vox--2020-01-30--The masterful deceit of “Toss a Coin to Your Witcher,” explained

One of the most popular aspects of Netflix ’ s incredibly popular fantasy series The Witcher is its viral hit song , “ Toss a Coin to Your Witcher.
” Sung by a troubadour named Jaskier in the show ’ s second episode , the song has been earworming its way through the zeitgeist , expanding well beyond the reach of the show since it debuted on December 20 .
Last week , after a strangely long delay , the song finally became available on Spotify and other streaming services , where it quickly drew attention for its catchy chorus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Even though it ’ s mostly a piece of lyrical nonsense based on the events of the show ’ s second episode , “ Toss a Coin to Your Witcher ” has amassed legions of fans .
In the month since it premiered , in fact , no fewer than four versions of it — three different “ metal ” covers of the song , as well as the original soundtrack version — have all charted in the UK .
On YouTube , where all current uploads of the soundtrack are unofficial , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a combined view count of more than 40 million .
If you ’ ve heard “ Toss a Coin to Your Witcher , ” you ’ ll know that it ’ s something of a many-headed hydra .
The song has aspects of medieval instrumentation and classical song structure , as you might expect for a song appearing in a medieval fantasy show .
But it ’ s also replete with pop movement and rhythm , and even has a dollop of musical theater stylization .
One reason for this jumble of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ composers , Sonya Belousova and Giona Ostinelli , wanted to reflect the fusion of genres and aesthetic influences that comprise The Witcher itself .
The show is based on a popular book series that later inspired a hit fantasy video game series , so it ’ s got a distinctive , game-influenced aesthetic — but it ’ s also channeling everything from the epic feel of Game of Thrones to the tongue-in-cheek musical parody Galavant .
I confess that upon first hearing “ Toss a Coin to Your Witcher , ” I really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appeal .
In fact , I was jarred by the song ’ s many discordant elements .
So I decided to talk it over with Charlie Harding , a musicologist and co-host of Vox ’ s Switched on Pop podcast , to get a sense of why so many people were so infatuated with this strange tune .
And through our discussion , I realized that the parts of the song I was most baffled by actually were the key to its appeal .
The hybrid elements of “ Toss a Coin ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ glance , “ Toss a Coin ” is trying to have its cake and eat it : that is , it wants to be both an earnest song that fits diegetically within its weird fictional universe and a catchy meta-pop song .
Its presentation is deeply earnest and straightforward , with actor Joey Batey singing along to an orchestral accompaniment that gets more and more sweepingly dramatic .
But it ’ s also replete with syncopation : Its words land on the off-beats , and it uses rhythms that didn ’ t really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s attempting to channel .
And in keeping with the scores of video games , where big , synthesized drum sections are a common feature , it also has a percussion-heavy backing track .
It ’ s the kind of thing you might expect to hear in a fantasy game soundtrack right when the fighting gets good — but that isn ’ t exactly what you might expect to hear from a song set within that game universe ’ s story .
Not only that , but the lyrics are deliberately tongue-in-cheek @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t be bleat ” ( a goat-related pun ) and “ he thrust every elf far back on the shelf , ” a meta-joke that completely breaks the fourth wall .
“ There ’ s something almost like [ an ] uncanny valley in the way that [ the song ] borrows so fluidly between different styles that we expect to exist in very different media , like video games , musical pop , Renaissance music , all blurred together , ” Harding said .
He pointed out that Batey also uses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ closer to musical theater than to a folk/troubadour sound , which further creates a sense of disconnect between the song ’ s many different elements .
Compare all this to a song like Game of Thrones ’ “ The Rains of Castamere , ” which keeps to a clear folk aesthetic , both lyrically and musically : It ’ s simple , using few instruments , with a naturalistic singer and a song that feels very balladic .
The official soundtrack version of “ Rains of Castamere ” was also recorded by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whose gritty folk influences naturally complement Game of Thrones ’ aesthetic .
So between the band and the show itself , there was an established milieu for how to “ hear ” the song .
With a more hybrid-genre show like Witcher , that milieu doesn ’ t quite exist .
Harding explains that these discordant elements are part of “ Toss a Coin ’ s ” basic appeal .
“ I think it ’ s drawing on people who love video game scores and anybody that ’ s played [ something ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kings , ” he told me .
“ The backing tracks of those games are all pseudo-medieval but are also very much contemporary music .
... And that sound has become the sound of any sort of video game music.
” Harding told me the popularity of “ Toss a Coin to Your Witcher ” actually illustrates a larger point about pop culture — which is that what we think of as “ pop music ” is in fact much , much larger than just what ’ s topping Billboard at any given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will say all pop music sounds the same , and that usually what ’ s happening on the Billboard [ charts ] will be the dominant sound — currently , that sound would be trap music , ” he told me .
“ But I actually believe that what is in the popular zeitgeist at any given moment is much broader , and includes what ’ s happening in film scores , what ’ s happening in video game music , what ’ s happening with musicals.
” “ We are comfortable with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ context and space in which they ’ re played , ” Harding added .
By experimenting with the boundaries between various musical genres and aesthetics , he explained , “ Toss a Coin to Your Witcher ” plays with the idea that we ’ re all comfortable with radically different musical styles given different contexts .
By playing with the context of all these different musical genres , and combining them with a catchy hook , Harding said , “ Toss a Coin ” ultimately becomes something you might stream in the background @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Coin ” fuses traditional classical and musical theater structure to give you an extra emotional punch that the average pop song denies you The success of “ Toss a Coin ” also owes a lot to a genre you might not expect : musical theater .
In fact , “ Toss a Coin ” is perhaps best thought of as a musical theater number — because like many musicals , The Witcher employs a conceit in which the time period of its setting and the style of the production itself don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you listen to Grease , ” Harding noted .
“ Grease is also not 1950s music.
” “ Every musical has its own aesthetic rules that it needs to adhere to , and then it uses allusions to other styles to evoke another period , ” he explained .
“ Like Phantom of the Opera evokes a baroque quality , even though it is thoroughly a contemporary ’ 80s musical.
” “ Toss a Coin ” also predominantly uses a traditional harmonic chord progression from the world of classical music .
At the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ words “ a friend of humanity , ” the song shifts to what musicians call a perfect cadence .
That ’ s when a cadential chord progression emphasizes its crucial dominant chord — a chord built from the fifth note in a typical scale — before resolving to its “ home ” chord , or tonic chord .
It sounds like this : When we hear a dominant chord played in this context , our ears naturally want that chord to resolve back to the tonic chord , which is the “ root @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power of the dominant chord and our need for it to resolve creates a progression of buildup , tension , and release .
When that cadence happens in a song that ’ s written in a minor key , like “ Toss a Coin to Your Witcher , ” the effect is one of incredibly dramatic suspense .
( In fact , such chords are often called suspended chords if they don ’ t immediately get resolved . )
“ Toss a Coin to Your Witcher ” all but overemphasizes its dominant chord @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not only creates high drama for the listener but also recalls the idea of a more classical structure .
It adds a sense of tradition and even loftiness to the whole song , in keeping with the musical theater vibe .
And most importantly , Harding told me , that extra drama gives listeners the freedom to be sentimental — a freedom pop music often denies them .
“ It has this very revelrous sort of quality to it , ” he said .
“ And I think that is the magical thing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pop music , sentimentality is so scorned.
” Musicals , however , allow for embracing heightened emotions : They give you “ permission to wave your fist in the air.
” So the next time you listen to “ Toss a Coin to Your Witcher , ” and you feel like joining the heightened revelry , you can participate with full awareness of what the song gets right — and how the joy you get from hitting replay is really about so much more than just a catchy hook .

One of the most popular aspects of Netflix’s incredibly popular fantasy series The Witcher is its viral hit song, “Toss a Coin to Your Witcher.” Sung by a troubadour named Jaskier in the show’s second episode, the song has been earworming its way through the zeitgeist, expanding well beyond the reach of the show since it debuted on December 20.
Last week, after a strangely long delay, the song finally became available on Spotify and other streaming services, where it quickly drew attention for its catchy chorus and quirky lyrics all over again.
Even though it’s mostly a piece of lyrical nonsense based on the events of the show’s second episode, “Toss a Coin to Your Witcher” has amassed legions of fans. In the month since it premiered, in fact, no fewer than four versions of it — three different “metal” covers of the song, as well as the original soundtrack version — have all charted in the UK. On YouTube, where all current uploads of the soundtrack are unofficial, the four most-watched versions of the song have a combined view count of more than 40 million.
If you’ve heard “Toss a Coin to Your Witcher,” you’ll know that it’s something of a many-headed hydra. The song has aspects of medieval instrumentation and classical song structure, as you might expect for a song appearing in a medieval fantasy show. But it’s also replete with pop movement and rhythm, and even has a dollop of musical theater stylization.
One reason for this jumble of influences is that the song’s composers, Sonya Belousova and Giona Ostinelli, wanted to reflect the fusion of genres and aesthetic influences that comprise The Witcher itself. The show is based on a popular book series that later inspired a hit fantasy video game series, so it’s got a distinctive, game-influenced aesthetic — but it’s also channeling everything from the epic feel of Game of Thrones to the tongue-in-cheek musical parody Galavant.
I confess that upon first hearing “Toss a Coin to Your Witcher,” I really, really didn’t understand the appeal. In fact, I was jarred by the song’s many discordant elements. So I decided to talk it over with Charlie Harding, a musicologist and co-host of Vox’s Switched on Pop podcast, to get a sense of why so many people were so infatuated with this strange tune. And through our discussion, I realized that the parts of the song I was most baffled by actually were the key to its appeal.
The hybrid elements of “Toss a Coin” are crucial to its success
At a glance, “Toss a Coin” is trying to have its cake and eat it: that is, it wants to be both an earnest song that fits diegetically within its weird fictional universe and a catchy meta-pop song. Its presentation is deeply earnest and straightforward, with actor Joey Batey singing along to an orchestral accompaniment that gets more and more sweepingly dramatic.
But it’s also replete with syncopation: Its words land on the off-beats, and it uses rhythms that didn’t really exist in the historical medieval culture it’s attempting to channel. And in keeping with the scores of video games, where big, synthesized drum sections are a common feature, it also has a percussion-heavy backing track. It’s the kind of thing you might expect to hear in a fantasy game soundtrack right when the fighting gets good — but that isn’t exactly what you might expect to hear from a song set within that game universe’s story.
Not only that, but the lyrics are deliberately tongue-in-cheek, with lines like “he can’t be bleat” (a goat-related pun) and “he thrust every elf far back on the shelf,” a meta-joke that completely breaks the fourth wall.
“There’s something almost like [an] uncanny valley in the way that [the song] borrows so fluidly between different styles that we expect to exist in very different media, like video games, musical pop, Renaissance music, all blurred together,” Harding said. He pointed out that Batey also uses a style of singing that’s closer to musical theater than to a folk/troubadour sound, which further creates a sense of disconnect between the song’s many different elements.
Compare all this to a song like Game of Thrones’ “The Rains of Castamere,” which keeps to a clear folk aesthetic, both lyrically and musically: It’s simple, using few instruments, with a naturalistic singer and a song that feels very balladic. The official soundtrack version of “Rains of Castamere” was also recorded by the well-known indie rock band the National, whose gritty folk influences naturally complement Game of Thrones’ aesthetic. So between the band and the show itself, there was an established milieu for how to “hear” the song. With a more hybrid-genre show like Witcher, that milieu doesn’t quite exist.
Harding explains that these discordant elements are part of “Toss a Coin’s” basic appeal. “I think it’s drawing on people who love video game scores and anybody that’s played [something] like Diablo or World of Warcraft: Kings,” he told me. “The backing tracks of those games are all pseudo-medieval but are also very much contemporary music. ... And that sound has become the sound of any sort of video game music.”
Harding told me the popularity of “Toss a Coin to Your Witcher” actually illustrates a larger point about pop culture — which is that what we think of as “pop music” is in fact much, much larger than just what’s topping Billboard at any given moment.
“A lot of people will say all pop music sounds the same, and that usually what’s happening on the Billboard [charts] will be the dominant sound — currently, that sound would be trap music,” he told me. “But I actually believe that what is in the popular zeitgeist at any given moment is much broader, and includes what’s happening in film scores, what’s happening in video game music, what’s happening with musicals.”
“We are comfortable with very different kinds of music given the context and space in which they’re played,” Harding added. By experimenting with the boundaries between various musical genres and aesthetics, he explained, “Toss a Coin to Your Witcher” plays with the idea that we’re all comfortable with radically different musical styles given different contexts.
By playing with the context of all these different musical genres, and combining them with a catchy hook, Harding said, “Toss a Coin” ultimately becomes something you might stream in the background of your day.
“Toss a Coin” fuses traditional classical and musical theater structure to give you an extra emotional punch that the average pop song denies you
The success of “Toss a Coin” also owes a lot to a genre you might not expect: musical theater. In fact, “Toss a Coin” is perhaps best thought of as a musical theater number — because like many musicals, The Witcher employs a conceit in which the time period of its setting and the style of the production itself don’t need to align.
“Like when you listen to Grease,” Harding noted. “Grease is also not 1950s music.”
“Every musical has its own aesthetic rules that it needs to adhere to, and then it uses allusions to other styles to evoke another period,” he explained. “Like Phantom of the Opera evokes a baroque quality, even though it is thoroughly a contemporary ’80s musical.”
“Toss a Coin” also predominantly uses a traditional harmonic chord progression from the world of classical music. At the song’s climax, around the words “a friend of humanity,” the song shifts to what musicians call a perfect cadence. That’s when a cadential chord progression emphasizes its crucial dominant chord — a chord built from the fifth note in a typical scale — before resolving to its “home” chord, or tonic chord. It sounds like this:
When we hear a dominant chord played in this context, our ears naturally want that chord to resolve back to the tonic chord, which is the “root” chord of the key. The power of the dominant chord and our need for it to resolve creates a progression of buildup, tension, and release.
When that cadence happens in a song that’s written in a minor key, like “Toss a Coin to Your Witcher,” the effect is one of incredibly dramatic suspense. (In fact, such chords are often called suspended chords if they don’t immediately get resolved.) “Toss a Coin to Your Witcher” all but overemphasizes its dominant chord. The result is a sound that not only creates high drama for the listener but also recalls the idea of a more classical structure. It adds a sense of tradition and even loftiness to the whole song, in keeping with the musical theater vibe.
And most importantly, Harding told me, that extra drama gives listeners the freedom to be sentimental — a freedom pop music often denies them. “It has this very revelrous sort of quality to it,” he said. “And I think that is the magical thing that musicals still allow for. In pop music, sentimentality is so scorned.” Musicals, however, allow for embracing heightened emotions: They give you “permission to wave your fist in the air.”
So the next time you listen to “Toss a Coin to Your Witcher,” and you feel like joining the heightened revelry, you can participate with full awareness of what the song gets right — and how the joy you get from hitting replay is really about so much more than just a catchy hook.


vox--2020-01-30--Don’t expect a $550 million settlement to stop Facebook from scanning your face

Facebook has agreed to pay a $ 550 million settlement over its use of facial recognition technology nearly a decade ago .
This comes just days after a relatively unknown startup selling facial recognition systems to police departments caught the attention of Congress .
It seems , after years of civil liberties advocates worrying , facial recognition technology is more powerful and more prevalent than ever .
Neither a mammoth new settlement nor the piecemeal legislation nationwide seem suited to stop the takeover .
As it announced in the company ’ s quarterly earnings report on Wednesday , Facebook will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ settle a 2015 class action lawsuit over its facial recognition software that suggested tags for people it identified in users ’ photos .
What may have been a helpful feature for some also happened to be a possible violation of Illinois ’ 2008 Biometric Information Privacy Act .
The law — which happens to be the strongest biometric privacy law in the country — said that businesses must get permission before collecting biometric data .
That essentially includes anything on your body that could be used to uniquely identify you , including scans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The class action suit claimed that Facebook ’ s photo-tagging feature , which it rolled out in 2010 , did not do this .
Facebook claimed for years that it did nothing wrong .
But after an attempt to throw the suit out was rejected by a federal appeals court in August 2019 , Facebook discontinued the photo tag suggestions tool .
Facebook ’ s appeal to the US Supreme Court was denied last week .
Rather than risk a civil trial and a potential billion-dollar judgment , Facebook decided a $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be approved by a judge ) was its best bet .
“ We decided to pursue a settlement as it was in the best interest of our community and our shareholders to move past this matter , ” a Facebook spokesperson told Recode .
Half a billion dollars is an incredible sum , but that quantity of money might amount to a mere inconvenience for Facebook .
Given the company ’ s $ 21 billion revenue in its most recent quarterly earnings release , $ 550 million is pocket change .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the recent $ 5 billion fine from the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) for privacy failures won ’ t fundamentally change Facebook ’ s business model , a settlement worth a tenth of that won ’ t make a dent , either .
Of course , there are many other companies with much less money than Facebook doing much more with facial recognition technology .
Clearview AI , as the New York Times and BuzzFeed News recently reported , claims to have scraped billions of photos from across the internet in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law enforcement agencies could use to identify suspected criminals .
While Clearview claims to be working with dozens of police departments across the United States , the extent to which its technology is actually being used to fight crime remains unclear .
Nevertheless , the company has brazenly pushed facial recognition technology out into the open in a way that bigger tech companies like Facebook have so far eschewed .
As a result , Clearview is facing its own class action lawsuit in Illinois , questions from a senator , and cease-and-desist letters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s attorney general .
However , it ’ s naive to assume that new , more aggressive forms of facial recognition technology will go away .
China , Russia , and the United Kingdom use facial recognition for law enforcement on a massive scale .
Just this week , Moscow rolled out a facial recognition system that ’ s been described as the world ’ s largest .
A recent Recode investigation showed that the use of facial recognition technology is also increasingly prevalent in the United States .
It ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ friends .
Google and Amazon have their own facial recognition initiatives , and the technology has also been used for better , for worse , and for weird in recruiting , for unlocking phones , in dating apps , in retail , to get on trains , to find investors for your facial recognition company ( a sort of facial recognition-ception ) , and for keeping track of pigs .
This is despite public concerns over its implementation ( as the reaction to Clearview AI shows ) and data that shows it doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ faces .
For what it ’ s worth , lawmakers are trying to regulate the use of facial recognition tech .
Canada and the European Union have restrictions ; in the United States , federal legislation has been proposed .
In the absence of federal legislation , states like Texas and Illinois have issued bans on facial recognition .
Many other states have considered similar laws , and several cities including San Francisco and Oakland outlaw its use by the government .
Evan Selinger , a professor of philosophy at the Rochester Institute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the dangers of facial recognition technology and has advocated for its ban , thinks such regulations are possible .
“ The conversation has changed dramatically and political will is growing to stop the most dangerous surveillance technology ever invented , ” Selinger told Recode .
“ Given the paper-thin divide between industry and the government and exposés like the one on Clearview , it is entirely possible that companies like Facebook will wind up restricted by bans , too.
” While Facebook did end the tag suggestions tool at the center of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t stop its use facial recognition .
In 2017 , it introduced a new “ Face Recognition ” feature with “ the same technology we ’ ve used to suggest friends you may want to tag in photos or videos.
” That tool replaced the beleaguered tag suggestions feature entirely two years later .
At this point , Facebook has been using facial recognition on our photos for almost a decade .
Perhaps Selinger ’ s optimism is not misplaced .
Or perhaps , in spite of Facebook ’ s very large @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recognition ’ s use in the public or private sector is tantamount to putting the horse back in the barn ( although facial recognition could probably make it easier to locate said horse ) .
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network .
All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists .

Facebook has agreed to pay a $550 million settlement over its use of facial recognition technology nearly a decade ago. This comes just days after a relatively unknown startup selling facial recognition systems to police departments caught the attention of Congress. It seems, after years of civil liberties advocates worrying, facial recognition technology is more powerful and more prevalent than ever. Neither a mammoth new settlement nor the piecemeal legislation nationwide seem suited to stop the takeover.
As it announced in the company’s quarterly earnings report on Wednesday, Facebook will shell out half a billion dollars to settle a 2015 class action lawsuit over its facial recognition software that suggested tags for people it identified in users’ photos. What may have been a helpful feature for some also happened to be a possible violation of Illinois’ 2008 Biometric Information Privacy Act. The law — which happens to be the strongest biometric privacy law in the country — said that businesses must get permission before collecting biometric data. That essentially includes anything on your body that could be used to uniquely identify you, including scans of fingerprints, eyes, and faces. The class action suit claimed that Facebook’s photo-tagging feature, which it rolled out in 2010, did not do this.
Facebook claimed for years that it did nothing wrong. But after an attempt to throw the suit out was rejected by a federal appeals court in August 2019, Facebook discontinued the photo tag suggestions tool. Facebook’s appeal to the US Supreme Court was denied last week. Rather than risk a civil trial and a potential billion-dollar judgment, Facebook decided a $550 million settlement (which still has to be approved by a judge) was its best bet.
“We decided to pursue a settlement as it was in the best interest of our community and our shareholders to move past this matter,” a Facebook spokesperson told Recode.
Half a billion dollars is an incredible sum, but that quantity of money might amount to a mere inconvenience for Facebook. Given the company’s $21 billion revenue in its most recent quarterly earnings release, $550 million is pocket change. If, as our Peter Kafka has argued, the recent $5 billion fine from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for privacy failures won’t fundamentally change Facebook’s business model, a settlement worth a tenth of that won’t make a dent, either.
Of course, there are many other companies with much less money than Facebook doing much more with facial recognition technology. Clearview AI, as the New York Times and BuzzFeed News recently reported, claims to have scraped billions of photos from across the internet in order to build facial recognition technology that law enforcement agencies could use to identify suspected criminals. While Clearview claims to be working with dozens of police departments across the United States, the extent to which its technology is actually being used to fight crime remains unclear. Nevertheless, the company has brazenly pushed facial recognition technology out into the open in a way that bigger tech companies like Facebook have so far eschewed. As a result, Clearview is facing its own class action lawsuit in Illinois, questions from a senator, and cease-and-desist letters from both Twitter and New Jersey’s attorney general.
However, it’s naive to assume that new, more aggressive forms of facial recognition technology will go away. China, Russia, and the United Kingdom use facial recognition for law enforcement on a massive scale. Just this week, Moscow rolled out a facial recognition system that’s been described as the world’s largest. A recent Recode investigation showed that the use of facial recognition technology is also increasingly prevalent in the United States.
It’s not just used to find suspected criminals and friends. Google and Amazon have their own facial recognition initiatives, and the technology has also been used for better, for worse, and for weird in recruiting, for unlocking phones, in dating apps, in retail, to get on trains, to find investors for your facial recognition company (a sort of facial recognition-ception), and for keeping track of pigs. This is despite public concerns over its implementation (as the reaction to Clearview AI shows) and data that shows it doesn’t work as well on non-white faces.
For what it’s worth, lawmakers are trying to regulate the use of facial recognition tech. Canada and the European Union have restrictions; in the United States, federal legislation has been proposed. In the absence of federal legislation, states like Texas and Illinois have issued bans on facial recognition. Many other states have considered similar laws, and several cities including San Francisco and Oakland outlaw its use by the government. Evan Selinger, a professor of philosophy at the Rochester Institute of Technology who has written extensively about the dangers of facial recognition technology and has advocated for its ban, thinks such regulations are possible.
“The conversation has changed dramatically and political will is growing to stop the most dangerous surveillance technology ever invented,” Selinger told Recode. “Given the paper-thin divide between industry and the government and exposés like the one on Clearview, it is entirely possible that companies like Facebook will wind up restricted by bans, too.”
While Facebook did end the tag suggestions tool at the center of the class action lawsuit, the company didn’t stop its use facial recognition. In 2017, it introduced a new “Face Recognition” feature with “the same technology we’ve used to suggest friends you may want to tag in photos or videos.” That tool replaced the beleaguered tag suggestions feature entirely two years later.
At this point, Facebook has been using facial recognition on our photos for almost a decade. Perhaps Selinger’s optimism is not misplaced. Or perhaps, in spite of Facebook’s very large but relatively insignificant fine, halting facial recognition’s use in the public or private sector is tantamount to putting the horse back in the barn (although facial recognition could probably make it easier to locate said horse).
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network. All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists.


vox--2020-01-30--Why Chief Justice Roberts refused to read a question from Rand Paul at Trump’s trial

Chief Justice John Roberts on Thursday refused to read a question from Sen. Rand Paul that appeared intended to out the whistleblower whose complaint eventually led to the impeachment investigation .
“ The presiding officer declines to read the question as submitted , ” said Roberts , after Paul offered the written question .
Paul ’ s inquiry , according to tweets he later posted , focused on the relationship between a staffer at the House Intelligence Committee and someone he may have worked with at the National Security Council , naming two specific individuals .
He went on to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ information ” about who the whistleblower was .
“ I think this is an important question , one that deserves to be asked .
It makes no reference to anybody who may or may not be a whistleblower , ” Paul told reporters at a press briefing .
One of the names he mentions , however , has been floated by some conservative publications as the potential whistleblower .
It ’ s the second time in the Senate ’ s two days of questioning that this scenario has played out ; on Wednesday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not read questions that could include the identity of a whistleblower , seemingly dismissing a submission from Paul , according to Politico .
Paul is among the members of the GOP who ’ ve been eager to use the focus on the whistleblower to divert attention from the abuse of power Trump is charged with committing .
“ Do your job and print his name !
” Paul yelled at the press during a rally last fall .
In the months since the impeachment inquiry has been underway , Republicans , spurred by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the credibility of the whistleblower in order to undercut the allegations that have been raised against the president .
The whistleblower first raised concerns about a July 25 call between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and President Trump that focused on investigations into the Bidens via a complaint that was shared with the intelligence community Inspector General Michael Atkinson last summer .
Paul has been one of the senators most focused on unearthing the whistleblower ’ s identity , which some lawmakers have argued is important because it would explain potential biases that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , meanwhile , have argued that protecting the whistleblower ’ s anonymity is vital to ensure that people feel able to come forward when they observe potential wrongdoing in the government .
Exposing the whistleblower , who is a member of the intelligence community , could also put this person at risk of professional retribution and other potential threats .
While current whistleblower laws lay out protections for individuals to come forward , they provide a limited shield if these people wind up getting exposed .
House managers have emphasized , too , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t important — the allegations the person raised have been corroborated by other sources including a summary that the White House released of the July 25 call , which shows Trump asking for investigations into the Bidens .
Because of Roberts ’ s opposition , Paul wasn ’ t able to carry out his stunt in the Senate on Thursday and had to take the antics to Twitter .

Chief Justice John Roberts on Thursday refused to read a question from Sen. Rand Paul that appeared intended to out the whistleblower whose complaint eventually led to the impeachment investigation.
“The presiding officer declines to read the question as submitted,” said Roberts, after Paul offered the written question.
Paul’s inquiry, according to tweets he later posted, focused on the relationship between a staffer at the House Intelligence Committee and someone he may have worked with at the National Security Council, naming two specific individuals. He went on to add that he had no “independent information” about who the whistleblower was.
“I think this is an important question, one that deserves to be asked. It makes no reference to anybody who may or may not be a whistleblower,” Paul told reporters at a press briefing. One of the names he mentions, however, has been floated by some conservative publications as the potential whistleblower.
It’s the second time in the Senate’s two days of questioning that this scenario has played out; on Wednesday, Roberts told lawmakers that he would not read questions that could include the identity of a whistleblower, seemingly dismissing a submission from Paul, according to Politico.
Paul is among the members of the GOP who’ve been eager to use the focus on the whistleblower to divert attention from the abuse of power Trump is charged with committing. “Do your job and print his name!” Paul yelled at the press during a rally last fall.
In the months since the impeachment inquiry has been underway, Republicans, spurred by Trump himself, have sought to question the credibility of the whistleblower in order to undercut the allegations that have been raised against the president.
The whistleblower first raised concerns about a July 25 call between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and President Trump that focused on investigations into the Bidens via a complaint that was shared with the intelligence community Inspector General Michael Atkinson last summer.
Paul has been one of the senators most focused on unearthing the whistleblower’s identity, which some lawmakers have argued is important because it would explain potential biases that the person has.
Other Democrats and Republicans, meanwhile, have argued that protecting the whistleblower’s anonymity is vital to ensure that people feel able to come forward when they observe potential wrongdoing in the government. Exposing the whistleblower, who is a member of the intelligence community, could also put this person at risk of professional retribution and other potential threats.
While current whistleblower laws lay out protections for individuals to come forward, they provide a limited shield if these people wind up getting exposed.
House managers have emphasized, too, that the identity of the whistleblower isn’t important — the allegations the person raised have been corroborated by other sources including a summary that the White House released of the July 25 call, which shows Trump asking for investigations into the Bidens.
Because of Roberts’s opposition, Paul wasn’t able to carry out his stunt in the Senate on Thursday and had to take the antics to Twitter.


vox--2020-01-30--The coronavirus outbreak is now a global health emergency, WHO says

The World Health Organization ( WHO ) has declared the outbreak of the new coronavirus spreading quickly across China a global health emergency — a rare designation the agency gives disease threats that pose an international risk .
The decision Thursday came as the number of people diagnosed with the 2019-nCoV virus has skyrocketed to more than 8,200 , surpassing the SARS case toll .
There are also now people in at least 18 other countries with the virus .
“ Over the past few weeks we have witnessed the emergence of a previously unknown pathogen which has escalated into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said .
Just a week ago , the agency determined the formal “ public health emergency of international concern , ” or PHEIC , declaration , was premature .
But since then , the situation has changed dramatically .
According to the WHO , there are now 98 cases outside of China in 18 countries , including eight instances of human-to-human transmission in four countries .
The vast majority of these have been linked to China ’ s Hubei province , where the outbreak originated .
“ Although these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must all act together now to limit further spread , ” Dr. Tedros said , framing the declaration as a precautionary measure .
He also flagged the WHO ’ s concern with the potential damage the virus could do in countries with weaker health systems , calling on the international community to help .
This is the sixth time the WHO has declared a public health emergency A PHEIC — pronounced “ fake ” — is defined as “ an extraordinary event which is determined to constitute a public health risk to other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and to potentially require a coordinated international response.
” In reality , it ’ s a political tool the WHO can use to draw attention to a serious disease that has caught the world off guard and put people ’ s health in danger .
It ’ s meant to engage the global community in a coordinated outbreak response , galvanize resources , and stop the disease from spreading further across borders .
Before Thursday , the WHO had only declared a public health emergency five times since the 2007 enactment of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health emergency responses .
Several global health experts have been calling since last week for the agency to reconsider its decision about the novel coronavirus .
“ It ’ s long overdue , and it should have happened Monday , ” Devi Sridhar , professor and chair of Global Public Health at the University of Edinburgh , told Vox .
“ This is an international emergency , ” said Tom Frieden , the former director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .
“ A PHEIC allows [ the WHO ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ global leadership for governments and the private sector.
” The outbreak was first reported to the WHO by Chinese officials a month ago , on December 31 .
The leading hypothesis was that the virus emerged in Wuhan , a city of 11 million in Hubei province , spreading directly from animals to humans in a market there .
Scientists are still trying to suss out the origins of the outbreak , but the virus has since spread beyond Wuhan — and to 18 other countries .
Sridhar pointed out that one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a PHEIC is because of the economic fallout international attention on a disease threat can bring .
According to Reuters , the global economic losses from the 2003 SARS outbreak totaled $ 40 billion , and the world ’ s gross domestic product “ suffered a 0.1 % hit due to the outbreak.
” But in the past week , countries have already sealed their borders to China , issued travel advisories , and started repatriating citizens .
Australia took the extraordinary measure of sending returning citizens from Wuhan , the center of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remote island 1,200 miles off the coast of the mainland .
Meanwhile , numerous airlines — including British Airways — announced they would suspend travel to the country .
“ Right now we need some guidance , ” Sridhar added .
“ Everyone has been waiting for the WHO .
The world is moving on with or without the WHO.
” In a press briefing Thursday , Dr. Tedros said the international community should help countries with weaker health systems prepare for outbreaks , that countries should work to combat the spread of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data and knowledge about the virus , among other recommendations .
“ This is the time for science , not rumors , ” Dr Tedros said .
“ This is the time for solidarity , not stigma.
” The agency didn ’ t call for any travel or trade restrictions , such as border closures , visa refusals , or quarantining people who are in good condition .
Dr. Tedros also applauded China ’ s efforts .
“ We would have seen many more cases outside of China by now , ” he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China is setting a new standard for outbreak response.
” The outbreak is still centered on mainland China Just because the emergence of the new coronavirus is now officially a global health emergency doesn ’ t mean it ’ ll become a pandemic .
It ’ s important to note the outbreak is still heavily centered on mainland China .
Of the 8,235 confirmed cases , 8,124 have been found in mainland China , with more than half of those in Hubei province .
There ’ s also still much that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is .
In humans , coronaviruses can lead to symptoms that range from the common cold to severe pneumonia and death in the case of SARS and MERS .
It ’ s not yet known where 2019-nCoV falls on that spectrum , and it ’ ll be weeks before researchers have a clearer picture .
But we do know that in addition to the 171 deaths the virus has caused , there have been many reports of people with very mild symptoms .
There ’ s also evidence of asymptomatic cases .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ learn more , 2019-nCoV will look more like the common cold than like SARS .
That ’ s because infectious diseases typically look more severe when they ’ re first discovered , since the people showing up in hospitals tend to be the sickest .
Once more of these mild or asymptomatic cases are discovered , this virus could wind up looking a lot less scary .
( For more on that , see this Vox explainer . )
“ We live [ with ] and tolerate a whole lot of respiratory viruses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security , “ some of which are even more transmissible than the estimates people have come out with for this one — but they don ’ t make the headlines.
” If the new coronavirus winds up looking less severe , she added , “ We may be moving away from containing the virus as a goal to one of minimizing its spread .
”

The World Health Organization (WHO) has declared the outbreak of the new coronavirus spreading quickly across China a global health emergency — a rare designation the agency gives disease threats that pose an international risk.
The decision Thursday came as the number of people diagnosed with the 2019-nCoV virus has skyrocketed to more than 8,200, surpassing the SARS case toll. There are also now people in at least 18 other countries with the virus.
“Over the past few weeks we have witnessed the emergence of a previously unknown pathogen which has escalated into an unprecedented outbreak,” WHO director general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said.
Just a week ago, the agency determined the formal “public health emergency of international concern,” or PHEIC, declaration, was premature.
.@WHO is working closely with all countries to control the new #coronavirus outbreak. Person-to-person transmission has been seen in at least 3 countries outside #China – Japan , Vietnam & Germany - and the cooperation and info-sharing has been very good. — Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus (@DrTedros) January 30, 2020
But since then, the situation has changed dramatically. According to the WHO, there are now 98 cases outside of China in 18 countries, including eight instances of human-to-human transmission in four countries. The vast majority of these have been linked to China’s Hubei province, where the outbreak originated.
“Although these numbers are still relatively small ... we must all act together now to limit further spread,” Dr. Tedros said, framing the declaration as a precautionary measure. He also flagged the WHO’s concern with the potential damage the virus could do in countries with weaker health systems, calling on the international community to help.
This is the sixth time the WHO has declared a public health emergency
A PHEIC — pronounced “fake” — is defined as “an extraordinary event which is determined to constitute a public health risk to other States through the international spread of disease and to potentially require a coordinated international response.”
In reality, it’s a political tool the WHO can use to draw attention to a serious disease that has caught the world off guard and put people’s health in danger. It’s meant to engage the global community in a coordinated outbreak response, galvanize resources, and stop the disease from spreading further across borders.
Related The 2 key questions that will determine if the coronavirus outbreak becomes a pandemic
Before Thursday, the WHO had only declared a public health emergency five times since the 2007 enactment of the International Health Regulations, which govern global health emergency responses.
Several global health experts have been calling since last week for the agency to reconsider its decision about the novel coronavirus. “It’s long overdue, and it should have happened Monday,” Devi Sridhar, professor and chair of Global Public Health at the University of Edinburgh, told Vox.
“This is an international emergency,” said Tom Frieden, the former director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “A PHEIC allows [the WHO] to further lean into the role of global leadership for governments and the private sector.”
The outbreak was first reported to the WHO by Chinese officials a month ago, on December 31. The leading hypothesis was that the virus emerged in Wuhan, a city of 11 million in Hubei province, spreading directly from animals to humans in a market there.
Scientists are still trying to suss out the origins of the outbreak, but the virus has since spread beyond Wuhan — and to 18 other countries. Sridhar pointed out that one of the reasons the WHO pauses before triggering a PHEIC is because of the economic fallout international attention on a disease threat can bring. According to Reuters, the global economic losses from the 2003 SARS outbreak totaled $40 billion, and the world’s gross domestic product “suffered a 0.1% hit due to the outbreak.”
But in the past week, countries have already sealed their borders to China, issued travel advisories, and started repatriating citizens. Australia took the extraordinary measure of sending returning citizens from Wuhan, the center of China’s outbreak, to a remote island 1,200 miles off the coast of the mainland. Meanwhile, numerous airlines — including British Airways — announced they would suspend travel to the country.
“Right now we need some guidance,” Sridhar added. “Everyone has been waiting for the WHO. The world is moving on with or without the WHO.”
In a press briefing Thursday, Dr. Tedros said the international community should help countries with weaker health systems prepare for outbreaks, that countries should work to combat the spread of false information and rumors, and share data and knowledge about the virus, among other recommendations.
“This is the time for science, not rumors,” Dr Tedros said. “This is the time for solidarity, not stigma.”
The agency didn’t call for any travel or trade restrictions, such as border closures, visa refusals, or quarantining people who are in good condition.
Dr. Tedros also applauded China’s efforts. “We would have seen many more cases outside of China by now,” he said. “In many ways, China is setting a new standard for outbreak response.”
The outbreak is still centered on mainland China
Just because the emergence of the new coronavirus is now officially a global health emergency doesn’t mean it’ll become a pandemic. It’s important to note the outbreak is still heavily centered on mainland China. Of the 8,235 confirmed cases, 8,124 have been found in mainland China, with more than half of those in Hubei province.
There’s also still much that’s unclear about 2019-nCoV, including how lethal it is. In humans, coronaviruses can lead to symptoms that range from the common cold to severe pneumonia and death in the case of SARS and MERS. It’s not yet known where 2019-nCoV falls on that spectrum, and it’ll be weeks before researchers have a clearer picture. But we do know that in addition to the 171 deaths the virus has caused, there have been many reports of people with very mild symptoms. There’s also evidence of asymptomatic cases.
It’s possible that as we learn more, 2019-nCoV will look more like the common cold than like SARS. That’s because infectious diseases typically look more severe when they’re first discovered, since the people showing up in hospitals tend to be the sickest. Once more of these mild or asymptomatic cases are discovered, this virus could wind up looking a lot less scary. (For more on that, see this Vox explainer.)
“We live [with] and tolerate a whole lot of respiratory viruses,” said Jennifer Nuzzo, senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, “some of which are even more transmissible than the estimates people have come out with for this one — but they don’t make the headlines.” If the new coronavirus winds up looking less severe, she added, “We may be moving away from containing the virus as a goal to one of minimizing its spread.”


vox--2020-01-30--How Donald Trump helped move BuzzFeed’s Ben Smith to the New York Times

BuzzFeed ’ s Ben Smith is leaving for the New York Times for many reasons .
One of them , in a semi-roundabout way , is Donald Trump .
We can easily insert Trump into any conversation about anything , but this one happened organically during my chat with Smith this week on the Recode Media podcast .
This was an exit interview : Smith is leaving BuzzFeed , where he has been the top editor for eight years .
He ’ ll start his new gig as the media columnist for the New York Times in March .
One @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s move , at least among chattering media people , is whether this means that digital upstarts like BuzzFeed and Vox Media , which had very big ambitions a few years ago , have hit their ceiling .
It wasn ’ t surprising to hear Smith say he doesn ’ t think that ’ s true .
It would be very surprising to hear him say , out loud , that the place he ran for eight years just isn ’ t big enough for his talent .
But it was interesting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That old media outlets like the Times have had a specific resurgence because of Trump .
That ’ s a two-pronged thesis .
Part of it is that old-school media shops with very , very substantial resources — the Times ’ s newsroom has some 1,600 journalists , which makes it the biggest in the United States — and stable business models — the Times has successfully changed from an ad-supported operation to a customer-supported operation — have the capacity to cover the upheaval caused by Trump ’ s election and tackle many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And the other bit is that Trump himself is an old-school media guy .
Yes , Trump uses Twitter to set agendas , settle scores , and threaten his enemies or potential enemies .
But his media diet is very analog : He hoovers up print newspapers and linear TV — which is why he tweets about the stuff in them all the time .
Here ’ s the relevant excerpt from our conversation : The pendulum swings in this business , and I think Donald Trump in particular elevated the New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was really transformational for them but also challenging .
And they also are hiring lots of people because the subscription business is going really well .
...
I think that in this business , things are never over .
It ’ s like politics .
It ’ s a dynamic situation .
I think over the last couple of years , in a big cultural sense , Trump swung the pendulum back toward legacy media because that ’ s what he ’ s obsessed with .
Right .
He ’ s a New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ newspapers .
And massively elevated them .
Where Obama had been interested in the future and interested in digital media and had elevated digital media .
And I think that distinction is blurred between what ’ s digital and print .
But I think that ultimately having a legacy business is still a huge , huge problem for anybody who ’ s printing .
Anybody who ’ s broadcasting is putting a lot of their resources into maintaining a legacy business .
You can listen to our full conversation here or below :

BuzzFeed’s Ben Smith is leaving for the New York Times for many reasons. One of them, in a semi-roundabout way, is Donald Trump.
We can easily insert Trump into any conversation about anything, but this one happened organically during my chat with Smith this week on the Recode Media podcast. This was an exit interview: Smith is leaving BuzzFeed, where he has been the top editor for eight years. He’ll start his new gig as the media columnist for the New York Times in March.
One of the Very Big Questions about Smith’s move, at least among chattering media people, is whether this means that digital upstarts like BuzzFeed and Vox Media, which had very big ambitions a few years ago, have hit their ceiling.
It wasn’t surprising to hear Smith say he doesn’t think that’s true. It would be very surprising to hear him say, out loud, that the place he ran for eight years just isn’t big enough for his talent. But it was interesting to hear one of his arguments: That old media outlets like the Times have had a specific resurgence because of Trump.
That’s a two-pronged thesis. Part of it is that old-school media shops with very, very substantial resources — the Times’s newsroom has some 1,600 journalists, which makes it the biggest in the United States — and stable business models — the Times has successfully changed from an ad-supported operation to a customer-supported operation — have the capacity to cover the upheaval caused by Trump’s election and tackle many other projects at the same time.
And the other bit is that Trump himself is an old-school media guy. Yes, Trump uses Twitter to set agendas, settle scores, and threaten his enemies or potential enemies. But his media diet is very analog: He hoovers up print newspapers and linear TV — which is why he tweets about the stuff in them all the time.
Here’s the relevant excerpt from our conversation:
Ben Smith
The pendulum swings in this business, and I think Donald Trump in particular elevated the New York Times and CNN in a way that was really transformational for them but also challenging. And they also are hiring lots of people because the subscription business is going really well. ... I think that in this business, things are never over. It’s like politics. It’s a dynamic situation. I think over the last couple of years, in a big cultural sense, Trump swung the pendulum back toward legacy media because that’s what he’s obsessed with.
Peter Kafka
Right. He’s a New York guy who reads New York print newspapers.
Ben Smith
Yeah.
Peter Kafka
And watches TV.
Ben Smith
And massively elevated them. Where Obama had been interested in the future and interested in digital media and had elevated digital media. And I think that distinction is blurred between what’s digital and print. But I think that ultimately having a legacy business is still a huge, huge problem for anybody who’s printing. Anybody who’s broadcasting is putting a lot of their resources into maintaining a legacy business.
You can listen to our full conversation here or below:


vox--2020-01-30--Democrats used their impeachment questions to call out Trump’s lies and sexual misconduct

Senators finally got to participate in the impeachment trial on Wednesday — and they did not hold back .
For eight hours , senators were able to ask House impeachment managers and President Donald Trump ’ s defense just about anything they ’ d like to know about their respective cases , submitting written questions that were read aloud by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts .
While a large chunk of the more than 90 questions were designed to allow the two sides to simply reiterate the strengths of their case , several Democrats explicitly — and effectively — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president for other weaknesses .
Here are three instances when lawmakers used their questions to make a point about Trump .
Question to House impeachment managers : “ President Nixon said , ‘ When the president does it , that means that it is not illegal.
’ Before he was elected , President Trump said , ‘ When you ’ re a star , they let you do it .
You can do anything.
’ After he was elected , President Trump said that Article II of the Constitution gives him ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] want [ s ] as president.
’ “ These statements suggest that each of them believed that the president is above the law —a belief reflected in the improper actions that both presidents took to affect their reelection campaigns .
If the Senate fails to hold the president accountable for misconduct , how would that undermine the integrity of our system of justice ?
” Harris ’ s question refocused attention on an explosive moment in Trump ’ s 2016 campaign , when an Access Hollywood tape leaked and showed him bragging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commit sexual assault .
It raised a direct parallel with the way he has talked about his expansive power as president , and it also reminded lawmakers — and the public — about another damning set of allegations Trump faces : Currently , more than 20 women have accused Trump of sexual misconduct .
“ If you look at the pattern in this president ’ s conduct in his words , what you see is a president who identifies the state as being himself , ” impeachment manager Adam Schiff said in his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many times Trump has lied Question to House impeachment managers : “ Republican lawyers have stated on several occasions that two people , Sen. Johnson and Ambassador Sondland , were told directly by President Trump that there was no quid pro quo in terms of holding back Ukraine aid in exchange for an investigation into the Bidens .
“ Given the media has documented President Trump ’ s thousands of lies while in office , more than 16,200 as of January 20 , why should we be expected to believe that anything President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s question explicitly took a swipe at Trump ’ s trustworthiness , an ongoing pattern that ’ s been an undercurrent of his presidency ever since he took office .
In the years since his election , Trump has lied about countless subjects including who will bear the burden of tariffs , his focus on protecting Americans with preexisting conditions , and the amount of money Puerto Rico has received for disaster aid .
“ I ’ m not quite sure where to begin with that question except to say that if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exonerated just by denying the crime , there would be no trial .
It doesn ’ t work that way , ” said Schiff .
Question to House impeachment managers : “ The president ’ s counsel has argued that Hunter Biden ’ s involvement with Burisma created a conflict of interest for his father Joe Biden .
President Trump , the Trump organization , and his family , including those who serve in the White House , maintain significant business interests in foreign countries and benefit from foreign payments and investments .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s counsel has applied to Hunter Biden , should Mr. Kushner and Ms. Trump ’ s conflict of interest with foreign governments also come under investigation ?
” This group of lawmakers sought to underscore the hypocrisy of Republicans ’ push to criticize Hunter Biden , whose seat on the board of Burisma , a Ukrainian natural gas company , has been at the center of the impeachment inquiry .
Although Hunter Biden ’ s board seat certainly doesn ’ t look good , Democrats noted that members of Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the administration , could similarly be scrutinized .
Jared Kushner , for example , continues to own part of Cadre , a real estate company that has received an influx of foreign investment , even as he ’ s served as an adviser in the White House , the Guardian reports .
“ The reason why we ’ re here has nothing to do with anybody ’ s children , ” impeachment manager Val Demings said .
“ The reason why we ’ re here is because the president of the United States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to try to shake down a foreign power to interfere in this year ’ s election .
”

Senators finally got to participate in the impeachment trial on Wednesday — and they did not hold back.
For eight hours, senators were able to ask House impeachment managers and President Donald Trump’s defense just about anything they’d like to know about their respective cases, submitting written questions that were read aloud by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.
While a large chunk of the more than 90 questions were designed to allow the two sides to simply reiterate the strengths of their case, several Democrats explicitly — and effectively — capitalized on this opportunity to call out the president for other weaknesses.
Here are three instances when lawmakers used their questions to make a point about Trump.
Kamala Harris cited the Access Hollywood tape
Question to House impeachment managers: “President Nixon said, ‘When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.’ Before he was elected, President Trump said, ‘When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.’ After he was elected, President Trump said that Article II of the Constitution gives him ‘the right to do whatever [he] want[s] as president.’
“These statements suggest that each of them believed that the president is above the law —a belief reflected in the improper actions that both presidents took to affect their reelection campaigns. If the Senate fails to hold the president accountable for misconduct, how would that undermine the integrity of our system of justice?”
Asked by: Sen. Kamala Harris (CA)
Harris’s question refocused attention on an explosive moment in Trump’s 2016 campaign, when an Access Hollywood tape leaked and showed him bragging about abusing his position of power to commit sexual assault.
It raised a direct parallel with the way he has talked about his expansive power as president, and it also reminded lawmakers — and the public — about another damning set of allegations Trump faces: Currently, more than 20 women have accused Trump of sexual misconduct.
“If you look at the pattern in this president’s conduct in his words, what you see is a president who identifies the state as being himself,” impeachment manager Adam Schiff said in his response.
Bernie Sanders emphasized just how many times Trump has lied
Question to House impeachment managers: “Republican lawyers have stated on several occasions that two people, Sen. Johnson and Ambassador Sondland, were told directly by President Trump that there was no quid pro quo in terms of holding back Ukraine aid in exchange for an investigation into the Bidens.
“Given the media has documented President Trump’s thousands of lies while in office, more than 16,200 as of January 20, why should we be expected to believe that anything President Trump says has credibility?”
Asked by: Sen. Bernie Sanders (VT)
Sanders’s question explicitly took a swipe at Trump’s trustworthiness, an ongoing pattern that’s been an undercurrent of his presidency ever since he took office.
In the years since his election, Trump has lied about countless subjects including who will bear the burden of tariffs, his focus on protecting Americans with preexisting conditions, and the amount of money Puerto Rico has received for disaster aid.
Sanders drew attention to this recurring issue.
“I’m not quite sure where to begin with that question except to say that if every defendant in a trial could be exonerated just by denying the crime, there would be no trial. It doesn’t work that way,” said Schiff.
Udall raised Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner’s foreign business dealings
Question to House impeachment managers: “The president’s counsel has argued that Hunter Biden’s involvement with Burisma created a conflict of interest for his father Joe Biden. President Trump, the Trump organization, and his family, including those who serve in the White House, maintain significant business interests in foreign countries and benefit from foreign payments and investments.
“By the standard that the president’s counsel has applied to Hunter Biden, should Mr. Kushner and Ms. Trump’s conflict of interest with foreign governments also come under investigation?”
Asked by: Sens. Tom Udall (NM), Richard Blumenthal (CT), Patrick Leahy (VT), and Sheldon Whitehouse (RI)
This group of lawmakers sought to underscore the hypocrisy of Republicans’ push to criticize Hunter Biden, whose seat on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian natural gas company, has been at the center of the impeachment inquiry.
Although Hunter Biden’s board seat certainly doesn’t look good, Democrats noted that members of Trump’s family, who are also part of the administration, could similarly be scrutinized. Jared Kushner, for example, continues to own part of Cadre, a real estate company that has received an influx of foreign investment, even as he’s served as an adviser in the White House, the Guardian reports.
“The reason why we’re here has nothing to do with anybody’s children,” impeachment manager Val Demings said. “The reason why we’re here is because the president of the United States ... used the power of his office to try to shake down a foreign power to interfere in this year’s election.”


vox--2020-01-30--The Puppy Bowl, explained

The Puppy Bowl, explained

On Super Bowl Sunday , Americans across the country will gather in front of their televisions and laptops , forgetting for a few brief , shining moments their bitter ideological divides and giving themselves over to one of the cultural events that truly makes America great : the Puppy Bowl .
Animal Planet ’ s most adorable competition airs Sunday , February 2 , for the 16th year in a row of delighting football fans and non-fans alike with hours of furry antics .
But how exactly did the Puppy Bowl become the surprisingly elaborate , sponsor-heavy cultural staple it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things you may not know about the pup-ular television event .
The Puppy Bowl was conceived as something akin to the Yule Log , but for football ( and with puppies ) The year 2005 , when Jacksonville , Florida , hosted the New England Patriots and the Philadelphia Eagles for its first Super Bowl , also marked the birth of the Puppy Bowl .
It was designed as counterprogramming to the biggest event in American sports , but the actual concept — tiny puppies cavorting on a mini football field — was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggested in jest , by Animal Planet executives .
As Rolling Stone recounted in 2014 : But that joking suggestion found an audience : Puppy Bowl I , filmed in Silver Spring , Maryland , drew 5.8 million viewers across its 12-hour broadcast , and an annual tradition was born .
The Puppy Bowl scores big for Animal Planet ’ s ratings — and its advertising dollars Since that first Puppy Bowl , the event has grown immensely in both scope and viewership , to the extent that it now dominates Animal Planet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Where the first Puppy Bowl was a low-concept 12-hour montage of puppies wandering in front of a camera , sans commentary or sponsors , the Puppy Bowl as we know it today is a highly structured and marketed capital-E Event that represents Animal Planet ’ s biggest annual programming initiative .
Though it was conceived as “ counterprogramming ” to the big game itself , and is frequently presented as alternative viewing for those who aren ’ t interested in the Super Bowl , the Puppy Bowl ’ s initial broadcast each year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the lead-up to the Super Bowl ’ s broadcast later in the day , positioning it more as supplemental viewing than competition for eyeballs .
In 2018 , Animal Planet also debuted a companion program , “ The Puppy Bowl Presents : The Dog Bowl ” ; the one-hour special aimed to spotlight older adoptable dogs , who often get passed over at shelters .
It returns this year , airing on February 1 at 8 pm ; per People , this year ’ s 65 participants ( divided into Team Goldies and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and range in age from 3 to 15 .
The animal programming is even spilling over to other channels ; also on February 1 , the Hallmark Channel is airing “ Cat Bowl II , ” featuring participants from previous Kitten Bowl halftime shows ( more on that below ) .
Factor in other supplementary Puppy Bowl programming like a pregame show , a “ where are they now ” special featuring players from Puppy Bowls past , and a Puppy Bowl–themed episode of Animal Planet ’ s brilliantly mindless series Too Cute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for almost an entire day of the network ’ s programming .
This strategy has paid off in terms of both ratings and sponsorships , and underlines the Puppy Bowl ’ s evolution from a “ what if ” lark to a robust television franchise .
In its sixth year in 2011 , the Puppy Bowl drew more than 9 million viewers over its multiple airings , a benchmark that Animal Planet general manager Rick Holzman characterized as a tipping point for the event , the moment when it “ [ took ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and “ became part of the pop-culture fabric of the Super Bowl.
” Since then , each Puppy Bowl has drawn 10 million or more viewers over its 12-hour block — a fraction of the 110 million-plus who tune in to the Super Bowl each year , but a very healthy pull by cable standards .
That increase in ratings and profile has turned the Puppy Bowl into a sponsorship bonanza in recent years .
The Puppy Bowl field , which became the Geico Puppy Bowl Stadium in 2012 , is now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pedigree , Petco ) and not so much ( Subaru , AT & T ) .
There are plenty of supplementary branding opportunities that take their inspiration from football , like a Dairy Queen Kiss Cam and a Sheba cat food “ VIP suite.
” And Animal Planet ’ s strategy of making potential Puppy Bowl sponsors commit to advertising on the network ’ s other programming has turned the event into a big part of the network ’ s advertising year .
To keep things feeling fresh ( and conveniently allow for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ network has also added an ever-increasing number of bells and whistles over the years .
One of the event ’ s better-known features , the kitten halftime show — sorry , make that the ARM & HAMMER™ SLIDE™ Cat Litter Kitty Halftime Show — has been around since the event ’ s second iteration , in 2006 .
Newer flourishes include but aren ’ t limited to a rotating species of cheerleaders ( bunnies inaugurated the role in 2010 , and it ’ s since gone to chickens , pigs , hedgehogs , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Silkie chickens ) ; a bird “ commentator ” named Meep that live- “ tweets ” during the game ; a hamster-piloted mini blimp ; halftime cameos from animal celebrities such as Keyboard Cat ; and refereeing assistance from Shirley the rescue sloth .
In 2014 , there was even a Puppy Bowl “ training camp ” hosted on the White House lawn by then-first lady Michelle Obama and first dogs Sunny and Bo .
Yes , there are rules to the game ... sort of Unlike its human-based rival event , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s actually filmed several months in advance , using multiple cameras and rotating its furry participants in and out ; the footage is then cut down to highlight the cutest and most action-filled moments possible .
As longtime Puppy Bowl referee Dan Schachner explained in a 2015 Reddit Ask Me Anything session : As multi-year Puppy Bowl camera operator Cory Popp told the A.V .
Club the same year , “ What you see on TV is only the best of the best , but there ’ s actually like 70 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quite sure what they ’ re going to do .
Because they ’ re puppies , they ’ re not trained , they ’ re just doing whatever they want to do .
It ’ s just hoping for the best.
” Over the years , the Puppy Bowl has introduced various new camera angles , such as a water bowl camera ( just what it sounds like ) and even cameras attached to the chew toys scattered about the field .
Peanut butter smeared on the larger ( hopefully waterproof ) cameras @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in action , and while Schachner is the only person seen onscreen during the bowl , a robust staff of humans work behind the scenes to keep the field mostly free of ( on-camera ) puppy accidents .
The rules of the Puppy Bowl aren ’ t too stringent and are mostly loose riffs on existing American football rules .
If a puppy drags one of the multiple on-field chew toys across the finish line ( on either side ) , it ’ s considered a touchdown .
Though as Popp recounted to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s more exciting for the observing humans than the participating dogs : There are also pun-based rulings like “ pass inter-fur-ence ” and “ unnecessary ruffness , ” as well as more , er , dog-specific calls like “ premature watering of the field.
” As for the participants themselves , there are a few eligibility requirements : They must all be within 12 and 21 weeks of age , well-socialized , and vaccinated .
They must also meet certain height and weight restrictions due to the size of the “ stadium.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , one dog has been crowned MVP of each game — though now it changes with each repeat broadcast , depending on online votes from viewers .
But it wasn ’ t until 2015 that actual competition was introduced .
Since then , the puppies have been divided into Team Ruff and Team Fluff , with the “ highest-scoring ” team taking home bragging ( wagging ? )
rights .
And starting in 2017 , an actual prize has been awarded to the winning team : the “ Lombarky Trophy , ” a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bowl is a high-profile showcase for adoptable animals from across the country Despite all the spectacle , the Puppy Bowl has stayed true to its tradition of giving a major platform to adoptable dogs and animal shelters .
A video on the Puppy Bowl ’ s website brags that the event is “ the biggest game in adoption , ” and it ’ s true that every year the canine participants ( there are 96 total this year ) come from shelters and rescue organizations around the country , and are all available @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the featured kittens and many of the other animals that appear onscreen during the event — not the penguins , though . )
Some of last year ’ s contestants , for instance , hailed from rescue operations in Costa Rica and Puerto Rico , which was struggling to recover from Hurricane Maria .
Such well-publicized balls of fluff seem to have no trouble finding furever homes .
Because the Puppy Bowl is filmed several months before it airs and the participants are well-publicized on the event ’ s website , generally all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even during the event .
If any dogs haven ’ t been adopted by the time the Puppy Bowl airs , come kickoff they ’ re likely to go quickly .
As Schachner explained in his Reddit AMA : Also of note is that Animal Planet commits to featuring dogs with disabilities in the event ’ s lineup .
Says WUSA9 : “ Puppy Bowl XVI will also feature five special needs players including Ferris , a three-legged Labrador Retriever mix ; two hearing impaired pups , a blind and hearing impaired puppy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Animal Planet also works with organizations on real-life adoption events that double as Puppy Bowl promotion : A 2017 New York City event featuring Schachner resulted in 26 animal adoptions , with fees covered by Animal Planet , and similar Puppy Bowl-related events are a common fundraising and promotional opportunity for shelters and rescues .
So while the Puppy Bowl may have morphed from its humble roots into a ratings and branding juggernaut over the years , its intentions have always gone beyond making money for Animal Planet and its sponsors .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cause involves adorable puppies , it ’ s easy to get the message across .
Puppy Bowl XIV airs Sunday , February 2 , at 3 pm Eastern on Animal Planet , and will repeat throughout the day .
The Dog Bowl airs Saturday , February 1 , at 8 pm , also on Animal Planet .
If you don ’ t have a cable login , you can find clips on the Puppy Bowl ’ s YouTube channel .
Watch : How the Puppy Bowl gets made

On Super Bowl Sunday, Americans across the country will gather in front of their televisions and laptops, forgetting for a few brief, shining moments their bitter ideological divides and giving themselves over to one of the cultural events that truly makes America great: the Puppy Bowl. Animal Planet’s most adorable competition airs Sunday, February 2, for the 16th year in a row of delighting football fans and non-fans alike with hours of furry antics.
But how exactly did the Puppy Bowl become the surprisingly elaborate, sponsor-heavy cultural staple it is today? Here are a few things you may not know about the pup-ular television event.
The Puppy Bowl was conceived as something akin to the Yule Log, but for football (and with puppies)
The year 2005, when Jacksonville, Florida, hosted the New England Patriots and the Philadelphia Eagles for its first Super Bowl, also marked the birth of the Puppy Bowl. It was designed as counterprogramming to the biggest event in American sports, but the actual concept — tiny puppies cavorting on a mini football field — was, like many great ideas, initially suggested in jest, by Animal Planet executives. As Rolling Stone recounted in 2014:
During a meeting, a suggestion was made that the best defense against the programming juggernaut would be to "point a camera at puppies" on a football field, in a sort of dog version of the televised burning Yule Log that airs every holiday season. Margo Kent, the executive producer for Puppy Bowl I, remembers that "It was always a joke: How do you counter the Super Bowl? Let's just put a box of puppies up there and call it a day. It's not worth trying to go against the Super Bowl."
But that joking suggestion found an audience: Puppy Bowl I, filmed in Silver Spring, Maryland, drew 5.8 million viewers across its 12-hour broadcast, and an annual tradition was born.
The Puppy Bowl scores big for Animal Planet’s ratings — and its advertising dollars
Since that first Puppy Bowl, the event has grown immensely in both scope and viewership, to the extent that it now dominates Animal Planet’s Super Bowl Sunday programming. Where the first Puppy Bowl was a low-concept 12-hour montage of puppies wandering in front of a camera, sans commentary or sponsors, the Puppy Bowl as we know it today is a highly structured and marketed capital-E Event that represents Animal Planet’s biggest annual programming initiative.
Though it was conceived as “counterprogramming” to the big game itself, and is frequently presented as alternative viewing for those who aren’t interested in the Super Bowl, the Puppy Bowl’s initial broadcast each year is in the early afternoon, in the lead-up to the Super Bowl’s broadcast later in the day, positioning it more as supplemental viewing than competition for eyeballs.
In 2018, Animal Planet also debuted a companion program, “The Puppy Bowl Presents: The Dog Bowl”; the one-hour special aimed to spotlight older adoptable dogs, who often get passed over at shelters. It returns this year, airing on February 1 at 8 pm; per People, this year’s 65 participants (divided into Team Goldies and Team Oldies) come from 32 shelters and range in age from 3 to 15.
The animal programming is even spilling over to other channels; also on February 1, the Hallmark Channel is airing “Cat Bowl II,” featuring participants from previous Kitten Bowl halftime shows (more on that below).
Factor in other supplementary Puppy Bowl programming like a pregame show, a “where are they now” special featuring players from Puppy Bowls past, and a Puppy Bowl–themed episode of Animal Planet’s brilliantly mindless series Too Cute!, and the Puppy Bowl accounts for almost an entire day of the network’s programming.
This strategy has paid off in terms of both ratings and sponsorships, and underlines the Puppy Bowl’s evolution from a “what if” lark to a robust television franchise. In its sixth year in 2011, the Puppy Bowl drew more than 9 million viewers over its multiple airings, a benchmark that Animal Planet general manager Rick Holzman characterized as a tipping point for the event, the moment when it “[took] on a life of its own,” and “became part of the pop-culture fabric of the Super Bowl.” Since then, each Puppy Bowl has drawn 10 million or more viewers over its 12-hour block — a fraction of the 110 million-plus who tune in to the Super Bowl each year, but a very healthy pull by cable standards.
That increase in ratings and profile has turned the Puppy Bowl into a sponsorship bonanza in recent years. The Puppy Bowl field, which became the Geico Puppy Bowl Stadium in 2012, is now plastered with brand names both pet-related (Pedigree, Petco) and not so much (Subaru, AT&T). There are plenty of supplementary branding opportunities that take their inspiration from football, like a Dairy Queen Kiss Cam and a Sheba cat food “VIP suite.” And Animal Planet’s strategy of making potential Puppy Bowl sponsors commit to advertising on the network’s other programming has turned the event into a big part of the network’s advertising year.
To keep things feeling fresh (and conveniently allow for even more sponsorship opportunities), the network has also added an ever-increasing number of bells and whistles over the years. One of the event’s better-known features, the kitten halftime show — sorry, make that the ARM & HAMMER™ SLIDE™ Cat Litter Kitty Halftime Show — has been around since the event’s second iteration, in 2006.
Newer flourishes include but aren’t limited to a rotating species of cheerleaders (bunnies inaugurated the role in 2010, and it’s since gone to chickens, pigs, hedgehogs, penguins, Nigerian dwarf goats, and Silkie chickens); a bird “commentator” named Meep that live-“tweets” during the game; a hamster-piloted mini blimp; halftime cameos from animal celebrities such as Keyboard Cat; and refereeing assistance from Shirley the rescue sloth. In 2014, there was even a Puppy Bowl “training camp” hosted on the White House lawn by then-first lady Michelle Obama and first dogs Sunny and Bo.
Yes, there are rules to the game ... sort of
Unlike its human-based rival event, the Puppy Bowl does not happen live. It’s actually filmed several months in advance, using multiple cameras and rotating its furry participants in and out; the footage is then cut down to highlight the cutest and most action-filled moments possible. As longtime Puppy Bowl referee Dan Schachner explained in a 2015 Reddit Ask Me Anything session:
The Puppy Bowl is shot about 3 months in advance. A lot of people don't know this. The reason why it takes so much time is the Puppy Bowl broadcast is a 2 hour event, but it is not a 2 hour event to film - it takes 2 FULL DAYS to film. Reason being, we are trying to showcase as many different puppies as possible, and we want to rotate them in and out, and give them as many chances to have action on the field as possible! Additionally, there are 17 cameras shooting the action on the field at the same time. You can imagine, 2 days of shooting, 17 cameras, that is hundreds if not thousands of hours of footage that needs to be watched, logged, and edited.
As multi-year Puppy Bowl camera operator Cory Popp told the A.V. Club the same year, “What you see on TV is only the best of the best, but there’s actually like 70 dogs there and you’re never quite sure what they’re going to do. Because they’re puppies, they’re not trained, they’re just doing whatever they want to do. It’s just hoping for the best.”
Over the years, the Puppy Bowl has introduced various new camera angles, such as a water bowl camera (just what it sounds like) and even cameras attached to the chew toys scattered about the field. Peanut butter smeared on the larger (hopefully waterproof) cameras encourages the pups to lick them while in action, and while Schachner is the only person seen onscreen during the bowl, a robust staff of humans work behind the scenes to keep the field mostly free of (on-camera) puppy accidents.
The rules of the Puppy Bowl aren’t too stringent and are mostly loose riffs on existing American football rules. If a puppy drags one of the multiple on-field chew toys across the finish line (on either side), it’s considered a touchdown. Though as Popp recounted to the A.V. Club, it’s more exciting for the observing humans than the participating dogs:
[The people are] screaming and yelling as the dog’s going toward the goal line, and it happens, I don’t know, a hundred times throughout the day where a dog will make it like five yards from the goal line and then drop the toy and start playing with another dog. It’s this big arc of emotion and then it drops because everybody’s really bummed that he didn’t run across the goal line and score a touchdown.
There are also pun-based rulings like “pass inter-fur-ence” and “unnecessary ruffness,” as well as more, er, dog-specific calls like “premature watering of the field.”
As for the participants themselves, there are a few eligibility requirements: They must all be within 12 and 21 weeks of age, well-socialized, and vaccinated. They must also meet certain height and weight restrictions due to the size of the “stadium.”
Since the Puppy Bowl’s inception, one dog has been crowned MVP of each game — though now it changes with each repeat broadcast, depending on online votes from viewers. But it wasn’t until 2015 that actual competition was introduced. Since then, the puppies have been divided into Team Ruff and Team Fluff, with the “highest-scoring” team taking home bragging (wagging?) rights. And starting in 2017, an actual prize has been awarded to the winning team: the “Lombarky Trophy,” a large Petco-branded stuffed toy.
The Puppy Bowl is a high-profile showcase for adoptable animals from across the country
Despite all the spectacle, the Puppy Bowl has stayed true to its tradition of giving a major platform to adoptable dogs and animal shelters. A video on the Puppy Bowl’s website brags that the event is “the biggest game in adoption,” and it’s true that every year the canine participants (there are 96 total this year) come from shelters and rescue organizations around the country, and are all available for adoption. (Same goes for the featured kittens and many of the other animals that appear onscreen during the event — not the penguins, though.) Some of last year’s contestants, for instance, hailed from rescue operations in Costa Rica and Puerto Rico, which was struggling to recover from Hurricane Maria.
Such well-publicized balls of fluff seem to have no trouble finding furever homes. Because the Puppy Bowl is filmed several months before it airs and the participants are well-publicized on the event’s website, generally all Puppy Bowl participants are adopted before or even during the event. If any dogs haven’t been adopted by the time the Puppy Bowl airs, come kickoff they’re likely to go quickly. As Schachner explained in his Reddit AMA:
Literally, it takes MINUTES. As soon as people start watching Puppy Bowl, they can go to AnimalPlanet.com and look up the puppy profile, which will connect you with the shelter or rescue center that has them! And you can be sure that within 5 minutes — you have to act quickly. So what we like to say is "Don't worry if the dog or cat you fell in love with is no longer available — because they are part of litters, and they will probably have brothers or sisters that you can adopt, even if that one star puppy isn't there!
Also of note is that Animal Planet commits to featuring dogs with disabilities in the event’s lineup. Says WUSA9: “Puppy Bowl XVI will also feature five special needs players including Ferris, a three-legged Labrador Retriever mix; two hearing impaired pups, a blind and hearing impaired puppy and one with a cleft palate.”
Animal Planet also works with organizations on real-life adoption events that double as Puppy Bowl promotion: A 2017 New York City event featuring Schachner resulted in 26 animal adoptions, with fees covered by Animal Planet, and similar Puppy Bowl-related events are a common fundraising and promotional opportunity for shelters and rescues.
So while the Puppy Bowl may have morphed from its humble roots into a ratings and branding juggernaut over the years, its intentions have always gone beyond making money for Animal Planet and its sponsors. And as it turns out, when your cause involves adorable puppies, it’s easy to get the message across.
Puppy Bowl XIV airs Sunday, February 2, at 3 pm Eastern on Animal Planet, and will repeat throughout the day. The Dog Bowl airs Saturday, February 1, at 8 pm, also on Animal Planet. If you don’t have a cable login, you can find clips on the Puppy Bowl’s YouTube channel.
Watch: How the Puppy Bowl gets made