It's time to start reporting this story in earnest.

Some questions off the top of my head.

Presumably the Repubs will also win the Senate. Right away they will ratify a new Scalia, restoring the previous ratio on the Court.

ObamaCare will be repealed by Congress and the President will sign the bill. How many people will lose their insurance? What happens to people who are dependent on health care? WIll we revert to a system with pre-existing conditions? If so, will they revert to when you let the previous insurance lapse? Will people who switched to ObamaCare be able to restore the policies they let lapse?

Did he make a deal with Priebus, will Trump actually govern or will he be a figurehead. There were rumors that he offered president-in-fact to Kasich. Did he offer the same deal to Pence?

Or will there be a purge? Will Ryan and McConnell be forced out? It seems the majorities in Congress will be managed by people loyal to the president.

What will happen to the stock market? When will it start reflecting the likelihood of a Trump presidency? Seems likely (to me) it'll crash. Should we be looking for signs of that now?

Foreign alliances. What will change immediately, and what will change over time. What will Russia do in the confusion after the election? 

How should/will Obama prepare for the transition? What steps might he take before Trump takes office?

Nate Silver said it's time for the Democrats to panic if the poll numbers stay the same. When will everyone else panic.

The banking industry. Trump has promised to repeal Dodd-Frank. Is it actually working, doing any good? If so, what will change immediately? Will we return to subprime loans? Or have we already resumed that?

What will the 11 million people who he has threatened to deport do?

I'm sure other questions will occur. The press hasn't asked these questions presumably because they thought Trump would not win. If they're going to do their jobs it seems they have to start shifting now. We have to have some info/ideas about this. News is getting real.

A win-win. Create a TV reality/drama/sitcom where Trump is president. There's an Oval Office. He can pick people for the cabinet and the military. He would be smarter than the generals. He could defeat ISIS. The "blacks" would love him. Build the wall. Mexico would, of course, pay for it. 

Rudy Giuliani could be Chief of Staff. Jeff Sessions, Attorney General or Secretary of Defense. Peter Thiel would run the Federal Reserve or be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court -- or both -- at the same time! 

Allison Janney as the press secretary.

Joe Arpaio as the head of the FBI.

I think this would give him 100 percent of what he, and his supporters, want. Not kidding. He could be on TV 24-by-7. They could do it from Trump Tower, so he wouldn't even have to go out.

As they say, hilarity will ensue.

Another problem for the 2016 press.

The theory that the Repub candidate could actually be president, is a lie.

When reporters act as if that were a real possibility they are being dishonest.

To get right they would have to disclaim that this is not an actual campaign for a real election, but rather a farcical dramatization of a campaign for a fictitious election.

Update: The new West Wing starring Donald J. Trump!

The agony of the press.

They get mad when he takes advantage of them. 

Not with the idea that he wants to be president.

Of their country.

Another podcast, this time about Donald "The Birther" Trump, and what he has to do to get out of this jam. What goes around comes around. He has to admit he was wrong. Or be dogged by this all the way to the election. 

Here, finally, is an issue the press can prosecute and hallelujah is prosecuting. It's time for the would-be birther-in-chief to come clean. 

BTW, I've listened to it twice, and I think it's the best podcast I've ever done. Turns out there's a lot to say at this moment, not just for Trump, but for Americans who are proud to have elected Obama, twice, of which I am very much one. 

I'm listening to a podcast interview with Molly Ball of the Atlantic at Harvard's Kennedy School. It's the first time I've heard her in a long form interview, with no other panelists to cut her off. She's very fluent, but I gotta say the glaring contradiction that the more competitive interviews reveal comes through more clearly, and I couldn't just pass on the link without commenting.

First she talks about the Trump supporter, a person who feels left out and what they like about Trump he makes them feel dealt-in. This is reasonable, and I think likely true.

Then she talks about her friends who are Republicans and the sympathy she feels for them as their world is falling apart.

But...

What about Molly Ball?

What about her world?

What does she fear?

This is the old View from Nowhere thing.

Come November we may all know what it feels like to be one of her Republican friends. The system we believe in will be falling apart. The things we took for granted may be either falling away by popular demand, or at least in question. Ideas like whether or not Molly Ball can write her columns for the Atlantic and be freely critical of the government and the president-elect.

This is imho the bug in our system. The true royalty are the entitled journalists who feel above the concerns of a normal person. They wield a lot of power. Unfortunately for all of us that power isn't grounded in the world we all live in, including the journalist. I can't remember when that idea has been more obvious than it is right now.

PS: After writing this piece about Molly Ball at Shorenstein, I realized Harvard should have the equiv of Shorenstein, for blogging.

A friend asked me on Twitter yesterday how I figure out which podcasts are worth listening to. It's a fair question, because they always put the ads up front, and then they meander and chit chat and tell inside jokes, etc while you're waiting to find out if this ever gets interesting, and finally after ten minutes with no end in sight you give up and move on to the next one.

There are podcasts that should be good that I've never gotten to the good parts of. Shows dedicated to TV series that I love, featuring the writers and actors, and there are so many things I'd like to know about them, but... I never get to that part, if it exists.

So now I'm doing my fourth podcast in three days and this one is 22 minutes, and I have to admit I ramble a lot before I get to the point. And this one is pretty technical, though the punchline is more of a business development one. But there are probably only a few people who would get something out of it at first. 

Anyway, it's been a long time since I switched off Heroku, and the dust has settled, and I've got most of my stuff ported to plain old Linux now, and am spending time thinking about where I want to go next, and I swung back around to Heroku, and what a good idea I thought it was, whether or not it was ever meant to be what I thought it was meant to be. 

Anyway, if you think about models for entrepreneurship in software, and would like to hear what I think is missing where the independent developer world intersects with the angel investor world, or if you're in bizdev at Saleforce or some other entrepreneurial-minded big company (a rare thing) or if you ever thought as I did that Heroku was a super kickass idea, it might be worth 22 minutes.

I deliberately wrote this description in a long-winded manner to give you an idea of how long-winded the podcast itself is. 

Sorry, in advance. ;-)

PS: BTW, I started work on the new OPML Validator. It's what got me thinking in this direction in the first place. In the podcast I say it dates back to 2001, which was wrong. The initial post, linked above, was in 2005. 

I complain a lot about how journalism is missing the point of the election, but when the VICE press release ran, how they are using the FOIA to find out if Trump is actually being audited, and how seriously the FBI took Trump's talk about 2nd Amendment people. This shook me up, in a good way! Breath-taking. Exciting!!

I love that they're using the tools that journalism fought so hard for to help get at the truth. Trump is hiding behind the IRS. Maybe the IRS can be forced to shed some light.

Then I realized there are other pubs that are also doing exemplary work. I listed a few in a tweet, and also added my must-read political columnists. It's a start. There's still time to do justice to the Trump-as-candidate story. No matter what happens on November 9 that role changes, either to President-elect Trump or TV reality star Trump. 

There's a lot of meat still on this carcass. What journalist who loves news wouldn't be digging into this story with passion and zest?!? They should be like kids on Christmas morning. ;-)

My list

These are my go-to, must-read political writers for this election, so far.

Kurt Eichenwald at Newsweek.

David Fahrenthold at the Washington Post.

Jim Fallows at the Atlantic.

Matt Yglesias at Vox.

Josh Marshall at TPM.

Rachel Maddow and Joy Reid at MSNBC.

VICE for having the guts to use the FOIA to probe the IRS and the FBI re Trump.

FiveThirtyEight, all of it, of course.

A 9-minute podcast that explains how to write good user docs. 

Another podcast, this the result of a Twitter discussion of presidential politics with Harry Shearer, famous actor and voice of many great characters on The Simpsons.

Shearer doesn't want either Trump or Clinton. That's fine, but he's probably going to get one or the other whether or not he wants them.

And until the election, assuming Hillary wins, I'm withholding criticism as much as I possibly can, because the alternative, Trump, is national suicide, imho. And not good things for the rest of the world. There won't be any place to emigrate to if the presidency is infected with Trump disease. Again imho. Undermining Clinton is like juggling nitro in a TNT warehouse.

BTW, as I recorded this the odds of Trump being elected, according to FiveThirtyEight, is 34.4 percent.

Here's an easy foolproof way to see if what you're doing is false equivalence. 

Download this podcast and listen. 

It's less than 3 minutes. Not a joke.

A new feature in LO2.

Here's a short video demo.

Two of the panels on my home page, Cards and Pictures were no longer updating very frequently, so I decided in the interest of simplification, to remove them.    

I just commented out the code, so if I ever get inspired to be creative again in these areas I can just as easily turn them back on as I turned them off, that is very easily.

I also updated the About tab. Brought it up to date, modernized the formatting.

Still diggin!

When people say they know you, but you haven't spent any time together in years, and in between big things happened in your life, do you think they're trying to keep you from changing?

Asking for a friend.

I saw Hell or High Water over the weekend.

Great movie, highly recommended. 

It takes place in West Texas and depicts life after the collapse in 2008. 

The question is this -- have they recovered? 

What the movie shows is really bad. Not at all what it's like in NYC or Calif.

Updates

Erik S says: "TX in general was buoyed by strength in the oil after the 2008 collapse. West TX had a multi-year boom. Then oil prices tanked."

I did a video about this post. Recursion! :-)

A question for reporters who believe false equivalence is a problem with the observer.  Suppose you had two candidates for office, Adolf Hitler and Mother Teresa. Hitler has massive rallies with people goose stepping and yelling Nazi slogans. They beat up Jews and homosexuals in dark alleys. A few nights ago they broke all the windows in Jewish businesses. 

On the other hand Mother Teresa has set up soup kitchens to feed the poor, free health clinics, and daycare so single moms can go to work. They hand out flowers at their rallies and preach Make Love Not War.

So when you report on the campaign do you say that Hitler's supporters are awful people, but there have been reports of people saying nasty stuff at Mother Teresa's rallies too, so you figure it out.

The point, in case it isn't obvious, is that elections are never balanced, there's always a difference between the candidates. Never has it been more clear than in the 2016 presidential race. Of course Hillary is not a saint, and we don't know yet what's really on DJ Trump's mind. But we do know that one looks like a pretty normal candidate for president and the other scares the shit out of almost anyone with a sense of history, or who isn't white and Christian (and probably a few of those people too).

Also, this is not a logical fallacy.  If you have a rule that says that all candidates are the same you can prove it false by showing an example where they clearly are not. 

1. They comment on other people's posts.
2. They like other people's posts.
3. They share them.
4. They don't always talk about themselves.
5. They have kind words for other people.
6. They help other people without expecting anything in return.
7. Even so, they reciprocate when people help them out.
8. They add positive energy to the net.
9. They always try to see things from other people's point of view.
10. They genuinely listen.
11. They stand up for people who are being hunted.
12. They read posts before responding to them.

I would vote for Hillary Clinton for president if she was in a permanent coma that she could never wake up from. #ImWithHer

I saw the video.

It doesn't look good.

I can imagine the phone conversations on all sides.

I can't say there's ever been a video like that of a presidential candidate or president. 

Haven't seen much discussion of it on Twitter.

I can imagine people don't know what to say.

Or they don't want to say what they think.

For once I feel the need to say something but I don't know what.

We don't know what happened.

Update: Yes GHW Bush had an episode. The video wasn't as good or as real-time and this was before widespread use of the Internet. And he didn't get re-elected. Not saying this was the cause but it certainly didn't help. On the other hand, his opponent was a young vigorous man, and HRC's opponent is not. 

Note: What she calls false balance I call false equivalence. 

Liz Spayd, the new public editor at the New York Times said that false equivalence is a way for partisan Hillary Clinton supporters to attack her news organization. She says it's bad thinking. She didn't say much more than that, imho. 

And I strongly disagree. Here's why.

First, false equivalence is the smaller of two issues. The larger issue is that the many scandals of the Trump candidacy are going unreported. The concern is that he will be elected and the scandals will only be investigated after it's too late, after we're committed to four years Trump as president. For example...

He has a special relationship with Russia. What is it based on? And what might this mean for a Trump presidency.  How might it affect our relationships with our allies? We've never, as far as I know, had a president with such a large potential conflict of interest. Or have we? Again something I would expect the NYT to cover in great detail. 

The tax returns. What other conflicts would they uncover? Is there any chance the tax returns will leak?

The voters he attracts. Hillary calls them the basket of deplorables. Who are they? What are we learning about our own country?

The threats to free speech. He's litigious as a private citizen. How will he use the power of the presidency to further limit free speech?

His love of authoritarianism. When he praises Putin he reveals a streak of what some would call fascism. Is it real? How will this affect Americans' lives? 

Conflicts with other Republicans in government. What might Speaker Ryan do, assuming Republicans retain a majority in the House. Senate Majority Leader McConnell? Will there be a purge in the Republican Party? What do your sources say?

His connection with the KKK and other white supremacist groups. He's never denied that they exist, and he has been challenged on this topic. It's fair game.

Trump is like a minor league pitcher in the majors who has a real chance of winning the Cy Young award because the batters he faces refuse to swing at his slow fat pitches. Why? Almost any pitch he throws could be a home run. Why do you take the strikes? What are we supposed to think about the NYT? 

All of this is totally independent of Hillary Clinton's candidacy, which is why false equivalence is a distraction from the core issue: Trump's many problems as a potential President. Spayd is putting the cart before the horse, confusing the cause with the effect. For me, it's not at all partisan. I am voting for Clinton because of the problems with Trump's candidacy as well as my belief that she would make a good President. If it were the other way around, I would vote Republican, as I have many times. 

So the assumption that this is partisan is beneath the NYT. It's insulting, shows disrespect for their readers, and is logically incorrect. And it skirts the issue. Why is the NYT not doing a much more thorough job of vetting Donald Trump as a candidate for President?

The NYT is wrong.

If one candidate gives you a dozen scandals a month to investigate you roll up your sleeves, do the work.

No excuses.

PS: See the follow-up piece. 

A 3-minute podcast about bringing civility to political talk shows.

Basically, steal a big idea from The Gong Show.

Very quick post...

The DNC or the Clinton campaign should have a 1-day conf for tech and political press to cover the tech issues of the email story.

Educate the press so they understand what happened, so they can report accurately, not just how things sound to the uninformed.

Seed reporters with enough background so they can report accurately.

BTW, this is a way techies can help, w/o bringing in millions of dollars.

This idea was inspired by Kurt Eichenwald on Joy Reid's show this morning. He took the time to understand what features of email Clinton was using.

Also, this is something one of the fine journalism universities in NYC could help with, Columbia, NYU, CUNY.

I wrote a new script that sends an email every night, at midnight, that contains all my linkblog links from the previous day.  

These are the same items that appear in the Links tab on Scripting News.

To subscribe, join the Dave's Linkblog group on Google Groups.

Hope you like! 

PS: There's an RSS feed with the links.

Hillary should listen to Annabeth from the West Wing

A bit of dialog from S07E01.

Annabeth: Press is here for the Q&A. Now remember, you control the conversation. You don't like what they ask, don't accept the premise of the question.

Leo: That's my line, you know. You're quoting me.

Annabeth: I thought it was Toby.

Leo: Where do you think he got it? I've been rejecting the premises of questions since the Hoover Administration.

Of course a few minutes later Leo accepts the premise of a question and a gaffe follows that they have to live with for a news cycle.

Hillary did this a few times last night. And even worse, not only did she accept the premise of the question, she expanded the premise. Made the question worse than it was.

She needs to go to the West Wing debate prep camp.

Now, DJ Trump takes this to ridiculous extremes. By the second or third word out of his mouth he's skated off in a different direction. The interviewer is left bewildered, so they ask the question again, and he skates right back to where he went before.

I've said this many times, the press has to prepare for these debates as much as Hillary does. DJ breaks all the rules. You have know what to do when he does. I suggest cutting off his microphone when he veers off the topic. I doubt if anything less than that will prevent another debacle like last night.

First let me say that I am a lover of Bluetooth headphones.

As soon as I could get one, I did. I've suffered through early generation products that would disconnect at random times. You may have seen me stopped on the street in NYC trying frantically to get my headphones to re-pair with my iPhone so I could continue listening to a podcast. Some of them are so stubborn, nothing could convince them connect when they don't want to.

I'm happy to say I have found a reasonably priced Bluetooth headphone that aggressively stays connected to the phone. I just got my second one, the first one was drowned in a rainstorm last week and the Bluetooth connectivity died with it. I got plenty of hours of happy use of the first one.

That said, in another context I must have the wired connection, when I connect the iPhone to the Beats Pill that's mounted on the handlebars of my bike. For whatever reason, the Bluetooth connection is very unreliable in that mode. So I found a male-to-male mini-jack, and use that to hook the two together. Without the headphone jack, no music for Dave while biking. I totally love having the music, for that moment when I reach the top of the first hill in Central Park, and have a long stretch of relatively level riding, that's just perfect for Terrapin Station, which has become my cycling anthem. (Yes NakedJen, Jerry is still dead.)

That said, I'm happy to pay a few hundred for the new camera, so there's my dilemma. I love to take pictures with my iPhone and I want the best. But I really like having the headphone jack. I don't feel very conflicted yet, but I probably will once people are posting the new pics you can take with the iPhone 7 that can't be taken with the iPhone 6.

This morning I have a new RSS feed. 

http://scripting.com/misc/nightlyLinks.xml

If all goes well, it will be updated once every day at 12PM Eastern (midnight) with a single item, the stories from my linkblog from the previous day. 

It makes sense to subscribe to this feed in a mailbox style reader like Feedly. 

Think of it as a few (5-20) items that I think an informed person would want to read. Stories I read during the day and passed on to my followers on Twitter and Facebook. They also appear in the Links tab on Scripting News, and in a feed where each link is its own item.

I plan to hook this up to Medium, as an experiment. Look for a new post there just after midnight if all goes well, Murphy-willing, I am not a lawyer. 

Quick programming note.

I've changed the IFTTT recipe connecting this blog with Medium so that it posts a link to every new story posted here on the blog.

This might be a happy medium (eh sorry) while we await a more dynamic connection. 

Still diggin!

Two stories about point of view and how it leads people to different conclusions about race.

• Sara Nović writes about her aunt and uncle who are good people, not bigots, not stupid, and are supporting Trump. Beautifully told. This is exactly what I was looking for when I asked for stories of Trump supporters. 
• Matt Ufford, in a video, shows how people are not listening to Colin Kaepernick, the 49ers quarterback who doesn't stand for the Star Spangled Banner.

Taken together, both these must-read/watch pieces teach us that we all have different points of view that lead us to different incompatible conclusions. What's right for you and me might not be right for someone else. We'd do well to listen, which is what respect means. Listen to what they say, to who they are, first. Then if necessary explain who you are and why you see it differently. 

Can we find a win-win?

Can we find a candidate that works better for all of us, not just white people. Can we understand that racism is a real issue for people who are victims of it. Why not work with them to reduce or eliminate it? Who is it serving? And if you won't listen, who are you helping, and is that what you really want to do?

I was just reminded why I went with Harvard as the place where the RSS 2.0 spec resides permanently. And why the further work on podcasting, resulting a great new medium in the last few years, happened there as well. Harvard deserves a lot of credit for enabling that.

So why did I push so hard to do the work at Harvard, instead of MIT which would seem a more straightforward choice? The two universities, at opposite ends of Mass Ave in Cambridge have great reps, but at opposite ends of the spectrum between engineering and the humanities.

I've always believed that it was the human side of technology that had the greatest potential. When I was coming up in the 70s and 80s this was a contrarian view. So in 2003 when RSS needed a home to cement it as a standard, I chose the Cambridge university with the stronger rep as a place to be human as opposed to being a nerd. Not that the two are in any way exclusive. My point was, that through the technology we were working on, they would become the same thing.

I guess the disadvantage of going the contrarian route is that it isn't so intuitive to the people at Harvard today that the university should have played such a great role at the leading edge of technology thirteen years ago. 

No small thanks to the people at Berkman Center for their love and support at the time. ;-)

And in retrospect -- it worked. Took a long time to shake out. But all is quiet in RSS-land and it still rages as a standard for interop that continues to bear fruit.

Donald Trump said in an interview with ABC News that people don't care about his tax returns. 

So I created a Twitter poll asking the question.

https://twitter.com/davewiner/status/773171990245019649

You can vote yourself, and even better RT it so everyone gets a chance to say what they think.

Here's why it's important and it's just a start of the financial disclosures we need from Trump. We need to know who he does business with, and who he owes money to. He's the first billionaire to run for President. Or so he says. Let's see if he's telling the truth. There's so much at stake, and I think he's wrong, people very much do care about who he's in debt to and who he's in business with. What are his conflicts of interest? 

Also this should not be a referendum on who does or does not support Trump. Even if you plan to vote for him, you need as much information as you can get about who you're voting for.

I just finished bingeing season 2 of Narcos.

I really liked it. The whole thing, beginning to end. 

Now that I'm finished I find the background chatter in my brain is Spanish, with lots of curse words mixed in. It was like watching Deadwood, which made me talk like the barkeep Swearengen. Cocksucker this guy, cocksucker that one. Or The Wire which taught my inner-voice to speak like a black man in Baltimore. Now I speak to myself in Spanish, not having much of an idea what I'm talking about, but I do know what puta means and puta madre. It seems in Spanish they use that word a lot especially Pablo Escobar. I know how to pronounce Pablo btw, the b is almost but not quite silent. And I know how to tell someone to relax in Spanish. 

Maybe that's what made Narcos so interesting. It's mostly in Spanish with English subtitles. So I was able to learn and practice a new language while watching it. I like doing that.

There's a great line near the end of the last episode which will be iconic among Narcos fans, because it's such a surprise and so well done. I'm not going to spoil it here, for that you'll have to click a link. 

Anyway if you like The Sopranos, or Deadwood, The Wire or any other violent HBO-type series, Narcos is for you. 

As I watch the coverage of the 2016 election continue, I am more desperate to change the way journalism covers politics. 

An example. Yesterday on CNN, I finally heard a discussion of why they think HRC has a problem with honesty. They had tape of Clinton, which I listened to carefully. The reporters discussed it, I listened to that too. 

Net-net: I think she's telling the truth about how it worked, and the reporters were quite clear, that's not the story the American public wants to hear. 

Context: She was the top person in a 70,000 person organization, cc'd on lots of email, none of it secure, not just her server. It was not the only weak link. 

Think about how much email crosses your inbox and how much of you read carefully, and then imagine being at the top of such a large organization. It means most of what happens there is delegated. 

Did someone screw up? You have to look at the whole thing, and use your judgment and experience with how human organizations work. Even in the worst case, this doesn't merit much of our attention, imho. But only if you think of the voters as real people not an abstract concept. 

This frustration lead to a simple statement of what journalism is for.

Journalism's most important job in covering an election is to help voters decide who would be the best choice.

Maybe that doesn't fit with a theoretical idea of what journalism is for, but that's what I want them to do, for me. I'm the person who watches their ads, who wants to be informed. I'm like a juror, and this is a trial. Who would make the better president. I, and all the other voters, have to decide.

PS: Paul Krugman explains my frustration better than I did. 

Earlier this year I started cross-posting from this blog to Facebook and Medium. I'm no longer doing that.

Here's why.

First, if you put the two of them together, you'd have a great blogging surface. Medium handles linking, styles and titles. No podcasts, but that's the fourth item on the list for a reason. Most of my posts don't have podcasts attached. If there was one must-have feature I could live without that's the one (though giving up podcasting is giving up a huge win in interop). And Facebook handles updates, so if I make a change to a post after initially publishing it, those changes percolate to the Facebook version. So if you add the two together you get pretty close to the ideal.

But Facebook doesn't do links, styling, titles or podcasts. And Medium doesn't do updates.

I gave both a good shot, but the tradeoffs just aren't worth it.

It's true more people read my full posts on Facebook than click the link to read it on my blog. By a pretty wide margin. But the limits are confusing my writing. My reason for writing is not just engagement, but also to get mind-to-mind connections. And my mind is confused when I write for this hybrid medium, and my blog suffers. I suffer. I'm more confused, and that's not a good thing. 

And Medium is published-and-done. I end up either manually updating the posts, or I put up with incomplete or inaccurate writing on Medium. It might be worth it to maintain two versions manually, if I was getting engagement on Medium, but there are very few comments or readers there. I think I've given it fair shot of most of a year. If it hasn't started happening yet, I figure it isn't going to happen. 

I'm back to posting links on Facebook, as I do on Twitter. And I'm thinking about posting links to Medium, so people who have been reading me there have a way of knowing when I've written a new post.

If either of them change the way they work, I'll take another look. 

Where does everyone go for a quick video weather forecast for NYC?

You can send me a note on Twitter, or on Facebook.

I had this problem this morning, I still do. I used to go to weather.com, and never was very satisfied with how they approached it. This time there was a 1-minute commercial before the report. Sorry I don't stick around for that.

I expect this is something they will eventually do very well on Facebook as they now do it for sports scores. 

How it should work..

TV integrated w the Internet or mobile should be:

1. Wish.
2. Gratification.
3. In a few seconds at most.

I had the same experience last year with "find me a good podcast to listen to now." I have a great user experience for that but I expect I'm one of very few people.

Dave gets on the pulpit..

News industry, you keep leaving these big holes in what should be very simple problems to solve. Later you'll feel shut out when Facebook owns this. Act now.