said. Initial reports of multiple shooters at several hotels that night would also have confused police, he added. “One of the biggest priorities is not to lose the life of a police officer,” <cursor_is_here> “So in those six minutes, it is highly unlikely police would have stormed that room.” Police and security officers acted as quickly as possible in the circumstances, said David Hickey, the president of the union that represents Campos, based on what he had heard. Officials with MGM Resorts International, which owns the Mandalay Bay, questioned the latest chronology from police. “We cannot be certain about the most recent timeline that has been communicated publicly, and we believe what is currently being expressed may not be accurate,” the company said in a statement late on Tuesday. Reporting by Tim Reid, Alex Dobuzinskis and Keith Coffman; Writing by Ben Klayman; Editing by David Gregorio and Clarence Fernandez
</text>
| [
{
"content": "<url>\nhttps://www.reuters.com/article/us-lasvegas-shooting/new-timeline-in-vegas-shooting-raises-questions-on-police-response-idUSKBN1CF2YI\n</url>\n<text>\n(Reuters) - Las Vegas police faced new questions on Tuesday over their response to last week’s deadly mass shooting, after releasing a revis... |
99,672 | 99,672 | 2019-03-07 00:00:00 | 2,019 | 3 | 7 | null | Michael Cohen Sues Donald Trump Org. Over Millions in Attorneys' Fees | Michael Cohen says Donald Trump left him and high dry the second things got hot, and went back on a promise to cover all of Cohen's legal fees related to the Mueller investigation. Cohen just filed a lawsuit against the Trump Organization for more than a million bucks -- money he says was supposed to be paid to his lawyers. In the suit, Cohen says shortly after he was first subpoenaed, Donald's co. agreed to cover all of his attorney's fees. That was in July 2017, and Cohen says all seemed to be going well. In October, his attorneys got a check for $137,460 from the Trump Org. -- and that continued until May 2018. He says Trump's company eventually covered $1.7 million of his legal expenses. But, when Trump's former right-hand man flipped in June 2018 ... the relationship soured. Funny how that goes. Trump started distancing himself from Cohen. In fact, Cohen recalls his former boss saying in June, "I haven't spoken to Michael in a long time. He's not my lawyer anymore." According to the suit, the well ran dry that same month ... and Cohen says a total of $1,037,868 remains unpaid to his high-powered law firm. Most attorneys frown upon working for free, and Cohen says they indeed pulled out ... which hurt his case. Remember, he was sentenced to 3 years in prison for tax fraud and campaign finance violations. He's suing the Trump Org. for the outstanding legal tab, plus a little something for himself ... aka damages. | https://www.tmz.com/2019/03/07/michael-cohen-sues-donald-trump-lawsuit-attorney-costs-fees/ | null | TMZ | Michael Cohen says Donald Trump left him and high dry the second things got hot, and went back on a promise to cover all of Cohen's legal fees related to the Mueller investigation. Cohen just filed a lawsuit against the Trump Organization for more than a million bucks -- money he says was supposed to be paid to his lawyers. In the suit, Cohen says shortly after he was first subpoenaed, Donald's co. agreed to cover all of his attorney's fees. That was in July 2017, and Cohen says all seemed to be going well. In October, his attorneys got a check for $137,460 from the Trump Org. -- and that continued until May 2018. He says Trump's company eventually covered $1.7 million of his legal expenses. But, when Trump's former right-hand man flipped in June 2018 ... the relationship soured. Funny how that goes. Trump started distancing himself from Cohen. In fact, Cohen recalls his former boss saying in June, "I haven't spoken to Michael in a long time. He's not my lawyer anymore." According to the suit, the well ran dry that same month ... and Cohen says a total of $1,037,868 remains unpaid to his high-powered law firm. Most attorneys frown upon working for free, | and Cohen says they indeed pulled out ... | 1,171 | end_of_word | free, | remove_all | <url>
https://www.tmz.com/2019/03/07/michael-cohen-sues-donald-trump-lawsuit-attorney-costs-fees/
</url>
<text>
Michael Cohen says Donald Trump left him and high dry the second things got hot, and went back on a promise to cover all of Cohen's legal fees related to the Mueller investigation. Cohen just filed a lawsuit against the Trump Organization for more than a million bucks -- money he says was supposed to be paid to his lawyers. In the suit, Cohen says shortly after he was first subpoenaed, Donald's co. agreed to cover all of his attorney's fees. That was in July 2017, and Cohen says all seemed to be going well. In October, his attorneys got a check for $137,460 from the Trump Org. -- and that continued until May 2018. He says Trump's company eventually covered $1.7 million of his legal expenses. But, when Trump's former right-hand man flipped in June 2018 ... the relationship soured. Funny how that goes. Trump started distancing himself from Cohen. In fact, Cohen recalls his former boss saying in June, "I haven't spoken to Michael in a long time. He's not my lawyer anymore." According to the suit, the well ran dry that same month ... and Cohen says a total of $1,037,868 remains unpaid to his high-powered law firm. Most attorneys frown upon working for free,<cursor_is_here>
</text>
| [
{
"content": "<url>\nhttps://www.tmz.com/2019/03/07/michael-cohen-sues-donald-trump-lawsuit-attorney-costs-fees/\n</url>\n<text>\nMichael Cohen says Donald Trump left him and high dry the second things got hot, and went back on a promise to cover all of Cohen's legal fees related to the Mueller investigation. C... | |
3,752 | 3,752 | 2018-05-18 00:00:00 | 2,018 | 5 | 18 | Sarah Marsh, Nelson Acosta | Plane crashes in Cuba killing more than 100, investigation underway | HAVANA (Reuters) - More than 100 people were killed when a Boeing 737 crashed soon after taking off from Havana in what appeared to be Cuba’s worst air disaster in nearly 30 years, and there were only three survivors, officials and state media said on Friday. The passenger plane, on a domestic flight to Holguin in eastern Cuba, crashed at 12:08 p.m. (1608 GMT). There were 105 passengers, including five children, plus crew members, state media reported. Five of the passengers and the crew were foreign, according to media reports. Two Argentine citizens and an unspecified number of Mexicans were among the dead, the Argentine and Mexican governments said. President Miguel Diaz-Canel said in broadcast comments that a high number of people appeared to have been killed. He said the fire from the crash had been extinguished and authorities were identifying bodies. Diaz-Canel said authorities were investigating the cause of the crash. Cuba declared an official period of mourning from 6 a.m. on May 19 to 12 p.m. on May 20, during which the flag would be flown at half-mast outside state and military institutions. Former Cuban president Raul Castro, who now heads the country’s ruling Communist Party, offered his condolences to the families of those who died in the crash as he recovered from a hernia operation, State media reported This was the first time Cuba reported on a health issue for Castro, 86, who last month handed over the reins of power to his right-hand man Diaz-Canel. Castro “who is recovering satisfactorily from a recent planned surgery to get rid of a hernia is staying up to date on the situation and has given the relevant guidance,” the Communist Party newspaper Granma reported. Blackened wreckage of Flight CU972 was strewn over the crash site, 20 km (12 miles) south of Havana. “We heard an explosion and then saw a big cloud of smoke go up,” said Gilberto Menendez, who runs a restaurant near the crash site in the agricultural area of Boyeros. The flight’s destination, Holguin, is the capital of a province popular with tourists for its pristine beaches. Carlos Alberto Martinez, director of Havana’s Calixto Garcia hospital, told Reuters that four victims of the crash had been were brought there and one died. Three others, all women, were in a serious condition, he said. “She is alive but very burned and swollen,” said one of the women’s relatives at the hospital. The Mexican transport department said on its website, “During take-off (the plane) apparently suffered a problem and dived to the ground.” The Boeing 737-201 aircraft was built in 1979 and leased by Cuban airline Cubana from a small Mexican company called Damojh, according to the Mexican government. Damojh in Mexico said it did not immediately have any more information. Cubana declined to comment. Mexico said it would send a team of investigators from its Directorate General of Civil Aeronautics on Saturday. Most aircraft accidents take months to investigate. A U.S. State Department official said the agency was not aware of any request for U.S. assistance at this time, but the National Transportation Safety Board and Federal Aviation Administration had offered to assist in the investigation. The State Department has spoken with the Cuban ambassador to offer condolences, the official said. Boeing Co said in a statement that its technical team stood “ready to assist as permitted under U.S. law and at the direction of the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board and Cuban authorities.” The United States has a decades-old trade embargo on the island. The earliest Boeing 737s like the one that crashed use engines made by Pratt & Whitney, part of U.S.-based industrial group United Technologies. On Thursday, Cuba’s First Vice President Salvador Valdés Mesa met with Cubana bosses to discuss public complaints about its service, according to state-run media, including numerous cancellations of domestic flights this year and long delays. Earlier this month, the company was ordered to suspend flights of its six Russian built AN-158 aircraft, of which most had reportedly already been grounded, according to state-run media. The last fatal crash in Cuba was in 2017, the Aviation Safety Network said. It was a military flight and all eight on board were killed. In 2010, a commercial Aero Caribbean plane crashed in central Cuba and all 68 people on board were killed. In the worst Cubana disaster, a Soviet-made Ilyushin-62M passenger plane crashed near Havana in 1989 killing all 126 people on board. (This version of the story corrects name of engine maker in paragraph 22) Reporting by Sarah Marsh, Nelson Acosta and Marc Frank in Havana; Additional reporting by Anthony Esposito, Julia Love, Christine Murray, Dave Graham and Lizbeth Diaz in Mexico, and Lesley Wroughton in Washington; Writing by Rosalba O'Brien; Editing by Grant McCool, Toni Reinhold | https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cuba-crash/plane-crashes-in-cuba-killing-more-than-100-investigation-underway-idUSKCN1IJ2DG | World News | Reuters | HAVAN | A (Reuters) - | 5 | inside_word | HAVANA | remove_all | <url>
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cuba-crash/plane-crashes-in-cuba-killing-more-than-100-investigation-underway-idUSKCN1IJ2DG
</url>
<text>
HAVAN<cursor_is_here>
</text>
| [
{
"content": "<url>\nhttps://www.reuters.com/article/us-cuba-crash/plane-crashes-in-cuba-killing-more-than-100-investigation-underway-idUSKCN1IJ2DG\n</url>\n<text>\nHAVAN<cursor_is_here>\n</text>\n",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "A (Reuters) -",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | |
75,188 | 75,188 | 2019-04-18 00:00:00 | 2,019 | 4 | 18 | Tom Hals | U.S. court upholds most of California's 'sanctuary' migrant laws | (Reuters) - The Trump administration lost a court bid on Thursday aimed at striking down California’s “sanctuary” statutes that prevent local law enforcement from helping the U.S. government’s crackdown on illegal immigration. (graphic: tmsnrt.rs/2XmGDDg) The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco largely affirmed a July ruling from a lower court, which had found the California laws do not conflict with federal immigration rules. The U.S. Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment. California’s Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement, “We continue to prove in California that the rule of law not only stands for something but that people cannot act outside of it.” Scores of Democrat-controlled cities and counties have adopted policies to limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, making them a target for President Donald Trump. He recently suggested he would send an “unlimited supply” of migrants in the country illegally to sanctuary cities. The Trump administration has also tried to deny public safety grants to some sanctuary cities, a policy that has been generally blocked by federal courts. The California laws prohibit private employers in the state from voluntarily cooperating with federal immigration officials and bar local law enforcement from sharing information about the release of illegal immigrants from custody. The appeals court reversed the lower court regarding a part of a third law, which empowers the California attorney general to monitor conditions in immigrant detention facilities. The Court of Appeals said the requirement that an inspection of the circumstances surrounding the apprehension and transfer of an immigrant discriminates against the federal government. The Court of Appeals directed the U.S. District Court in Sacramento to review that part of its ruling. The case stems from a March 2018 lawsuit by the Department of Justice, which contended that the laws violated the U.S. Constitution. Reporting by Tom Hals; Editing by Leslie Adler | https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-sanctuary/u-s-court-upholds-most-of-californias-sanctuary-migrant-laws-idUSKCN1RU2IM | Politics | Reuters | (Reuters) - The Trump administration lost a court bid on Thursday aimed at striking down California’s “sanctuary” statutes that prevent local law enforcement from helping the U.S. government’s crackdown on illegal immigration. (graphic: tmsnrt.rs/2XmGDDg) The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco largely affirmed a July ruling from a lower court, which had found the California laws do not conflict with federal immigration rules. The U.S. Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment. California’s Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement, “We continue to prove in California that the rule of law not only stands for something but that people cannot act outside of it.” Scores of Democrat-controlled cities and counties have adopted policies to limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, making them a target for President Donald Trump. He recently suggested he would send an “unlimited supply” of migrants in the country illegally to sanctuary cities. The Trump administration has also tried to deny public safety grants to some sanctuary cities, a policy that has been generally blocked by federal courts. The California laws prohibit private employers in the state from voluntarily cooperating with federal immigration officials and bar local law enfo | rcement from sharing information about the release of illegal immigrants from custody. | The appeals court reversed the lower court regarding a part of a third law, which empowers the California attorney general to monitor conditions in immigrant detention facilities. The Court of Appeals said the requirement that an inspection of the circumstances surrounding the apprehension and transfer of an immigrant discriminates against the federal government. The Court of Appeals directed the U.S. District Court in Sacramento to review that part of its ruling. The case stems from a March 2018 lawsuit by the Department of Justice, which contended that the laws violated the U.S. Constitution. Reporting by Tom Hals; Editing by Leslie Adler | 1,335 | inside_word | enforcement | remove_one_sentence | <url>
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-sanctuary/u-s-court-upholds-most-of-californias-sanctuary-migrant-laws-idUSKCN1RU2IM
</url>
<text>
(Reuters) - The Trump administration lost a court bid on Thursday aimed at striking down California’s “sanctuary” statutes that prevent local law enforcement from helping the U.S. government’s crackdown on illegal immigration. (graphic: tmsnrt.rs/2XmGDDg) The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco largely affirmed a July ruling from a lower court, which had found the California laws do not conflict with federal immigration rules. The U.S. Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment. California’s Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement, “We continue to prove in California that the rule of law not only stands for something but that people cannot act outside of it.” Scores of Democrat-controlled cities and counties have adopted policies to limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, making them a target for President Donald Trump. He recently suggested he would send an “unlimited supply” of migrants in the country illegally to sanctuary cities. The Trump administration has also tried to deny public safety grants to some sanctuary cities, a policy that has been generally blocked by federal courts. The California laws prohibit private employers in the state from voluntarily cooperating with federal immigration officials and bar local law enfo<cursor_is_here> The appeals court reversed the lower court regarding a part of a third law, which empowers the California attorney general to monitor conditions in immigrant detention facilities. The Court of Appeals said the requirement that an inspection of the circumstances surrounding the apprehension and transfer of an immigrant discriminates against the federal government. The Court of Appeals directed the U.S. District Court in Sacramento to review that part of its ruling. The case stems from a March 2018 lawsuit by the Department of Justice, which contended that the laws violated the U.S. Constitution. Reporting by Tom Hals; Editing by Leslie Adler
</text>
| [
{
"content": "<url>\nhttps://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-sanctuary/u-s-court-upholds-most-of-californias-sanctuary-migrant-laws-idUSKCN1RU2IM\n</url>\n<text>\n(Reuters) - The Trump administration lost a court bid on Thursday aimed at striking down California’s “sanctuary” statutes that prevent lo... |
45,995 | 45,995 | 2016-12-08 14:50:01 | 2,016 | 12 | 8 | Tara Golshan | Trump’s unconventional campaign hasn’t convinced campaign managers to change their ways | There were many losers in the 2016 presidential election — and even more excuses. “The Comey letter!” Hillary Clinton’s team harped at Harvard University last week at a conference with key figures from the election, reflecting on the campaigns. The “WikiLeaks stolen emails” came as a close second on their why we lost list. Bernie Sanders’s rise complicated Martin O’Malley’s plans to be the “progressive alternative” to Hillary Clinton, O’Malley’s campaign manager Dave Hamrick said. “Trump’s rise took away from Christie’s natural strength as a communicator,” Gov. Chris Christie’s strategist Mike DuHaime noted. “Trump was the entire market,” Jeb Bush’s strategist David Kochel said of the media election coverage. The media suffocated the Republican field’s prospects with wall-to-wall Trump coverage. And John Kasich didn’t drop out soon enough, Ted Cruz’s campaign manager Jeff Roe hinted. There’s no question that Donald Trump led a winning campaign — a self-proclaimed political revolution — leaving a diverse and competent field of Republicans and Democrats in the dust. But, one month from the election, the lessons learned among said losers seem few and far between. To be sure, it is only one month from the election. The losers and their campaigns are still licking wounds, and time for self-reflection has been overshadowed by the shock of Trump’s upset presidential win. There’s despondency. "The theme of the whole primary: Nothing matters," Kochel said. And sure, Clinton’s campaign is justified, to an extent, in bringing up just how unprecedented it was that Russian intelligence and the FBI director interfered with the election. But Trump’s rise and path to victory are notable because of their unconventionality. The question remains: Was he just a political revolutionary, or did he fundamentally transform how politicians should campaigns for office? Are we not only post-truth but also post-campaigning? For two days, almost every campaign manager and strategist from the 2016 election, winners and losers, sat at a table at Harvard dissecting their every move — ground game tactics, message testing, advertising campaigns, digital strategies — talking around this question. The takeaway: Neither side seems to think Trump had a particularly transformational campaign in terms of how everyone will campaign in the future. Trump claimed the presidency running an extraordinarily unconventional campaign. His ground game was virtually nonexistent in the primaries and trailed far behind Clinton’s in the general. He paid for his own campaign during the primaries, operated with a staff of fewer than a dozen for much of the election cycle, and entered the general election severely behind in fundraising. His managers and strategists didn’t focus-group messaging or test policy ideas; they vetted ideas through a two- to five-person chain. Their budget on traditional television advertising and mail advertising was laughably small compared with opposing candidates. Despite all this — or perhaps because of it — they won. It raises the obvious question: Is there something to this new style of running a presidential campaign? Do all those highly paid political consultants even matter? Trump’s campaign is quick to tell you about their genius behind it all. Consider an exchange between Trump’s people and opposing campaigns from the conference, when Corey Lewandowski, Trump’s first campaign manager, called ground game operations a “colossal waste of money”: “I had this conversation many times when I was with my colleagues at CNN, and they told me the number of offices that Hillary Clinton had in Florida — and how Donald Trump had a fraction of that — and they could tell what Mary Smith had for breakfast and what time she was going to eat breakfast and what time she was going to go voting and it was the greatest political operation in the history of the country, and I didn’t fundamentally believe it,” Lewandowski said. If you have a candidate who inspires, brick-and-mortar campaign offices simply meant “landlords were getting rich”: “I refuse to do that,” Lewandowski said. “I didn’t find it necessary to have a brick-and-mortar office in every county in Iowa, every county in New Hampshire, every county in South Carolina, or anywhere else to be successful, because we knew that people have this new thing called the cellphone and it works everywhere.” It was a big moment. A room full of people who had made their careers on strategizing and building ground operations in every county in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina were being told their efforts were futile and behind the times — that they were the Kmart to Trump’s Amazon. Not so fast, Martin O’Malley’s campaign manager David Hamrick — formerly a grassroots organizer for President Barack Obama’s campaign — said. The implications of Lewandowski’s comments were twofold: Yes, Trump was able to win running a get-out-the-vote operation only with cellphones or media appearances, but Trump was also Trump: HAMRICK: One of things we have to be really careful of is the broad, sweeping conclusions after any election that the next election will be exactly like that. First of all, I completely agree with the point that a message and a messenger always trumps tactics and organization. But something we learned from the Obama campaign was that every congressional candidate or everyone running as dog catcher in America wanted to run the Obama field program in the years following, but what they found was that they weren’t Barack Obama and they couldn’t mobilize. Television advertising, field advertising, money, events, whatever they are — they are still going to be important in close races. The question is, what’s the nature of the candidate and what are the tactics that will work on that race. Heads began nodding. The lesson learned? Every election isn’t going to be the Donald Trump Show. No change is needed. To be sure, Clinton’s campaign rejects the notion that it ran an out-of-date campaign. Whether voters were contacted via phone call, text message, direct mail, television ad, or online, it was all part of a tested marketing strategy, Robby Mook, Clinton’s campaign manager, said. And they did, after all, win the popular vote. But as election results obviously show, that wasn’t enough to win the election. So should they have done something differently? Maybe. Here’s Brad Parscale, Trump’s digital director, debating Teddy Goff, Clinton’s chief digital strategist, on the subject: PARSCALE: There were significant differences [between the campaigns]. One thing is we spent 50 percent of our money on digital and 50 percent on TV. That’s a groundbreaking thing for a presidential campaign — wouldn’t everyone agree? Previous that, most people spent 15, 20 percent. We spent $100 million on digital and $100 million on TV. That’s a pretty big change. … GOFF: …There would have been no justification as far as I can tell for spending half of your money on digital, and I am a digital person. PARSCALE: I think for us it was budgetary constraints. GOFF: But there can be no argument — and even Coca-Cola and Nike don’t make the argument — that 50 percent of the media mix should be digital. PARSCALE: I’m just saying it’s a story. GOFF: I’m satisfied with the amount of money we spent on digital. I think had we anticipated the Comey event in the final days and what that was going to do to our millennial attrition to third-party voters, we might have leveled up a tiny little bit. But I think we basically not only did the right things but ran the most innovative digital campaign ever. And I speak as the person that was President Obama’s digital director in 2012. In other words, Parscale’s operation, while successful and unconventional, hasn’t convinced the opposition. They’re saying it’s possible Clinton’s team had a better campaign operation — it looks like they did — and a candidate people still didn’t want to vote for. There is reason for this response: It was a close election, and in a year that it wasn’t necessarily supposed to be. It’s easy to lose sight of that, Rasmus Kleis Nielsen, the author of Ground Wars: Personalized Communication in Political Campaigns, a study of the resurgence of ground game in American politics, told me during the campaign (when things were not looking good for Trump). “I think there is no question that Donald Trump would be more competitive if they had a better ground game,” Nielsen said. “A lot of political science work that would try to estimate the likely outcome of this presidential election on the basis of fundamentals — economic fundamentals, and what we know from history on the relative advantage of incumbency versus being a challenger — would actually suggest that this very well could be a Republican year. Compared to that baseline, Mr. Trump is not doing as well.” As much as Trump’s campaign would like to say they had the best campaign operation ever, they are also quick to say they had a special candidate; a “master brander” with incredible intuition. Trump had a finger on the nation’s pulse in a way Clinton did not, his campaign said. They’re right. Trump knew how to sell his ideas. He knew how to get wall-to-wall media coverage. His tweets reached the New York Times and CNN in a way others’ did not. His rallies were like “rock concerts,” Lewandowski said. Trump had groupies. He was the celebrity messenger, who, as it turns out, really did not need the brick-and-mortar offices in Iowa and New Hampshire. Trump was a special case, and as the campaign managers for Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio maintained, their candidates simply could not be Donald Trump — nor could they beat him. But it doesn’t necessarily make traditional campaign tactics obsolete — or at least that’s what these strategists are telling themselves one month out. | https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/8/13846378/trump-unconventional-campaign | null | Vox | There were many losers in the 2016 presidential election — and even more excuses. “The Comey letter!” Hillary Clinton’s team harped at Harvard University last week at a conference with key figures from the election, reflecting on the campaigns. The “WikiLeaks stolen emails” came as a close second on their why we lost list. Bernie Sanders’s rise complicated Martin O’Malley’s plans to be the “progressive alternative” to Hillary Clinton, O’Malley’s campaign manager Dave Hamrick said. “Trump’s rise took away from Christie’s natural strength as a communicator,” Gov. Chris Christie’s strategist Mike DuHaime noted. “Trump was the entire market,” Jeb Bush’s strategist David Kochel said of the media election coverage. The media suffocated the Republican field’s prospects with wall-to-wall Trump coverage. And John Kasich didn’t drop out soon enough, Ted Cruz’s campaign manager Jeff Roe hinted. There’s no question that Donald Trump led a winning campaign — a self-proclaimed political revolution — leaving a diverse and competent field of Republicans and Democrats in the dust. But, one month from the election, the lessons learned among said losers seem few and far between. To be sure, it is only one month from the election. The losers and their campaigns are still licking wounds, and time for self-reflection has been overshadowed by the shock of Trump’s upset presidential win. There’s despondency. "The theme of the whole primary: Nothing matters," Kochel said. And sure, Clinton’s campaign is justified, to an extent, in bringing up just how unprecedented it was that Russian intelligence and the FBI director interfered with the election. But Trump’s rise and path to victory are notable because of their unconventionality. The question remains: Was he just a political revolutionary, or did he fundamentally transform how politicians should campaigns for office? Are we not only post-truth but also post-campaigning? For two days, almost every campaign manager and strategist from the 2016 election, winners and losers, sat at a table at Harvard dissecting their every move — ground game tactics, message testing, advertising campaigns, digital strategies — talking around this question. The takeaway: Neither s | ide seems to think Trump had a particularly transformational campaign in terms of how everyone will campaign in the future. | Trump claimed the presidency running an extraordinarily unconventional campaign. His ground game was virtually nonexistent in the primaries and trailed far behind Clinton’s in the general. He paid for his own campaign during the primaries, operated with a staff of fewer than a dozen for much of the election cycle, and entered the general election severely behind in fundraising. His managers and strategists didn’t focus-group messaging or test policy ideas; they vetted ideas through a two- to five-person chain. Their budget on traditional television advertising and mail advertising was laughably small compared with opposing candidates. Despite all this — or perhaps because of it — they won. It raises the obvious question: Is there something to this new style of running a presidential campaign? Do all those highly paid political consultants even matter? Trump’s campaign is quick to tell you about their genius behind it all. Consider an exchange between Trump’s people and opposing campaigns from the conference, when Corey Lewandowski, Trump’s first campaign manager, called ground game operations a “colossal waste of money”: “I had this conversation many times when I was with my colleagues at CNN, and they told me the number of offices that Hillary Clinton had in Florida — and how Donald Trump had a fraction of that — and they could tell what Mary Smith had for breakfast and what time she was going to eat breakfast and what time she was going to go voting and it was the greatest political operation in the history of the country, and I didn’t fundamentally believe it,” Lewandowski said. If you have a candidate who inspires, brick-and-mortar campaign offices simply meant “landlords were getting rich”: “I refuse to do that,” Lewandowski said. “I didn’t find it necessary to have a brick-and-mortar office in every county in Iowa, every county in New Hampshire, every county in South Carolina, or anywhere else to be successful, because we knew that people have this new thing called the cellphone and it works everywhere.” It was a big moment. A room full of people who had made their careers on strategizing and building ground operations in every county in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina were being told their efforts were futile and behind the times — that they were the Kmart to Trump’s Amazon. Not so fast, Martin O’Malley’s campaign manager David Hamrick — formerly a grassroots organizer for President Barack Obama’s campaign — said. The implications of Lewandowski’s comments were twofold: Yes, Trump was able to win running a get-out-the-vote operation only with cellphones or media appearances, but Trump was also Trump: HAMRICK: One of things we have to be really careful of is the broad, sweeping conclusions after any election that the next election will be exactly like that. First of all, I completely agree with the point that a message and a messenger always trumps tactics and organization. But something we learned from the Obama campaign was that every congressional candidate or everyone running as dog catcher in America wanted to run the Obama field program in the years following, but what they found was that they weren’t Barack Obama and they couldn’t mobilize. Television advertising, field advertising, money, events, whatever they are — they are still going to be important in close races. The question is, what’s the nature of the candidate and what are the tactics that will work on that race. Heads began nodding. The lesson learned? Every election isn’t going to be the Donald Trump Show. No change is needed. To be sure, Clinton’s campaign rejects the notion that it ran an out-of-date campaign. Whether voters were contacted via phone call, text message, direct mail, television ad, or online, it was all part of a tested marketing strategy, Robby Mook, Clinton’s campaign manager, said. And they did, after all, win the popular vote. But as election results obviously show, that wasn’t enough to win the election. So should they have done something differently? Maybe. Here’s Brad Parscale, Trump’s digital director, debating Teddy Goff, Clinton’s chief digital strategist, on the subject: PARSCALE: There were significant differences [between the campaigns]. One thing is we spent 50 percent of our money on digital and 50 percent on TV. That’s a groundbreaking thing for a presidential campaign — wouldn’t everyone agree? Previous that, most people spent 15, 20 percent. We spent $100 million on digital and $100 million on TV. That’s a pretty big change. … GOFF: …There would have been no justification as far as I can tell for spending half of your money on digital, and I am a digital person. PARSCALE: I think for us it was budgetary constraints. GOFF: But there can be no argument — and even Coca-Cola and Nike don’t make the argument — that 50 percent of the media mix should be digital. PARSCALE: I’m just saying it’s a story. GOFF: I’m satisfied with the amount of money we spent on digital. I think had we anticipated the Comey event in the final days and what that was going to do to our millennial attrition to third-party voters, we might have leveled up a tiny little bit. But I think we basically not only did the right things but ran the most innovative digital campaign ever. And I speak as the person that was President Obama’s digital director in 2012. In other words, Parscale’s operation, while successful and unconventional, hasn’t convinced the opposition. They’re saying it’s possible Clinton’s team had a better campaign operation — it looks like they did — and a candidate people still didn’t want to vote for. There is reason for this response: It was a close election, and in a year that it wasn’t necessarily supposed to be. It’s easy to lose sight of that, Rasmus Kleis Nielsen, the author of Ground Wars: Personalized Communication in Political Campaigns, a study of the resurgence of ground game in American politics, told me during the campaign (when things were not looking good for Trump). “I think there is no question that Donald Trump would be more competitive if they had a better ground game,” Nielsen said. “A lot of political science work that would try to estimate the likely outcome of this presidential election on the basis of fundamentals — economic fundamentals, and what we know from history on the relative advantage of incumbency versus being a challenger — would actually suggest that this very well could be a Republican year. Compared to that baseline, Mr. Trump is not doing as well.” As much as Trump’s campaign would like to say they had the best campaign operation ever, they are also quick to say they had a special candidate; a “master brander” with incredible intuition. Trump had a finger on the nation’s pulse in a way Clinton did not, his campaign said. They’re right. Trump knew how to sell his ideas. He knew how to get wall-to-wall media coverage. His tweets reached the New York Times and CNN in a way others’ did not. His rallies were like “rock concerts,” Lewandowski said. Trump had groupies. He was the celebrity messenger, who, as it turns out, really did not need the brick-and-mortar offices in Iowa and New Hampshire. Trump was a special case, and as the campaign managers for Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio maintained, their candidates simply could not be Donald Trump — nor could they beat him. But it doesn’t necessarily make traditional campaign tactics obsolete — or at least that’s what these strategists are telling themselves one month out. | 2,224 | inside_word | side | remove_one_sentence | <url>
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/8/13846378/trump-unconventional-campaign
</url>
<text>
There were many losers in the 2016 presidential election — and even more excuses. “The Comey letter!” Hillary Clinton’s team harped at Harvard University last week at a conference with key figures from the election, reflecting on the campaigns. The “WikiLeaks stolen emails” came as a close second on their why we lost list. Bernie Sanders’s rise complicated Martin O’Malley’s plans to be the “progressive alternative” to Hillary Clinton, O’Malley’s campaign manager Dave Hamrick said. “Trump’s rise took away from Christie’s natural strength as a communicator,” Gov. Chris Christie’s strategist Mike DuHaime noted. “Trump was the entire market,” Jeb Bush’s strategist David Kochel said of the media election coverage. The media suffocated the Republican field’s prospects with wall-to-wall Trump coverage. And John Kasich didn’t drop out soon enough, Ted Cruz’s campaign manager Jeff Roe hinted. There’s no question that Donald Trump led a winning campaign — a self-proclaimed political revolution — leaving a diverse and competent field of Republicans and Democrats in the dust. But, one month from the election, the lessons learned among said losers seem few and far between. To be sure, it is only one month from the election. The losers and their campaigns are still licking wounds, and time for self-reflection has been overshadowed by the shock of Trump’s upset presidential win. There’s despondency. "The theme of the whole primary: Nothing matters," Kochel said. And sure, Clinton’s campaign is justified, to an extent, in bringing up just how unprecedented it was that Russian intelligence and the FBI director interfered with the election. But Trump’s rise and path to victory are notable because of their unconventionality. The question remains: Was he just a political revolutionary, or did he fundamentally transform how politicians should campaigns for office? Are we not only post-truth but also post-campaigning? For two days, almost every campaign manager and strategist from the 2016 election, winners and losers, sat at a table at Harvard dissecting their every move — ground game tactics, message testing, advertising campaigns, digital strategies — talking around this question. The takeaway: Neither s<cursor_is_here> Trump claimed the presidency running an extraordinarily unconventional campaign. His ground game was virtually nonexistent in the primaries and trailed far behind Clinton’s in the general. He paid for his own campaign during the primaries, operated with a staff of fewer than a dozen for much of the election cycle, and entered the general election severely behind in fundraising. His managers and strategists didn’t focus-group messaging or test policy ideas; they vetted ideas through a two- to five-person chain. Their budget on traditional television advertising and mail advertising was laughably small compared with opposing candidates. Despite all this — or perhaps because of it — they won. It raises the obvious question: Is there something to this new style of running a presidential campaign? Do all those highly paid political consultants even matter? Trump’s campaign is quick to tell you about their genius behind it all. Consider an exchange between Trump’s people and opposing campaigns from the conference, when Corey Lewandowski, Trump’s first campaign manager, called ground game operations a “colossal waste of money”: “I had this conversation many times when I was with my colleagues at CNN, and they told me the number of offices that Hillary Clinton had in Florida — and how Donald Trump had a fraction of that — and they could tell what Mary Smith had for breakfast and what time she was going to eat breakfast and what time she was going to go voting and it was the greatest political operation in the history of the country, and I didn’t fundamentally believe it,” Lewandowski said. If you have a candidate who inspires, brick-and-mortar campaign offices simply meant “landlords were getting rich”: “I refuse to do that,” Lewandowski said. “I didn’t find it necessary to have a brick-and-mortar office in every county in Iowa, every county in New Hampshire, every county in South Carolina, or anywhere else to be successful, because we knew that people have this new thing called the cellphone and it works everywhere.” It was a big moment. A room full of people who had made their careers on strategizing and building ground operations in every county in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina were being told their efforts were futile and behind the times — that they were the Kmart to Trump’s Amazon. Not so fast, Martin O’Malley’s campaign manager David Hamrick — formerly a grassroots organizer for President Barack Obama’s campaign — said. The implications of Lewandowski’s comments were twofold: Yes, Trump was able to win running a get-out-the-vote operation only with cellphones or media appearances, but Trump was also Trump: HAMRICK: One of things we have to be really careful of is the broad, sweeping conclusions after any election that the next election will be exactly like that. First of all, I completely agree with the point that a message and a messenger always trumps tactics and organization. But something we learned from the Obama campaign was that every congressional candidate or everyone running as dog catcher in America wanted to run the Obama field program in the years following, but what they found was that they weren’t Barack Obama and they couldn’t mobilize. Television advertising, field advertising, money, events, whatever they are — they are still going to be important in close races. The question is, what’s the nature of the candidate and what are the tactics that will work on that race. Heads began nodding. The lesson learned? Every election isn’t going to be the Donald Trump Show. No change is needed. To be sure, Clinton’s campaign rejects the notion that it ran an out-of-date campaign. Whether voters were contacted via phone call, text message, direct mail, television ad, or online, it was all part of a tested marketing strategy, Robby Mook, Clinton’s campaign manager, said. And they did, after all, win the popular vote. But as election results obviously show, that wasn’t enough to win the election. So should they have done something differently? Maybe. Here’s Brad Parscale, Trump’s digital director, debating Teddy Goff, Clinton’s chief digital strategist, on the subject: PARSCALE: There were significant differences [between the campaigns]. One thing is we spent 50 percent of our money on digital and 50 percent on TV. That’s a groundbreaking thing for a presidential campaign — wouldn’t everyone agree? Previous that, most people spent 15, 20 percent. We spent $100 million on digital and $100 million on TV. That’s a pretty big change. … GOFF: …There would have been no justification as far as I can tell for spending half of your money on digital, and I am a digital person. PARSCALE: I think for us it was budgetary constraints. GOFF: But there can be no argument — and even Coca-Cola and Nike don’t make the argument — that 50 percent of the media mix should be digital. PARSCALE: I’m just saying it’s a story. GOFF: I’m satisfied with the amount of money we spent on digital. I think had we anticipated the Comey event in the final days and what that was going to do to our millennial attrition to third-party voters, we might have leveled up a tiny little bit. But I think we basically not only did the right things but ran the most innovative digital campaign ever. And I speak as the person that was President Obama’s digital director in 2012. In other words, Parscale’s operation, while successful and unconventional, hasn’t convinced the opposition. They’re saying it’s possible Clinton’s team had a better campaign operation — it looks like they did — and a candidate people still didn’t want to vote for. There is reason for this response: It was a close election, and in a year that it wasn’t necessarily supposed to be. It’s easy to lose sight of that, Rasmus Kleis Nielsen, the author of Ground Wars: Personalized Communication in Political Campaigns, a study of the resurgence of ground game in American politics, told me during the campaign (when things were not looking good for Trump). “I think there is no question that Donald Trump would be more competitive if they had a better ground game,” Nielsen said. “A lot of political science work that would try to estimate the likely outcome of this presidential election on the basis of fundamentals — economic fundamentals, and what we know from history on the relative advantage of incumbency versus being a challenger — would actually suggest that this very well could be a Republican year. Compared to that baseline, Mr. Trump is not doing as well.” As much as Trump’s campaign would like to say they had the best campaign operation ever, they are also quick to say they had a special candidate; a “master brander” with incredible intuition. Trump had a finger on the nation’s pulse in a way Clinton did not, his campaign said. They’re right. Trump knew how to sell his ideas. He knew how to get wall-to-wall media coverage. His tweets reached the New York Times and CNN in a way others’ did not. His rallies were like “rock concerts,” Lewandowski said. Trump had groupies. He was the celebrity messenger, who, as it turns out, really did not need the brick-and-mortar offices in Iowa and New Hampshire. Trump was a special case, and as the campaign managers for Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio maintained, their candidates simply could not be Donald Trump — nor could they beat him. But it doesn’t necessarily make traditional campaign tactics obsolete — or at least that’s what these strategists are telling themselves one month out.
</text>
| [
{
"content": "<url>\nhttps://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/8/13846378/trump-unconventional-campaign\n</url>\n<text>\nThere were many losers in the 2016 presidential election — and even more excuses. “The Comey letter!” Hillary Clinton’s team harped at Harvard University last week at a conference with ... |
25,594 | 25,594 | 2017-03-28 00:00:00 | 2,017 | 3 | 28 | null | Paris Hilton Still Raving After All These Years | Paris Hilton got her PLUR on like a 20-something at the Ultra Music Festival this weekend ... she's 36. Paris came charging in Friday with her new BF, Chris Zylka, for opening night of the Miami rave -- and she was clearly stoked ... age be damned. As Paris puts it: F*** YEAH! | https://www.tmz.com/2017/03/28/paris-hilton-raging-rave-bae-ultra-music-festival/ | null | TMZ | Paris Hilton got her PLUR on like a 20-something at the Ultra Music Festival this weekend ... she's 36. Paris came charging in Friday with her new BF, Chris Zylka, for opening night of the Miami rave -- and she was clearly stoked ... age be damned. As Paris puts it: F* | ** YEAH! | 269 | inside_word | F*** | remove_one_sentence | <url>
https://www.tmz.com/2017/03/28/paris-hilton-raging-rave-bae-ultra-music-festival/
</url>
<text>
Paris Hilton got her PLUR on like a 20-something at the Ultra Music Festival this weekend ... she's 36. Paris came charging in Friday with her new BF, Chris Zylka, for opening night of the Miami rave -- and she was clearly stoked ... age be damned. As Paris puts it: F*<cursor_is_here>
</text>
| [
{
"content": "<url>\nhttps://www.tmz.com/2017/03/28/paris-hilton-raging-rave-bae-ultra-music-festival/\n</url>\n<text>\nParis Hilton got her PLUR on like a 20-something at the Ultra Music Festival this weekend ... she's 36. Paris came charging in Friday with her new BF, Chris Zylka, for opening night of the Mia... | |
71,978 | 71,978 | 2017-03-26 20:32:00 | 2,017 | 3 | 26 | Britt Julious | Bonnaroo Goes EDM With a New Stage Dedicated to Dance Music | Bonnaroo hinted at an expanded EDM and electronic music presence earlier this year when they announced acts such as Flume, Major Lazer and The xx were scheduled to perform at the festival. Now, the Tennessee festival has shed more light on this year's festivities with the announcement of "The Other." Previously known as "The Other Tent," one of three "tent" stages at the festivals, "The Other" will be dedicated to dance, electronic and hip-hop. The festival is, "pulling down the tent and cranking up the bass in this newly expanded stage & area dedicated exclusively to the best of dance, electronic and hip-hop," a recent press release announced. "Dance your heart out all night at this fully loaded new stage, and experience mind-blowing visuals, earth-shattering bass, and the kind of late night sets that you'll remember for years to come." Featured acts at "The Other" lean EDM and include Marshmello, Claude VonStroke, and Skepta, among many others. Tickets for Bonnaroo are available here. In 2015, we wrote about how Bonnaroo was "dance-lite." | https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3dmp9v/bonnaroo-edm-2017 | Noisey | Vice | Bonnaroo hinted at an expanded EDM and electronic music presence earlier this year when they announced acts such as Flume, Major Lazer and The xx were scheduled to perform at the festival. Now, the Tennessee festival has shed more light on this year's festivities with the announcement of "The Other." Previously known as "Th | e Other Tent, | 325 | inside_word | "The | remove_all | <url>
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3dmp9v/bonnaroo-edm-2017
</url>
<text>
Bonnaroo hinted at an expanded EDM and electronic music presence earlier this year when they announced acts such as Flume, Major Lazer and The xx were scheduled to perform at the festival. Now, the Tennessee festival has shed more light on this year's festivities with the announcement of "The Other." Previously known as "Th<cursor_is_here>
</text>
| [
{
"content": "<url>\nhttps://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3dmp9v/bonnaroo-edm-2017\n</url>\n<text>\nBonnaroo hinted at an expanded EDM and electronic music presence earlier this year when they announced acts such as Flume, Major Lazer and The xx were scheduled to perform at the festival. Now, the Tennessee festiv... | |
58,159 | 58,159 | 2017-03-28 14:51:00 | 2,017 | 3 | 28 | Kevin Holmes | This A/V Installation Lets You Explore an Infinite Subatomic Realm | Cutting edge nanotechnology research forms the basis for a new audiovisual work by Dutch artist Tarik Barri. Barri's previous collaborations have seen him create visuals for Radiohead and Nicolas Jaar, and immersing viewers into cosmic abysses. His latest is a collaboration with the International Iberian Nanotechnology Laboratory (INL) in Braga, Portugal along with the city's art center gnration as part of their Scale Travels program. Barri has been artist-in-residence at the lab, and Matter of Perspectives while there. The installation imitates the apparent boundlessness of the nano-world using custom software developed by the artist. "During my residency at INL I became fascinated by how fundamentally different matter seems when you look at it on the nano-scale," Barri tells Creators. "Gravity, for instance, which determines much of how the macro-universe behaves, has almost no effect on the nano-scale, where nuclear and electromagnetic forces become much more dominant. Also the very nature of matter itself seems very different depending on which scale you look at it. What seems chaotic from afar, can contain an unexpected order within, that itself turns into chaos when one looks even more closely. As one zooms in further and further, it seems as if each reality contains within itself another vastly different one, nested one in the other like Russian dolls." The artist used this world-within-worlds approach for Matter of Perspectives, but created a virtual world that constantly zooms in on itself so you can explore new tiers. Like the nano world, each layer has its own governing principles, defining the shapes, colors, and actions, materializing naturally from the preceding one. In this way, the science of nano exploration at INL—that it delves ever deeper into the quantum world to understand its strange behaviors—is reflected in Barri's approach. Instead of the laws of quantum physics governing a quantum realm, however, Barri's "virtual matter" is governed by machine laws: algorithms. "This sometimes leads to results that look surprisingly much like what one would find under an electron microscope in the lab," notes Barri. With the visuals not unlike some of visuals found in the nano world, Barri explains he wanted the sound to reflect the laws and forces that apply to these. Which means by zooming and expanding time the audio lowers its pitch before eventually becoming inaudible, and a new force can be heard rising. "The result is an audiovisual experience where both time and space constantly expand, as we see structures grow, experience time slowing down, and types of matter appear and falls apart as we travel nearer and nearer towards the infinitely small," notes the artist. "As the institute explores laws of nature, in my world I created virtual laws which I explore artistically." You can hear Barri talk more about Matter of Perspectives in the video below. Matter of Perspectives is on now until June 17, 2017 at the INL Gallery, gnration, Braga, Portugal. The Scale Travels program is a collaborative program focusing on nanotechnology and art, promoted by the International Iberian Nanotechnology Laboratory (INL) and gnration. Find out more about Tarik Barri's work on his website. Related: Meet the Artist Animating the Kaleidoscopic Beauty of Quantum Physics In Moscow, Quantum Physics Meets the Visual Arts Crystal Nano Flowers And The Future Of Architectural Chemistry | https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/78374y/av-installation-lets-you-explore-an-infinite-subatomic-realm | science art | Vice | Cutting edge nanotechnology research forms the basis for a new audiovisual work by Dutch artist Tarik Barri. Barri's previous collaborations have seen him create visuals for Radiohead and Nicolas Jaar, and immersing viewers into cosmic abysses. His latest is a collaboration with the International Iberian Nanotechnology Laboratory (INL) in Braga, Portugal along with the city's art center gnration as part of their Scale Travels program. Barri has been artist-in-residence at the lab, and Matter of Perspectives while there. The installation imitates the apparent boundlessness of the nano-world using custom software developed by the artist. "During my residency at INL I became fascinated by how fundamentally different matter seems when you look at it on the nano-scale," Barri tells Creators. "Gravity, for instance, which determines much of how the macro-universe behaves, has almost no effect on the nano-scale, where nuclear and electromagnetic forces become much more dominant. Also the very nature of matter itself seems very different depending on which scale you look at it. What seems chaotic from afar, can contain an unexpected order within, that itself turns into chaos when one looks even more closely. As one zooms in further and further, it seems as if each reality contains within itself another vastly different one, nested one in the other like Russian dolls." The artist used this world-within-worlds approach for Matter of Perspectives, but created a virtual world that constantly zooms in on itself so you can explore new tiers. Like the nano world, each layer has its own governing principles, defining the shapes, colors, and actions, materializing naturally from the preceding one. In this way, the science of nano exploration at INL—that it delves ever deeper into the quantum world to understand its strange behaviors—is reflected in Barri's approach. Instead of the laws of quantum physics governing a quantum realm, however, Barri's "virtual matter" is governed by machine laws: algorithms. "This sometimes leads to results that look surprisingly much like what one would find under an electron microscope in the lab," notes Barri. With the visuals not unlike some of visuals found in the nano world, Barri explains he wanted the sound to reflect the laws and forces that apply to these. Which means by zooming and expanding time the audio lowers its pitch before eventually becoming inaudible, and a new force can be heard rising. "The result is an audiovisual experience where both time and space constantly expand, as we see structures grow, experience time slowing down, and types of matter appear and falls apart as we travel nearer and nearer towards the infinitely small," notes the artist. "As the institute explores laws of nature, in my world I created virtual laws which I explore artistically." You can hear Barri talk more about Matter of Perspectives in the video below. Matter of Perspectives is on now until June 17, 2017 at the INL Gallery, gnration, Braga, Portugal. The Scale Travels program is a collaborative program focusing on nanotechnology and art, promoted by the International Iberian Nanotechnology Laboratory (INL) and gnration. Find out more about Tarik Barri's work on his website. Related: Meet the Artist Animating the Kaleidoscopic Beauty of Quantum Physics In Moscow, Quantum Physics Meets the Visu | al Arts Crystal Nano Flowers And The Future Of Architectural Chemistry | 3,378 | inside_word | Visual | remove_one_sentence | <url>
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/78374y/av-installation-lets-you-explore-an-infinite-subatomic-realm
</url>
<text>
Cutting edge nanotechnology research forms the basis for a new audiovisual work by Dutch artist Tarik Barri. Barri's previous collaborations have seen him create visuals for Radiohead and Nicolas Jaar, and immersing viewers into cosmic abysses. His latest is a collaboration with the International Iberian Nanotechnology Laboratory (INL) in Braga, Portugal along with the city's art center gnration as part of their Scale Travels program. Barri has been artist-in-residence at the lab, and Matter of Perspectives while there. The installation imitates the apparent boundlessness of the nano-world using custom software developed by the artist. "During my residency at INL I became fascinated by how fundamentally different matter seems when you look at it on the nano-scale," Barri tells Creators. "Gravity, for instance, which determines much of how the macro-universe behaves, has almost no effect on the nano-scale, where nuclear and electromagnetic forces become much more dominant. Also the very nature of matter itself seems very different depending on which scale you look at it. What seems chaotic from afar, can contain an unexpected order within, that itself turns into chaos when one looks even more closely. As one zooms in further and further, it seems as if each reality contains within itself another vastly different one, nested one in the other like Russian dolls." The artist used this world-within-worlds approach for Matter of Perspectives, but created a virtual world that constantly zooms in on itself so you can explore new tiers. Like the nano world, each layer has its own governing principles, defining the shapes, colors, and actions, materializing naturally from the preceding one. In this way, the science of nano exploration at INL—that it delves ever deeper into the quantum world to understand its strange behaviors—is reflected in Barri's approach. Instead of the laws of quantum physics governing a quantum realm, however, Barri's "virtual matter" is governed by machine laws: algorithms. "This sometimes leads to results that look surprisingly much like what one would find under an electron microscope in the lab," notes Barri. With the visuals not unlike some of visuals found in the nano world, Barri explains he wanted the sound to reflect the laws and forces that apply to these. Which means by zooming and expanding time the audio lowers its pitch before eventually becoming inaudible, and a new force can be heard rising. "The result is an audiovisual experience where both time and space constantly expand, as we see structures grow, experience time slowing down, and types of matter appear and falls apart as we travel nearer and nearer towards the infinitely small," notes the artist. "As the institute explores laws of nature, in my world I created virtual laws which I explore artistically." You can hear Barri talk more about Matter of Perspectives in the video below. Matter of Perspectives is on now until June 17, 2017 at the INL Gallery, gnration, Braga, Portugal. The Scale Travels program is a collaborative program focusing on nanotechnology and art, promoted by the International Iberian Nanotechnology Laboratory (INL) and gnration. Find out more about Tarik Barri's work on his website. Related: Meet the Artist Animating the Kaleidoscopic Beauty of Quantum Physics In Moscow, Quantum Physics Meets the Visu<cursor_is_here>
</text>
| [
{
"content": "<url>\nhttps://www.vice.com/en_us/article/78374y/av-installation-lets-you-explore-an-infinite-subatomic-realm\n</url>\n<text>\nCutting edge nanotechnology research forms the basis for a new audiovisual work by Dutch artist Tarik Barri. Barri's previous collaborations have seen him create visuals f... | |
16,576 | 16,576 | 2019-06-10 11:00:00 | 2,019 | 6 | 10 | Marian Bull | Natural wine, explained | When Jenny Lefcourt moved to Paris in the 1990s to study French literature and cinema, she and her friends started drinking a particularly exciting type of wine. This wine tasted “totally different, and alive, and delicious,” she remembers. They found it in a couple of bars, and later stumbled into a tasting of it hosted at a neighborhood restaurant. “There wasn’t really a name for it yet,” but it was the stuff that we’ll now call natural wine, and she began importing it in 2000. Now natural wine has become a signifier of bourgeois taste in certain social circles and on certain menus across the United States. It has become a source of indie social capital, with wine labels that are as feverishly followed and obsessed over as album covers in the ’80s. But what makes a wine “natural” isn’t always clear to consumers who are more familiar with the under-$10 section at Trader Joe’s. And it’s become the subject of heated debate in the wine world, with natural wine purists arguing for its virtue and thrilling taste, and traditionalists criticizing the perceived flaws and even its idealism. But while natural wine is recently trendy, it is not new: People have been making fermented grape juice without additives for thousands of years. (The history of sulfites complicates this; some people believe that sulfites in one form or another were used to preserve wine as early as the eighth century BC.) “People think that natural wine is a fad or a new thing, but it’s the traditional way to make wine,” explains Krista Scruggs, a winemaker and farmer based in Vermont and Texas. “It’s conventional wine that’s actually new.” Here’s what natural wine is, how we moved away from — and back to — it, and where it’s heading next. Natural wine is more of a concept than a well-defined category with agreed-upon characteristics. In its purest form, it is wine made from unadulterated fermented grape juice and nothing else. Many people — winemakers, distributors, writers, sommeliers — take issue with the term “natural wine.” Some prefer the phrase “low-intervention” wine, or “naked” wine, or “raw” wine. Scruggs calls her product “just fucking fermented juice.” But “natural wine” is the term that is most widely used, and anyone at a natural-inclined wine store, wine bar, or restaurant will know what you mean when you use it. For the purpose of this article, I am working under the assumption that natural wine is not a fraud, nor are its supporters delusional, but rather that it’s a highly debated and endlessly complicated topic that never ceases to get all manner of people riled up. Also, the stuff is very often delicious. Understanding natural wine requires a basic understanding of the (generally complex) winemaking process. In the simplest terms, that process has two parts: growing and picking grapes, and then turning them into wine through fermentation. Natural wine, then, is made from grapes not sprayed with pesticides or herbicides. Natural winemakers handpick their grapes instead of relying on machines to harvest them. When it comes to turning those handpicked grapes into juice, natural winemakers rely on native yeast, the stuff that’s whizzing around in the air and will land on grapes if you put them in a vat for long enough, to set off natural fermentation. And unlike most conventional winemakers, they don’t use any additives (like fake oak flavor, sugar, acid, egg white, etc.) in the winemaking process. Occasionally, some natural winemakers will add some sulfites, a preservative and stabilizer that winemakers have been using longer than any other additive. Sulfites ensure that the wine you drink tastes roughly the same as it did when it went into the bottle. Natural winemakers either use no added sulfites or use it in small quantities, while conventional winemakers use up to 10 times as much. They also use it differently: Conventional winemakers add sulfites to grapes to kill off natural yeasts, and then add more throughout the rest of the winemaking process; natural winemakers will add a little bit just before bottling. The purest of the pure — naturally fermented grape juice with no sulfites — is often called “zero-zero,” referring to the lack of added anything. The presence of sulfites doesn’t necessarily disqualify a bottle from the natural wine category, though. Small amounts of sulfites — around 10 to 35 parts per million — are in natural wine circles generally considered an acceptable amount of preservative to add in the bottling stage. Conventional wine, on the other hand, often uses much higher amounts of the stuff, which some natural wine supporters think “deadens” the flavor of the finished product. In the US, the maximum amount is 350 parts per million. Given that natural wine is often described as “cloudy,” “funky,” and/or “barnyard-y,” many people assume that it’s always loudly, inherently weird. While natural wine is often unfiltered (that leads to cloudiness) and can veer sharply into funky territory, there’s also lots of natural wine that won’t feel like an acquired taste if you’re used to buying yours at Costco. “There’s a misconception that natural wine is one thing — that it’s ‘funky’ or ‘not clean,’” Scruggs says. “And that’s an injustice. Because natural wine can still honor your palate if you’ve been drinking wine from the grocery store, but the cool thing is that it’s chemical-free, and that’s awesome.” Consumers shouldn’t be afraid to tell sommeliers and wine store owners that they want a natural wine that tastes like two-buck Chuck, she says. As longtime natural wine advocate Pascaline Lepeltier told GQ, “Whatever you like as a more traditional wine drinker, you can find a [natural] alternative everywhere in the world.” And then there’s glou-glou, a popular type of natural wine made to be drunk without having to think about it too much. (The French term is onomatopoetic, their version of “glug-glug.”) While it doesn’t taste like two-buck Chuck, it does generally taste like delicious electrified juice: These are lighter red wines, often served chilled, and downed quickly. “Conventional” winemaking — shorthand for non-natural wine — is defined by technical intervention. In the vineyard, that intervention comes in the form of pesticides and herbicides. In the cellar, intervention generally comes in the form of lab-grown yeast (to control the fermentation process and regulate flavor), acid (to increase the wine’s acidity, which in turn can help the wine age better), and sulfites added at the time of bottling (to preserve flavor). Many winemakers also add sugar, which doesn’t make the wine sweet but instead, through turning into alcohol, creates the perception of “body.” (It’s common practice in Burgundy, Lefcourt notes.) On top of that, there are more than 60 approved additives that American winemakers can use to manipulate their wines without listing them on the label. “A lot of wine is a grape product, plus all these millions of additives to create a product that is reliably the same every year,” Lefcourt explains. “It’s like Coca-Cola.” Egg white and isinglass, which is made from fish bladders, are often used to clarify wine, which makes many bottles non-vegan but not labeled as such. Conventional wine, as we know it now, is less than a century old. Technological advances are the most influential factor in this change: Pesticides became widespread after World War II, when soldiers sprayed their sleeping bags with DDT to prevent the spread of diseases; commercial yeast entered the market in the mid ’60s. But wine criticism has also played a small role. Partially to thank is American wine critic Robert Parker, who established a 100-point wine rating system in the 1980s. Parker billed himself as the first wine critic not influenced by industry interests, an objective consumer advocate. As Parker gained notoriety, his scoring began to significantly affect wine sales, so winemakers began manipulating their product to fit his tastes, which often favored full-bodied, fruity wines. “When that started happening,” Lefcourt explains, “there was a homogenization of what people thought good wine was.” (Parker has denied the existence of the “Parkerization” phenomenon, and instead attributed these trends to a “successful industry.”) That homogenization of taste, Lefcourt says, led winemakers to rely more heavily on additives that would ensure a consistent result every year, regardless of climate or yield. This gets to the core of a large debate between natural wine fanatics and those who think they’ve gone off the rails: Is the “best” wine made with minimal intervention? Or is it made by seasoned, well-informed winemakers looking to achieve a particular result that reflects their land and traditions? This debate likely won’t slow down anytime soon. Most people agree that the modern natural wine movement began in rural France, where a handful of low-intervention winemakers who had been toiling (and tilling) in their own organic bubbles found out about each other and began growing a community. “These were natural winemakers who were isolated in their appellations [regions], maybe the only ones there working organically in the vines with little to no additives in the cellar,” Lefcourt remembers. One of the first organized, formal natural wine tastings was La Dive Bouteille in 1999, which started with 15 winemakers and around 100 attendees, Lefcourt says. Now, La Dive boasts hundreds of winemakers and thousands of attendees and has become a much-anticipated, hype-filled annual event for the natural wine world. In the 2000s, natural wine importers like Lefcourt and Louis/Dressner grew and gained traction in the United States. Natural wine — first from France, then from elsewhere — grew from a niche interest of those “in the know” to a burgeoning trend. In the early days, Lefcourt remembers, “there was a lot of talking to deaf ears, trying to communicate and build understanding.” Alice Feiring, one of media’s first drum beaters for the natural wine movement, wrote her first story revealing the mad scientist-like machinations of conventional wine for the Times in 2001; in 2005, she covered the natural wine bar trend in Paris. Fourteen years later, the trend is in full swing in America, and not just in New York and LA. As more stateside restaurants began to stock natural wines and media began to cover those restaurants — and readers began to associate natural wines with the sort of places where hot, trendy people worked and ate and drank — a different sort of trend grew. Now, a particular type of trendy, well-respected chef is all but expected to be buddies with a handful of natural winemakers. (Fabian von Hauske and Jeremiah Stone, the chefs at three of Manhattan’s most trend-setting restaurants, are set to open their own wine shop, with a focus on all things natural, this year.) In recent years, natural wine’s trendiness has expanded outside the reaches of new-era cool-kid Bon Appétit, whose splashy and informative 2017 natural wine package compared the genre to the Sex Pistols and N.W.A. GQ Style called it “the next frontier for hypebeast culture.” The comedian Eric Wareheim is making natural wine now, and it’s actually good. Kourtney Kardhasian’s new lifestyle blog, Poosh, published a story on natural wine, whose recommendations were praised by Bon Appétit, Eater, and Natural Whine, an inside-baseball natural wine Instagram account run by industry vet Adam Vourvolis that also sells in-joke T-shirts. Action Bronson hosted a Facebook video with natural wine GOAT Frank Cornelissen. (One commenter replied, “Four Loko is better.”) As the issue of climate change becomes more dire every day, natural winemaking gains more traction as a way to protect the earth. “Wineries are the biggest polluter in France,” Lefcourt explains. Scruggs notes that natural winemaking with a focus on native grape varietals — as opposed to growing varietals to respond to market trends — can make those vines more resistant to the effects of climate change. Natural wine begins with organically or biodynamically farmed grapes, which are grown without pesticides, herbicides, or other chemicals. (Biodynamic farming is a holistic, chemical-free practice that takes into account the ecosystem of the farm, as well as lunar cycles.) Organic and biodynamic certifications exist, but they are expensive; many small vineyards that adhere to these practices don’t shell out for the label. Complicating things further is the fact that many winemakers who do pay for organic certification will then use additives — high amounts of sulfur, yeast, acid, etc. — when making their wine. This brings us to one of the biggest obstacles standing between consumers and the experience of drinking natural, low-intervention, organically farmed wine: It can, at face value, be hard to identify. You’ll often hear that natural wine causes fewer hangovers. A lot of people (Goop included) think this is true, that the sulfites in conventional wine can exacerbate wine’s morning-after effects. A lot of people think it’s bullshit. “I think not drinking water [leads to] hangovers,” Scruggs says. “I don’t think it’s related to sulfur because it’s a naturally occurring byproduct already. Yes, there are producers pushing an extreme amount of it — but usually it’s bulk wine and it’s the [other] additives that don’t have to be listed.” So drink responsibly, and don’t be an idiot. Sign up for The Goods newsletter. Twice a week, we’ll send you the best Goods stories exploring what we buy, why we buy it, and why it matters. | https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/6/10/18650601/natural-wine-sulfites-organic | null | Vox | When Jenny Lefcourt moved to Paris in the 1990s to study French literature and cinema, she and her friends started drinking a particularly exciting type of wine. This wine tasted “totally different, and alive, and delicious,” she remembers. They found it in a couple of bars, and later stumbled into a tasting of it hosted at a neighborhood restaurant. “There wasn’t really a name for it yet,” but it was the stuff that we’ll now call natural wine, and she began importing it in 2000. Now natural wine has become a signifier of bourgeois taste in certain social circles and on certain menus across the United States. It has become a source of indie social capital, with wine labels that are as feverishly followed and obsessed over as al | bum covers in the ’80s. | But what makes a wine “natural” isn’t always clear to consumers who are more familiar with the under-$10 section at Trader Joe’s. And it’s become the subject of heated debate in the wine world, with natural wine purists arguing for its virtue and thrilling taste, and traditionalists criticizing the perceived flaws and even its idealism. But while natural wine is recently trendy, it is not new: People have been making fermented grape juice without additives for thousands of years. (The history of sulfites complicates this; some people believe that sulfites in one form or another were used to preserve wine as early as the eighth century BC.) “People think that natural wine is a fad or a new thing, but it’s the traditional way to make wine,” explains Krista Scruggs, a winemaker and farmer based in Vermont and Texas. “It’s conventional wine that’s actually new.” Here’s what natural wine is, how we moved away from — and back to — it, and where it’s heading next. Natural wine is more of a concept than a well-defined category with agreed-upon characteristics. In its purest form, it is wine made from unadulterated fermented grape juice and nothing else. Many people — winemakers, distributors, writers, sommeliers — take issue with the term “natural wine.” Some prefer the phrase “low-intervention” wine, or “naked” wine, or “raw” wine. Scruggs calls her product “just fucking fermented juice.” But “natural wine” is the term that is most widely used, and anyone at a natural-inclined wine store, wine bar, or restaurant will know what you mean when you use it. For the purpose of this article, I am working under the assumption that natural wine is not a fraud, nor are its supporters delusional, but rather that it’s a highly debated and endlessly complicated topic that never ceases to get all manner of people riled up. Also, the stuff is very often delicious. Understanding natural wine requires a basic understanding of the (generally complex) winemaking process. In the simplest terms, that process has two parts: growing and picking grapes, and then turning them into wine through fermentation. Natural wine, then, is made from grapes not sprayed with pesticides or herbicides. Natural winemakers handpick their grapes instead of relying on machines to harvest them. When it comes to turning those handpicked grapes into juice, natural winemakers rely on native yeast, the stuff that’s whizzing around in the air and will land on grapes if you put them in a vat for long enough, to set off natural fermentation. And unlike most conventional winemakers, they don’t use any additives (like fake oak flavor, sugar, acid, egg white, etc.) in the winemaking process. Occasionally, some natural winemakers will add some sulfites, a preservative and stabilizer that winemakers have been using longer than any other additive. Sulfites ensure that the wine you drink tastes roughly the same as it did when it went into the bottle. Natural winemakers either use no added sulfites or use it in small quantities, while conventional winemakers use up to 10 times as much. They also use it differently: Conventional winemakers add sulfites to grapes to kill off natural yeasts, and then add more throughout the rest of the winemaking process; natural winemakers will add a little bit just before bottling. The purest of the pure — naturally fermented grape juice with no sulfites — is often called “zero-zero,” referring to the lack of added anything. The presence of sulfites doesn’t necessarily disqualify a bottle from the natural wine category, though. Small amounts of sulfites — around 10 to 35 parts per million — are in natural wine circles generally considered an acceptable amount of preservative to add in the bottling stage. Conventional wine, on the other hand, often uses much higher amounts of the stuff, which some natural wine supporters think “deadens” the flavor of the finished product. In the US, the maximum amount is 350 parts per million. Given that natural wine is often described as “cloudy,” “funky,” and/or “barnyard-y,” many people assume that it’s always loudly, inherently weird. While natural wine is often unfiltered (that leads to cloudiness) and can veer sharply into funky territory, there’s also lots of natural wine that won’t feel like an acquired taste if you’re used to buying yours at Costco. “There’s a misconception that natural wine is one thing — that it’s ‘funky’ or ‘not clean,’” Scruggs says. “And that’s an injustice. Because natural wine can still honor your palate if you’ve been drinking wine from the grocery store, but the cool thing is that it’s chemical-free, and that’s awesome.” Consumers shouldn’t be afraid to tell sommeliers and wine store owners that they want a natural wine that tastes like two-buck Chuck, she says. As longtime natural wine advocate Pascaline Lepeltier told GQ, “Whatever you like as a more traditional wine drinker, you can find a [natural] alternative everywhere in the world.” And then there’s glou-glou, a popular type of natural wine made to be drunk without having to think about it too much. (The French term is onomatopoetic, their version of “glug-glug.”) While it doesn’t taste like two-buck Chuck, it does generally taste like delicious electrified juice: These are lighter red wines, often served chilled, and downed quickly. “Conventional” winemaking — shorthand for non-natural wine — is defined by technical intervention. In the vineyard, that intervention comes in the form of pesticides and herbicides. In the cellar, intervention generally comes in the form of lab-grown yeast (to control the fermentation process and regulate flavor), acid (to increase the wine’s acidity, which in turn can help the wine age better), and sulfites added at the time of bottling (to preserve flavor). Many winemakers also add sugar, which doesn’t make the wine sweet but instead, through turning into alcohol, creates the perception of “body.” (It’s common practice in Burgundy, Lefcourt notes.) On top of that, there are more than 60 approved additives that American winemakers can use to manipulate their wines without listing them on the label. “A lot of wine is a grape product, plus all these millions of additives to create a product that is reliably the same every year,” Lefcourt explains. “It’s like Coca-Cola.” Egg white and isinglass, which is made from fish bladders, are often used to clarify wine, which makes many bottles non-vegan but not labeled as such. Conventional wine, as we know it now, is less than a century old. Technological advances are the most influential factor in this change: Pesticides became widespread after World War II, when soldiers sprayed their sleeping bags with DDT to prevent the spread of diseases; commercial yeast entered the market in the mid ’60s. But wine criticism has also played a small role. Partially to thank is American wine critic Robert Parker, who established a 100-point wine rating system in the 1980s. Parker billed himself as the first wine critic not influenced by industry interests, an objective consumer advocate. As Parker gained notoriety, his scoring began to significantly affect wine sales, so winemakers began manipulating their product to fit his tastes, which often favored full-bodied, fruity wines. “When that started happening,” Lefcourt explains, “there was a homogenization of what people thought good wine was.” (Parker has denied the existence of the “Parkerization” phenomenon, and instead attributed these trends to a “successful industry.”) That homogenization of taste, Lefcourt says, led winemakers to rely more heavily on additives that would ensure a consistent result every year, regardless of climate or yield. This gets to the core of a large debate between natural wine fanatics and those who think they’ve gone off the rails: Is the “best” wine made with minimal intervention? Or is it made by seasoned, well-informed winemakers looking to achieve a particular result that reflects their land and traditions? This debate likely won’t slow down anytime soon. Most people agree that the modern natural wine movement began in rural France, where a handful of low-intervention winemakers who had been toiling (and tilling) in their own organic bubbles found out about each other and began growing a community. “These were natural winemakers who were isolated in their appellations [regions], maybe the only ones there working organically in the vines with little to no additives in the cellar,” Lefcourt remembers. One of the first organized, formal natural wine tastings was La Dive Bouteille in 1999, which started with 15 winemakers and around 100 attendees, Lefcourt says. Now, La Dive boasts hundreds of winemakers and thousands of attendees and has become a much-anticipated, hype-filled annual event for the natural wine world. In the 2000s, natural wine importers like Lefcourt and Louis/Dressner grew and gained traction in the United States. Natural wine — first from France, then from elsewhere — grew from a niche interest of those “in the know” to a burgeoning trend. In the early days, Lefcourt remembers, “there was a lot of talking to deaf ears, trying to communicate and build understanding.” Alice Feiring, one of media’s first drum beaters for the natural wine movement, wrote her first story revealing the mad scientist-like machinations of conventional wine for the Times in 2001; in 2005, she covered the natural wine bar trend in Paris. Fourteen years later, the trend is in full swing in America, and not just in New York and LA. As more stateside restaurants began to stock natural wines and media began to cover those restaurants — and readers began to associate natural wines with the sort of places where hot, trendy people worked and ate and drank — a different sort of trend grew. Now, a particular type of trendy, well-respected chef is all but expected to be buddies with a handful of natural winemakers. (Fabian von Hauske and Jeremiah Stone, the chefs at three of Manhattan’s most trend-setting restaurants, are set to open their own wine shop, with a focus on all things natural, this year.) In recent years, natural wine’s trendiness has expanded outside the reaches of new-era cool-kid Bon Appétit, whose splashy and informative 2017 natural wine package compared the genre to the Sex Pistols and N.W.A. GQ Style called it “the next frontier for hypebeast culture.” The comedian Eric Wareheim is making natural wine now, and it’s actually good. Kourtney Kardhasian’s new lifestyle blog, Poosh, published a story on natural wine, whose recommendations were praised by Bon Appétit, Eater, and Natural Whine, an inside-baseball natural wine Instagram account run by industry vet Adam Vourvolis that also sells in-joke T-shirts. Action Bronson hosted a Facebook video with natural wine GOAT Frank Cornelissen. (One commenter replied, “Four Loko is better.”) As the issue of climate change becomes more dire every day, natural winemaking gains more traction as a way to protect the earth. “Wineries are the biggest polluter in France,” Lefcourt explains. Scruggs notes that natural winemaking with a focus on native grape varietals — as opposed to growing varietals to respond to market trends — can make those vines more resistant to the effects of climate change. Natural wine begins with organically or biodynamically farmed grapes, which are grown without pesticides, herbicides, or other chemicals. (Biodynamic farming is a holistic, chemical-free practice that takes into account the ecosystem of the farm, as well as lunar cycles.) Organic and biodynamic certifications exist, but they are expensive; many small vineyards that adhere to these practices don’t shell out for the label. Complicating things further is the fact that many winemakers who do pay for organic certification will then use additives — high amounts of sulfur, yeast, acid, etc. — when making their wine. This brings us to one of the biggest obstacles standing between consumers and the experience of drinking natural, low-intervention, organically farmed wine: It can, at face value, be hard to identify. You’ll often hear that natural wine causes fewer hangovers. A lot of people (Goop included) think this is true, that the sulfites in conventional wine can exacerbate wine’s morning-after effects. A lot of people think it’s bullshit. “I think not drinking water [leads to] hangovers,” Scruggs says. “I don’t think it’s related to sulfur because it’s a naturally occurring byproduct already. Yes, there are producers pushing an extreme amount of it — but usually it’s bulk wine and it’s the [other] additives that don’t have to be listed.” So drink responsibly, and don’t be an idiot. Sign up for The Goods newsletter. Twice a week, we’ll send you the best Goods stories exploring what we buy, why we buy it, and why it matters. | 737 | inside_word | album | remove_one_sentence | <url>
https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/6/10/18650601/natural-wine-sulfites-organic
</url>
<text>
When Jenny Lefcourt moved to Paris in the 1990s to study French literature and cinema, she and her friends started drinking a particularly exciting type of wine. This wine tasted “totally different, and alive, and delicious,” she remembers. They found it in a couple of bars, and later stumbled into a tasting of it hosted at a neighborhood restaurant. “There wasn’t really a name for it yet,” but it was the stuff that we’ll now call natural wine, and she began importing it in 2000. Now natural wine has become a signifier of bourgeois taste in certain social circles and on certain menus across the United States. It has become a source of indie social capital, with wine labels that are as feverishly followed and obsessed over as al<cursor_is_here> But what makes a wine “natural” isn’t always clear to consumers who are more familiar with the under-$10 section at Trader Joe’s. And it’s become the subject of heated debate in the wine world, with natural wine purists arguing for its virtue and thrilling taste, and traditionalists criticizing the perceived flaws and even its idealism. But while natural wine is recently trendy, it is not new: People have been making fermented grape juice without additives for thousands of years. (The history of sulfites complicates this; some people believe that sulfites in one form or another were used to preserve wine as early as the eighth century BC.) “People think that natural wine is a fad or a new thing, but it’s the traditional way to make wine,” explains Krista Scruggs, a winemaker and farmer based in Vermont and Texas. “It’s conventional wine that’s actually new.” Here’s what natural wine is, how we moved away from — and back to — it, and where it’s heading next. Natural wine is more of a concept than a well-defined category with agreed-upon characteristics. In its purest form, it is wine made from unadulterated fermented grape juice and nothing else. Many people — winemakers, distributors, writers, sommeliers — take issue with the term “natural wine.” Some prefer the phrase “low-intervention” wine, or “naked” wine, or “raw” wine. Scruggs calls her product “just fucking fermented juice.” But “natural wine” is the term that is most widely used, and anyone at a natural-inclined wine store, wine bar, or restaurant will know what you mean when you use it. For the purpose of this article, I am working under the assumption that natural wine is not a fraud, nor are its supporters delusional, but rather that it’s a highly debated and endlessly complicated topic that never ceases to get all manner of people riled up. Also, the stuff is very often delicious. Understanding natural wine requires a basic understanding of the (generally complex) winemaking process. In the simplest terms, that process has two parts: growing and picking grapes, and then turning them into wine through fermentation. Natural wine, then, is made from grapes not sprayed with pesticides or herbicides. Natural winemakers handpick their grapes instead of relying on machines to harvest them. When it comes to turning those handpicked grapes into juice, natural winemakers rely on native yeast, the stuff that’s whizzing around in the air and will land on grapes if you put them in a vat for long enough, to set off natural fermentation. And unlike most conventional winemakers, they don’t use any additives (like fake oak flavor, sugar, acid, egg white, etc.) in the winemaking process. Occasionally, some natural winemakers will add some sulfites, a preservative and stabilizer that winemakers have been using longer than any other additive. Sulfites ensure that the wine you drink tastes roughly the same as it did when it went into the bottle. Natural winemakers either use no added sulfites or use it in small quantities, while conventional winemakers use up to 10 times as much. They also use it differently: Conventional winemakers add sulfites to grapes to kill off natural yeasts, and then add more throughout the rest of the winemaking process; natural winemakers will add a little bit just before bottling. The purest of the pure — naturally fermented grape juice with no sulfites — is often called “zero-zero,” referring to the lack of added anything. The presence of sulfites doesn’t necessarily disqualify a bottle from the natural wine category, though. Small amounts of sulfites — around 10 to 35 parts per million — are in natural wine circles generally considered an acceptable amount of preservative to add in the bottling stage. Conventional wine, on the other hand, often uses much higher amounts of the stuff, which some natural wine supporters think “deadens” the flavor of the finished product. In the US, the maximum amount is 350 parts per million. Given that natural wine is often described as “cloudy,” “funky,” and/or “barnyard-y,” many people assume that it’s always loudly, inherently weird. While natural wine is often unfiltered (that leads to cloudiness) and can veer sharply into funky territory, there’s also lots of natural wine that won’t feel like an acquired taste if you’re used to buying yours at Costco. “There’s a misconception that natural wine is one thing — that it’s ‘funky’ or ‘not clean,’” Scruggs says. “And that’s an injustice. Because natural wine can still honor your palate if you’ve been drinking wine from the grocery store, but the cool thing is that it’s chemical-free, and that’s awesome.” Consumers shouldn’t be afraid to tell sommeliers and wine store owners that they want a natural wine that tastes like two-buck Chuck, she says. As longtime natural wine advocate Pascaline Lepeltier told GQ, “Whatever you like as a more traditional wine drinker, you can find a [natural] alternative everywhere in the world.” And then there’s glou-glou, a popular type of natural wine made to be drunk without having to think about it too much. (The French term is onomatopoetic, their version of “glug-glug.”) While it doesn’t taste like two-buck Chuck, it does generally taste like delicious electrified juice: These are lighter red wines, often served chilled, and downed quickly. “Conventional” winemaking — shorthand for non-natural wine — is defined by technical intervention. In the vineyard, that intervention comes in the form of pesticides and herbicides. In the cellar, intervention generally comes in the form of lab-grown yeast (to control the fermentation process and regulate flavor), acid (to increase the wine’s acidity, which in turn can help the wine age better), and sulfites added at the time of bottling (to preserve flavor). Many winemakers also add sugar, which doesn’t make the wine sweet but instead, through turning into alcohol, creates the perception of “body.” (It’s common practice in Burgundy, Lefcourt notes.) On top of that, there are more than 60 approved additives that American winemakers can use to manipulate their wines without listing them on the label. “A lot of wine is a grape product, plus all these millions of additives to create a product that is reliably the same every year,” Lefcourt explains. “It’s like Coca-Cola.” Egg white and isinglass, which is made from fish bladders, are often used to clarify wine, which makes many bottles non-vegan but not labeled as such. Conventional wine, as we know it now, is less than a century old. Technological advances are the most influential factor in this change: Pesticides became widespread after World War II, when soldiers sprayed their sleeping bags with DDT to prevent the spread of diseases; commercial yeast entered the market in the mid ’60s. But wine criticism has also played a small role. Partially to thank is American wine critic Robert Parker, who established a 100-point wine rating system in the 1980s. Parker billed himself as the first wine critic not influenced by industry interests, an objective consumer advocate. As Parker gained notoriety, his scoring began to significantly affect wine sales, so winemakers began manipulating their product to fit his tastes, which often favored full-bodied, fruity wines. “When that started happening,” Lefcourt explains, “there was a homogenization of what people thought good wine was.” (Parker has denied the existence of the “Parkerization” phenomenon, and instead attributed these trends to a “successful industry.”) That homogenization of taste, Lefcourt says, led winemakers to rely more heavily on additives that would ensure a consistent result every year, regardless of climate or yield. This gets to the core of a large debate between natural wine fanatics and those who think they’ve gone off the rails: Is the “best” wine made with minimal intervention? Or is it made by seasoned, well-informed winemakers looking to achieve a particular result that reflects their land and traditions? This debate likely won’t slow down anytime soon. Most people agree that the modern natural wine movement began in rural France, where a handful of low-intervention winemakers who had been toiling (and tilling) in their own organic bubbles found out about each other and began growing a community. “These were natural winemakers who were isolated in their appellations [regions], maybe the only ones there working organically in the vines with little to no additives in the cellar,” Lefcourt remembers. One of the first organized, formal natural wine tastings was La Dive Bouteille in 1999, which started with 15 winemakers and around 100 attendees, Lefcourt says. Now, La Dive boasts hundreds of winemakers and thousands of attendees and has become a much-anticipated, hype-filled annual event for the natural wine world. In the 2000s, natural wine importers like Lefcourt and Louis/Dressner grew and gained traction in the United States. Natural wine — first from France, then from elsewhere — grew from a niche interest of those “in the know” to a burgeoning trend. In the early days, Lefcourt remembers, “there was a lot of talking to deaf ears, trying to communicate and build understanding.” Alice Feiring, one of media’s first drum beaters for the natural wine movement, wrote her first story revealing the mad scientist-like machinations of conventional wine for the Times in 2001; in 2005, she covered the natural wine bar trend in Paris. Fourteen years later, the trend is in full swing in America, and not just in New York and LA. As more stateside restaurants began to stock natural wines and media began to cover those restaurants — and readers began to associate natural wines with the sort of places where hot, trendy people worked and ate and drank — a different sort of trend grew. Now, a particular type of trendy, well-respected chef is all but expected to be buddies with a handful of natural winemakers. (Fabian von Hauske and Jeremiah Stone, the chefs at three of Manhattan’s most trend-setting restaurants, are set to open their own wine shop, with a focus on all things natural, this year.) In recent years, natural wine’s trendiness has expanded outside the reaches of new-era cool-kid Bon Appétit, whose splashy and informative 2017 natural wine package compared the genre to the Sex Pistols and N.W.A. GQ Style called it “the next frontier for hypebeast culture.” The comedian Eric Wareheim is making natural wine now, and it’s actually good. Kourtney Kardhasian’s new lifestyle blog, Poosh, published a story on natural wine, whose recommendations were praised by Bon Appétit, Eater, and Natural Whine, an inside-baseball natural wine Instagram account run by industry vet Adam Vourvolis that also sells in-joke T-shirts. Action Bronson hosted a Facebook video with natural wine GOAT Frank Cornelissen. (One commenter replied, “Four Loko is better.”) As the issue of climate change becomes more dire every day, natural winemaking gains more traction as a way to protect the earth. “Wineries are the biggest polluter in France,” Lefcourt explains. Scruggs notes that natural winemaking with a focus on native grape varietals — as opposed to growing varietals to respond to market trends — can make those vines more resistant to the effects of climate change. Natural wine begins with organically or biodynamically farmed grapes, which are grown without pesticides, herbicides, or other chemicals. (Biodynamic farming is a holistic, chemical-free practice that takes into account the ecosystem of the farm, as well as lunar cycles.) Organic and biodynamic certifications exist, but they are expensive; many small vineyards that adhere to these practices don’t shell out for the label. Complicating things further is the fact that many winemakers who do pay for organic certification will then use additives — high amounts of sulfur, yeast, acid, etc. — when making their wine. This brings us to one of the biggest obstacles standing between consumers and the experience of drinking natural, low-intervention, organically farmed wine: It can, at face value, be hard to identify. You’ll often hear that natural wine causes fewer hangovers. A lot of people (Goop included) think this is true, that the sulfites in conventional wine can exacerbate wine’s morning-after effects. A lot of people think it’s bullshit. “I think not drinking water [leads to] hangovers,” Scruggs says. “I don’t think it’s related to sulfur because it’s a naturally occurring byproduct already. Yes, there are producers pushing an extreme amount of it — but usually it’s bulk wine and it’s the [other] additives that don’t have to be listed.” So drink responsibly, and don’t be an idiot. Sign up for The Goods newsletter. Twice a week, we’ll send you the best Goods stories exploring what we buy, why we buy it, and why it matters.
</text>
| [
{
"content": "<url>\nhttps://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/6/10/18650601/natural-wine-sulfites-organic\n</url>\n<text>\nWhen Jenny Lefcourt moved to Paris in the 1990s to study French literature and cinema, she and her friends started drinking a particularly exciting type of wine. This wine tasted “totally differe... |
73,509 | 73,509 | 2018-01-23 01:00:02 | 2,018 | 1 | 23 | Ella Nilsen | Vox Sentences: The 3-day government shutdown has come to an end | The news, but shorter. Your daily wrap-up for the day in news. Subscribe to get Vox Sentences delivered straight to your inbox. Vox Sentences is your daily digest for what's happening in the world, curated by Ella Nilsen. Sign up for the Vox Sentences newsletter, delivered straight to your inbox Monday through Friday, or view the Vox Sentences archive for past editions. The Senate votes to end a three-day shutdown; Turkish troops go on the attack. “Negotiating with President Trump is like negotiating with Jell-O.” [Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on the Senate floor Saturday, 12 hours into the government shutdown / CNN] My commute is like a second job, and it might be killing me. [YouTube / Kimberly Mas] How the government shutdown debacle looked to the rest of the world Sorry to Bother You is a bananas satirical comedy about code-switching and exploitative capitalism Photos: the 2018 Women’s March weekend focused on power and politics Is HQ Trivia a modern reinvention of the game show or a glitch-filled scam? The immigration negotiations Congress just gave itself 3 weeks to do, explained | https://www.vox.com/vox-sentences/2018/1/22/16921388/vox-sentences-government-shutdown-ends | null | Vox | The news, but shorter. Your daily wrap-up for the day in news. Subscribe to get Vox Sentences delivered straight to your inbox. Vox Sentences is your daily digest for what's happening in the world, curated by Ella Nilsen. Sign up for the Vox Sentences newsletter, delivered straight to your inbox Monday through Friday, or view the Vox Sentences archive for past editions. The Senate votes to end a three-day shutdown; Turkish troops go on the attack. “Negotiating with President Trump is like negotiating with Jell-O.” [Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on the Senate floor Saturday, 12 hours into the government shutdown / CNN] My commute is like a second job, and it might be killing me. [YouTube / Kimberly Mas] Ho | w the government shutdown debacle looked to the rest of the world Sorry to Bother You is a bananas satirical comedy about code- | switching and exploitative capitalism Photos: the 2018 Women’s March weekend focused on power and politics Is HQ Trivia a modern reinvention of the game show or a glitch-filled scam? The immigration negotiations Congress just gave itself 3 weeks to do, explained | 714 | inside_word | How | remove_one_sentence | <url>
https://www.vox.com/vox-sentences/2018/1/22/16921388/vox-sentences-government-shutdown-ends
</url>
<text>
The news, but shorter. Your daily wrap-up for the day in news. Subscribe to get Vox Sentences delivered straight to your inbox. Vox Sentences is your daily digest for what's happening in the world, curated by Ella Nilsen. Sign up for the Vox Sentences newsletter, delivered straight to your inbox Monday through Friday, or view the Vox Sentences archive for past editions. The Senate votes to end a three-day shutdown; Turkish troops go on the attack. “Negotiating with President Trump is like negotiating with Jell-O.” [Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on the Senate floor Saturday, 12 hours into the government shutdown / CNN] My commute is like a second job, and it might be killing me. [YouTube / Kimberly Mas] Ho<cursor_is_here>switching and exploitative capitalism Photos: the 2018 Women’s March weekend focused on power and politics Is HQ Trivia a modern reinvention of the game show or a glitch-filled scam? The immigration negotiations Congress just gave itself 3 weeks to do, explained
</text>
| [
{
"content": "<url>\nhttps://www.vox.com/vox-sentences/2018/1/22/16921388/vox-sentences-government-shutdown-ends\n</url>\n<text>\nThe news, but shorter. Your daily wrap-up for the day in news. Subscribe to get Vox Sentences delivered straight to your inbox. Vox Sentences is your daily digest for what's happenin... |
End of preview. Expand
in Data Studio
README.md exists but content is empty.
- Downloads last month
- 7