“It’s reported that Newt Gingrich didn’t call to congratulate you on the victory in Florida,” Lauer said. “Is that true? Were you expecting a call, and does it say something about the animosity that’s developed between the two of you?”

“Newt didn’t call after Iowa or New Hampshire,” Gov. Romney revealed. “I called him after South Carolina, his win there, but he didn’t call last night. The other candidates all called. I don’t know. I guess Speaker Gingrich doesn’t have our phone number.”

Calling your opponent after a victory is customary, like shaking hands with the other team at the end of a Little League game, but it’s one of those things that nobody notices unless some kids spits in his hand first. One famous example is Al Gore’s 2000 anti-concession call to George W. Bush, in which Gore told Bush ”You don’t have to get snippy about it.”

Lauer described it as a “trivial matter,” but it does illustrate something about this year’s campaign.

In 2008, then-Sen. Hillary Clinton made headlines when she failed to call then-Sen. Barack Obama (or mention the wins in post-primary speeches) after two primary victories, but that was in mid-February, after 29 primary contests had already been held, and a lot more water had gone under the bridge. Gingrich, if Romney is to be believed, began choking on sour grapes out of the gate.

To be fair, Gingrich has been been the Romney campaign’s personal batting-practice ball for months now, culminating in the running of 92% negative ads in the week before the Florida primary. On a human level, it’s easy to understand why Gingrich might not be anxious to reach out and touch Romney after an attack-fueled vivtory.

On the other hand, it’s tough to shed any crocodile tears (or even a tear of newt) for Gingrich, given the nastiness with which he has attacked President Obama. Those attacks notwithstanding, if Gingrich somehow manages to win the privilege of losing to Barack Obama, I’m betting the President calls him anyway, maybe to favor him with a song.

Here’s the clip, from NBC’s Today show:

“Did you talk to the President and First Lady while researching the book?” Lauer pressed.

RELATED: Axelrod Confirms That Robert Gibbs Did Curse Michelle Obama

“The book is mostly reported through top aides and close friends of the president and First Lady,” Kantor responded. “I’m one of the only people to get access to the East Wing and the First Lady’s staff there. What I found is that aides and friends were able to tell stories that the Obamas don’t talk about, like what happened the first time they tried to go home to Chicago.”

Lauer presented pushback from the White House, which called her book an “overdramatization of old news.”

“Are you kind of taking poetic license here?” Lauer questioned.

“They haven’t disputed any of the facts,” Kantor argued.

Kantor went into more details about how First Lady Michelle Obama hasn’t been involved in the day-to-day activities of the West Wing.

“Is she disappointed with what’s happened so far?” Lauer asked.

“According to my reporting, there were times she was really frustrated,” Kantor revealed.

Watch Lauer’s exclusive interview with Kantor below, via NBC:

RELATED: This Exists: Elderly Couple Caught On Webcam Trying To Work A Computer

For those who don’t remember, Bruce and Esther Huffman became Internet celebrities after they tried to take their picture with a webcam and accidentally recorded themselves for three minutes. The video is amazing and will bring a renewed joy to anyone who spent the past weekend struggling valiantly to teach the seniors in their lives how to use a new smart phone or laptop.*

*Hello, Grandmother! If you’re reading this, I’m glad you finally got past your iPad’s “Create a Password” setup screen!

During the interview, it was revealed that Bruce Huffman is a ping pong champion back home which led to a competition between he and Lauer. Lauer employed perhaps the best intimidation (kudos to the man for being likable enough to get away with smack talking an 87 year old on live TV) when he strapped a webcam to his own head for the game because, as he put it, he knows “those things freak you out a little bit.”

The whole thing was pretty great. Watch the segment from NBC below:

(h/t Brian Stelter’s “Top of the Morning” blog)

After discussing the death of North Korean leader Kim Jong-Ill, O’Reilly was quizzed about the GOP primary. Regarding the recent rhetorical back-and-forth between Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, O’Reilly sort of shrugged with a “who cares?!” attitude, claiming that both of these guys will say whatever they can to get the nomination. He is a big fan of Michele Bachmann as a person, though not as a serious presidential candidate. And the legion of Ron Paul supporters will note that O’Reilly thinks that Paul’s foreign policy disqualifies him to serve as commander-in-chief (though some have surmised that his loyal support comes as a result of the very same foreign policy.)

Watch the clip below, courtesy of NBC News:

Lauer kicked things off by reading Trump recent, less-than-laudatory comments made by George Will, as well as by GOP candidate Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman. Will, Lauer recounted, had opined that the GOP candidates would do well to stay away from the debate, adding that Paul had described the debate as being “beneath the office of the presidency” and it contributes to an “unwanted, circus-like atmosphere” and that Huntsman’s people had called it “The Apprentice: Presidential Debate.”

RELATED: Rep. Ron Paul Reacts To Trump’s Debate Invite; Trump Calls Paul ‘Clown-Like’

The reality TV host responded by saying that Paul and Huntsman have “zero chance of being elected, so it makes no difference.” Trump – who once flirted with entering the GOP race himself – then called the two politicians “joke candidates.”

“I think it’ll get tremendous ratings,” Trump then said of the debate, after being asked by Lauer whether other candidates are choosing to attend simply in the hopes of gaining his endorsement and support. He then continued to tout his own popularity and success in the polls, only to be interrupted by Lauer:

I’ve known you for a long time. Let me just tie this up by asking you… This isn’t going to be all about Donald Trump. You’re not going to use this as a way to get on center stage and talk about what you believe. This will truly be about the candidates. Right?

Trump then weighed in on candidate Newt Gingrich‘s recent comment about poor children’s lack of work ethic, opining that Gingrich is surging in popularity because he “tells it like it is.”

Oh, and in case you did want to hear more from Trump about Trump, he told Lauer that he won’t entirely rule out running as a third party candidate this May.

Have a look at the full interview, courtesy of NBC:

Conservative bloggers lambasted Gregory for his Klu Klux Klan reference. Ed Morrissey from Hot Air called the Meet The Press anchor’s comments “jaw-dropping”, saying, “What’s the implication here? That the Democratic Party has “grand wizards” that can boot candidates out of presidential races against their will? Can someone please take the race card out of Gregory’s less-than-full deck, please?”

Shortly after his appearance this morning, Gregory apologized via Twitter, saying ““Wizard” remark this morning was a very poor choice of words. Did not mean to make that connection at all. Was not thinking. I apologize.”

Watch Gregory’s comment below on The Today Show via NBC:

(h/t Hot Air)

“I’d just like to say that none of those allegations are true. I know I”m going to be a target, but I’ll never be a victim,” Bieber said. “Every night after the show, I go right from the stage to my car. So it’s crazy that people want to make up such false allegations. But, to set the record straight: None of it is true.”

“Do you know this woman? Her name is Mariah. Have either of you ever met?” Lauer followed up. “Never met the woman!” Bieber replied.

“Obviously, this is what comes along with life in the fast lane, as they say,” Lauer postulated.

Watch the interview between Lauer and Bieber below via NBC:

However, since he is an ex-NBC employee, O’Brien had to visit the studio in cognito.

Donning a Unabomber-esque mustache and shades ensemble and calling himself “Charles LaFontagne,” Conan managed to appear in the background of the venerable morning show. It doesn’t hurt that he’s like a billion feet tall.

Watch the clip from TBS below:

(h/t BuzzFeed via I’m With Kanye)

The two segment long interview was the most recent evidence of efforts made by Madoff family survivors to distance themselves from the action of the man at the center of the Ponzi scheme from two plus years ago. Ruth Madoff seemed particularly divorced from his actions and repeatedly claimed no knowledge of the scandal, as did son Andrew. Lauer proved to be a particularly relevant interviewer with the disclaimer that he lives in the same building that houses the penthouse apartment where the Madoffs once lived.

The first segment dealt with recent allegations in the news, while the second focused more on the knowledge of the deceitful scheme while the second followed with how the family members have coped.

Watch for yourself, courtesy of NBC News:

Part 1:

Part 2:

“But you didn’t finalize a bill, Mr. Vice President,” Curry countered. “No. Hey! There’s no way to finalize a bill,” Biden replied. “It’s very clear these guys have no intention. When we put this bill together, we put together elements of a bill that they had always supported. When have Republicans been against tax cuts for small businesses? When have they been against working on infrastructure? When have they been against giving veterans a break? We put this bill after hundreds of hours of negotiations on debt and many other things with the Republicans the last two years.”

Curry followed up Biden’s response by pointing to the economic suffering in the country, and asking if there wasn’t a “moral obligation” for President Obama and the Republicans in Congress to come to some kind of agreement on jobs before the next election.

“Absolutely, positively Ann!” exclaimed Biden. “We have done everything. we bent over backwards. we had basically a deal on cutting the debt. they could not sell it to their own members. they made it clear under no circumstances are they prepared to pay for anything that we need to do now, so we don’t raise the debt further, in order to help people to have jobs. This is crazy!”

Curry finished the interview by provocatively asking if Biden would be replaced as the Vice Presidential nominee on the Democratic ticket.

“There’s never been a question about that,” Biden chuckled. “The president’s made that clear and hardly anybody is raising it anymore. I guess it’s parlor game talk but the parlor is even bare down here now.”

Watch the Vice President’s interview below via NBC:

Maddow correctly points out that enthusiasm is the key, and sees promise in the President’s current push, predicting that “(Republicans) are the ones that have to bend this time.”

Lauer opens the segment by asking about Palestine’s bid for UN recognition, a tough topic to cover in just over a minute. He asks whether the President has a “good option” between vetoing the resolution, or not. Maddow says his best option is to try to get the two sides to talk to each other, observing that the deadline could be helpful in that regard.

On the subject of the President’s slipping support with the base, Maddow said, “I don’t think the White House thinks it has a particular problem with the base. That said, if you lose support with the base, it has a multiplier effect.”

“But the fact of the matter,” Lauer said, “is you lose support among the base, what does that really mean in an election year? They have nowhere else to go.”

“They have nowhere else to go,” Maddow conceded, “but you need their enthusiasm.”

Maddow continued to push back on the idea that the President has a problem with the base, and cited broad public support for his latest policy proposals.

Lauer noted a shift in the President’s tone, asking what White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer means when he says “We’ve entered a new phase.”

“In the previous fights with Congressional Republicans, if things didn’t work out, things defaulted in the Congressional Republicans’ direction,” Maddow said, referring to the debt ceiling deal and the threatened government shutdown. “In this case…if things don’t work out, this trigger happens. The White House would be okay with letting the trigger happen. That puts the pressure on the Republicans, that they are the ones that have to bend this time.”

Maddow is encouraged by slight signs of bending by Sen. Jeff Sessions on taxing the rich.

While there may be Republicans who want to avoid those triggers, what Maddow, and the White House, ought to realize is that they will still have to sell any compromise to a Tea Party minority that has never met an iceberg it didn’t want to hit, and to squishy Democrats who never met a towel they didn’t want to throw in.

Here’s the clip, from NBC’s The Today Show:

Moore left jaws dropped in the days immediately following America’s entry into Iraq when he used his Oscar acceptance to speak out against the “fictitious times” with “fictitious election results,” “fictitious presidents,” and “fictitious wars.” Over the audience’s boos, he unforgettably cried: “We are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you!”

Savannah Guthrie made reference to the provocative moment, suggesting that he “seems to come very close to offering regret for saying that” in his book.

“Not at all, actually,” Moore quickly rejoined. Time has redeemed him, he says, “as years went on, and people realized what [he] said was accurate and true.” What he does, however, regret, is the toll his fiery habits have taken on his family:

“If I have any regret, it’s what it put me and my family through as a result of the amount of hatred that was generated on a certain news channel and on AM hate radio. They daily encouraged people to essentially commit acts of violence against me.”

There are stabs there, aimed presumably at Fox News, and specifically at Glenn Beck, who once thought out loud and on-air about killing him. But he points out that in his book he documents a half-a-dozen other threats he’s received, including “a very significant one that resulted in a prison term for an individual who was planning to blow up my house.” The impending danger, he insists, is “not really a feeling.”

He ends by saying, “I don’t understand, I make documentary films. You don’t really think that that’s the result of — it was just a little difficult.” Which may come off as naive; or, as has been suggested by Andrew Breitbart‘s right-leaning Big Hollywood, an attempt at victimhood. Either being the case, and as real as the regret probably is, Moore knows the weight of their words and work better than anyone; the risk is probably worth it.

Watch the segment below:

Along the eastern coast of the United States, experiences of the hurricane differ greatly, from a few fallen leaves and extra rain to a loss of power and dangerous flooding to over 20 hurricane-related deaths. That said, some reporters were selling the storm as “the hurricane of our lifetime,” which, after a quick comparison to storms like Katrina, Hugo or Andrew, just didn’t seem to be even close to realistic. But does “unrealistic” equate to “irresponsible”?

Well, reports NBC News’ Peter Alexander for Today, the storm has so far resulted in what is predicted to be as much as $7 billion in economic losses. But, he also points out, a whole lot of money may also have been “wasted” in preparations for and business closures because of the storm.

Then again, as New York Governor Andrew Cuomo put it, “Just because it ‘could’ve been worse,’ doesn’t mean the preparation wasn’t justified.” If you followed coverage of the blizzard that struck New York and New Jersey last winter, you’re also very much aware that, while it can lead to a case of “damned if you do, damned if you don’t,” it generally behooves politicians to prepare people for the worst case scenario than have them inadequately prepared and have a resulting fiasco on their hands.

Today‘s Al Roker then joined other weather experts to discuss the issue. The general consensus? People are going to complain about coverage either way, and it’s better to ensure they’re taking potential disasters seriously rather than risking more deaths and devastation.

Take a look at the segment, courtesy of NBC:

For the uninitiated, Morgan pressed O’Donnell on her position on gay marriage, a fair question seeing that it is a topic she includes in her book and is a controversial issue in the upcoming election season. Guthrie did not let the former Tea Party favorite off the hook, essentially asking her “what were you thinking in walking off the set mid-interview?”

Guthrie then challenged an assertion made by O’Donnell in a previous interview that Morgan was being somewhat sexist in his line of questioning, which led to the following exchange (rough transcript provided by TVEyes):

Guthrie: Let’s talk about that because you said flat out you think this line of questioning was sexist. but how do you get to that? The fact of the matter is you have had — you’ve made these comments about masturbation in your past, in the ’90s, and then you write about this in the book you are currently promoting. How is that not fair game? It is common practice to ask any politician, male or female, about their views.

O’Donnell: Right. I addressed — okay. I addressed the questions and I put it in context that, no, Ii would not do that interview again. I explained why I did the MTV interview in the ’90s, but then it goes into a personal nature and starts prying. Imagine if Bill Clinton were there. Would he ask him, do you still hang out with Monica Lewinsky? Come on, we talked about it in the ’90s? Do you still have that fascination with cigars, Bill? Come on, what’s wrong with this? No. If he did ask a male former candidate about that the outcry would be that it belonged on pay-per-view and not a reputable network like CNN. It was an inappropriate line of questioning. I addressed it the way I do in my book. What’s the same about this, Savannah, is the reviews that I’ve gotten, the people who have read the book, even if they disagree with me politically they tell me they finding it surprising and motivational story, that they really are enjoying the book. And all of this, you know, just like what happened in the campaign, the real message is being overshadowed. . that’s a shame because he’s doing it for ratings.

Guthrie: You say they are doing it for ratings. Let’s be honest, you’re wanting to sell books. Some people say it’s a publicity stunt on your part.

O’Donnell: Please. I didn’t want to do Piers Morgan, Honestly because I knew he resorted to these dirty tricks. no, it was certainly not a publicity stunt.

So not only does O’Donnell aggrandize herself by saying that she didn’t want to “do Piers Morgan” (implying that she was somehow a “get” or that she was doing CNN a favor by appearing on the show), but she also likens the line of questioning — and her political stature perhaps — to that of former president Bill Clinton. Huh?

The bottom line is this: whatever O’Donnell is doing to get attention is working. Whether its the sort of attention that will reclaim any sort of reputable image, sell books or just reinforce what many in the public already think of her remains to be seen.

Watch the clip below, courtesy of NBC:

I’m sure all the camera guys who shot b-roll for this segment must have been really excited. You know, for helping with great journalism and all.

Today’s investigating was so good for this piece that they answered their central question in the first minute, showing an interview with sexologist Logan Levkoff who explained everything:

“The fixation on breasts starts with this evolutionary blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah? Blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah.”

I apologize if that transcription wasn’t perfect. I got distracted because Levkoff is a woman and therefore has breasts.

Anyway, with the main question answered already, how was Today to fill the rest of the segment? Evidence. That’s right, every good investigation needs good evidence to illustrate the issue. I mean, how else are we to know men like boobies. There’s just no proof!

So, the brave Today crew then journeyed to a Hooters restaurant to make sure that the male of the species actually does like looking at large breasts in tight shirts. Turns out they do. Today proved this by borrowing some of the hidden camera investigative techniques employed by the seminal program The Man Show.

Still, though, the producers were wise enough to know that there might be some Doubting Thomases in the audience. “Sure,” they’d say. “Those guys liked boobs but that was such a small sample group!” So the segment then went to a Hooters knock-off restaurant (a “breastaurant” as the segment called it) named The Tilted Kilt. The findings there were similar but different in many important ways. Most importantly; the waitresses were wearing skirts.

All in all, it was a fascinating segment that you should watch. I’m gonna watch it again to see if I missed something. You can never learn too much.

Watch the piece from NBC below:

Man, an ugly Twitter fight? Ingraham’s going to get enough content for at least four more “OUR CULTURE IS BEING DEGRADED” books.

A few hours after Brown’s appearance on Today, Ingraham was guest hosting The O’Reilly Factor and she laid into the singer with a segment titled “NBC Rewarding Bad Behavior?” in which she showed clips of a producer confronting Brown’s fans with pictures of Rihanna’s battered face. Unsurprisingly, Brown was not thrilled. What is surprising is that he and 50 Cent apparently watch The O’Reilly Factor.

Soon, Ingraham responded:

As of yet, neither Brown nor 50 Cent have continued the fight although their fans have and, considering that Brown’s performance on Friday broke attendance records, it’s clear that there are still a lot of them. A quick look at the response has inevitably turned up everything from calm pleas for forgiveness to violent expletives and threats.

Like all battles between self-righteous TV personalities and troubled, violent musicians, this feud will most likely be beneficial to everyone involved. And that includes, of course, those of us watching from the sidelines.

Below, watch Ingraham’s segment on Brown from last Friday courtesy of Fox News:

For her part, Suleman tried to explain that the children’s rambunctiousness (which really wasn’t that bad considering their age and number) as unusual and caused by lack of sleep. More importantly though, she also said that the recent headline-making interview in In Touch was completely fabricated, that she never talked to them, and that she was considering legal action. Curry asked how she deals with all the nasty things written about her on the Internet and Suleman said she doesn’t read it as it would be of no help to the kids to focus on her regrets now. She also said that she can’t worry about the fear of not giving any one of her kids enough attention.

Still, one has to wonder, when a professional Today cameraman is having a hard time getting all of the kids in focus without leaving one out, how can a mother do that with parenting?

Side note: Worst part of the segment? Curry trying to shoehorn Casey Anthony into the discussion.

Watch the clip from NBC below:

From MSNBC.com:

“’I can tell you that if it was me, I would resign,’ Obama told Curry.

…

‘When you get to the point where, because of various personal distractions, you can’t serve as effectively as you need to, at the time when people are worrying about jobs, and their mortgages, and paying the bills — then you should probably step back,’ Obama said.

Obama added that what Weiner did was ‘highly inappropriate’ and that he has ‘embarrassed himself’ and his wife and family, but said it will ultimately come down to a decision by Weiner and his constituents as to whether he will continue in office.”

Apparently, most of the interview will actually echo Carney’s comments with Obama saying that the Weiner situation is low on his radar and much less important than other pressing information like “joblessness, the economy and Afghanistan.”

Watch the report from Fox News below:

Huh, good to know the Pope has the same tastes as my aunt who never married.

So why a crystal cat? Lauer explained:

“We had heard that this Pope has a real love for cats so what was in that box was a beautiful crystal cat that, who knows, could be on the table of papal gifts right now. I’m not sure where that goes but he seemed to accept it and like it and, anyway, we just wanted to offer him some gift to show our appreciation for the time and generosity he showed us.”

Ok, fine, the Bishop of Rome likes cats. I guess that was a good gift then. I mean, the Nook Color now has its own app store, but whatever. Crystal cat, sure…

Watch the clip from NBC below:

Lauer started by asking what Bachmann would do if she had been president on March 17th, when Muammar Gaddafi said his troops were coming and that he’d “show no mercy.” Bachmann said she would not have entered Libya.

“Well, I don’t think that, at that point, we had seen the threat to the United States either from Gaddafi or have we seen a vital American national interest at risk. That really needs to be our first line of defense because, unfortunately, there are atrocities that do happen in different parts of the world. We just saw, this weekend, slaughter in Syria. So, based upon that criteria of humanitarian intervention which apparently is the new Obama doctrine, that would be the basis for the United States to enter into one country after another. I don’t think that’s in the American interest.”

Lauer tried to pressure her to be more specific, asking her if she would tell the other nation’s in the UN that America would not be entering Libya and what she would do. Bachmann responded that presidents “stay involved and try to get the very best intelligence.” She then pointed out that we don’t know enough about the opposition in Libya for it to be safe to take a side.

If anyone had watched the interview and turned it off before the last question, they would be forgiven for assuming Bachmann was already really in the race.

Check out the clip from Today below:

Sheen claimed “I’m not into resisting the law” and willingly cooperated with the authorities who took his children, despite not knowing where they were being taken. After declaring, “I do not know where my children are,” Sheen asked his lawyer, who was sitting next to him, shouldn’t a father have the right to know the location of his children?

When NBC’s Jeff Rossen asked Sheen if he wanted to say anything directly to Mueller, Sheen turned to his lawyer asking “is that violating it, through live television, is that in the restraining order, those things get pretty creative these days?” His lawyer advised, “there’s only an order preventing you from contacting her, but you never want anything twisted.” In other words, you’re not prevented from saying anything to her, but you probably shouldn’t. Sheen seemed to understand the advice, and then promptly ignored it and spoke directly to her:

“Brooke I’m sorry that you felt this had to be done in this way, but this does not display any responsible parenting in anything that I’m familiar with . . . and I urge you to reach out to me and immediately if not sooner and tell me where our sons are.”

Just in case this all sounds a bit too serious, Sheen, possibly in an attempt to show he still maintains a good sense of humor, said he thought CBS president Les Moonves‘ joke about him was very funny and when Meredith Vieira jumped in with a final question, Sheen asked “is this the million dollar question?” referencing her other job as a game show host.

Watch the clip from NBC below:

Last week, a piece of footage arrived on the net. It could only be described as nostalgic. It was an episode of the Today Show from 1994 – with hosts Bryant Gumble and Katie Couric puzzeling over this thing called – ‘internet’.

It was – without a doubt – charming.

It reminded us all, for a moment, that this change swirling around us is really still a brand new thing. After all, 1994 is a scant 15 years ago. A blink of an eye. And for many of us, watching that clip brought us back to a time not long ago when we were wondering about this thing called ‘internet’.

With NBC a newly acquired asset of Comcast, and the News Division promised autonomy from their cable parent, this bip of video seemed like a brilliant piece of PR. Or, if not -then a creative web historian putting this bit of history out as a warm hearted reminder of just how far we’ve come.

Sadly, it was none of those things.

NBC, it seems, didn’t much want this video released. So, after finding the employee who’d raided the secret vaults – NBC fired the unnamed leaker. Thanks for the internet memories, now out you go.

Seriously?

This isn’t some backstage video, or private outtake. This was BROADCAST – as in, we’ve all seen it already. Or could have. And it wasn’t wikileaks top secret stuff, it was the FREAKING TODAY SHOW, ON NATIONAL TV.

Come on NBC, really?

Ok, I get that the employee broke a rule. And according to NBC, they’ve done it before. But since we don’t know their name, we’ll have to take NBC’s word for that.

The real issue here is about the chilling effect of NBC firing an employee for releasing a bit of what is essentially public domain material. What happens if an employee in the News Division sees a piece of footage that they think has been censored, should they just sweep it under the rug? NBC’s answer is clearly yes.

And then there’s the simple fact that it was harmless, funny, and frankly newsworthy enough that NBC used the clip on THE TODAY SHOW last week, benefiting from the memories, and the harmless introspection.

Broadcasters don’t get to control history. Funny, or not. Serious or Silly. And firing an employee for a harmless bit of footage on the web that had already been public seems to have echos of big brother.

The guy – or woman – should get their job back. Seriously.

Steve Rosenbaum is the CEO of the video platform Magnify a former magician, and an innovator in the new media space.

Not too much is known at this point but, a couple days ago, The Washington Post’s Rob Pegoraro tweeted this message:

Today, TechDirt reported on the situation, saying “the guy doesn’t want to talk about it beyond that, and NBC doesn’t appear too keen on commenting on the whole situation.” I certainly hope that, if this guy really got fired, then this wasn’t the reason.

Sure, the man was probably breaking his employee contract by leaking NBC-owned property (having worked a couple of very low level jobs in television, I know how strict and specific those contracts are and I understand why) but this video deserved to be out there. I don’t want to suddenly start sounding like Julian Assange all of a sudden, but people deserved to see it. Yes, the first reaction upon viewing the video was to laugh at how dumb the hosts sound to our 2011 ears, but most people will recognize, after thinking about it, that this video is one of the best proof of just how far our society has come in recent years. When you watch that video, you can’t help but realize that there are millions and millions of things that we take for granted that used to be absolutely impossible and you can’t help but feel proud for the human race. And, as we all know, that’s not something we get to do that often.

I know this sounds completely pretentious, but it’s true. That video, silly as it may seem, is important.

We have no way of knowing the reasons this guy got fired (or if the story’s actually true), but, if his only infraction was posting this one video, we hope NBC reconsiders.

(h/t Soup)

Check out the video in question below:

Looking back, of course Stewart was going to respond to that, and on tonight’s Daily Show, he did. In fact, as he did last night with Sarah Palin, he urged Beck to cut out the middleman, and appear on The Daily Show so he could ask Stewart himself. Stewart even sweetened the pot by offering Beck something he could use on his show in return for a guest appearance…but in another nod to last night’s show, his valiant effort kept getting ruined by obscene chyrons. Video of what we fear will be an unsuccessful sales pitch, via Comedy Central, below.

Hernandez, who ran towards the bullets as soon as he heard shots, checked several of the shooting victims for breath and pulse before seeing that Giffords had been hit. He tells Lauer that he “prioritized” Giffords because of the apparent severity of her wounds, staying by her side – even holding her upright in his lap – until help came. Hernandez then remained with Giffords in the helicopter ambulance, holding her hand until she arrived at the hospital for treatment.

How did Hernandez know what to do? It helps, he explains, that while in high school, he went through “basic” medical training towards becoming a certified nurses’ assistant.

The native Brooklynite, glad to be back on his home turf, very candidly shared how cocaine and alcohol derailed his life’s ambitions – and how an issue with his ID almost kept him from getting to New York. Williams then nearly broke into tears discussing how glad he was that his mother is still alive to see, as host Matt Lauer put it, his “redemption.”

Our favorite part? When Williams endearingly referred to Meredith Vieira as “Vieira,” then corrected himself with “Miss Meredith.”

On the plus side, as Roker himself so aptly pointed out, digging a van out of a veritable wall of snow is a great way to get in a little exercise in the morning. When the going gets tough, long-suffering weathermen get going. Someone get this man a hot cocoa. And a warmer hat.

However, like I said, this story begins sadly. On May 7, 2008, the Roberts family lost Kevin Casey, husband, father, and Army Staff Sergeant serving his third tour in Afghanistan. Ever since then, things have been hard, particularly Christmas. Casey’s daughter, Kaylen, wrote to a company called Christmas Decor which decorates the homes of military families for the holidays asking them to consider her family. Today picked up the story and joined the Roberts to surprise them with decorations and gifts.

If that wasn’t enough though, the entire live news story was (adorably) derailed by little Keegan who couldn’t get enough of the spotlight. Once Meredith Vieira began her live interview with the family, he got up and…well, just watch and enjoy.

(h/t dlisted, via The Daily What)

The story was given by one of the many victims who was on hand to tell of how she was tricked and threatened before she finally went to the authorities. They told her it had happened to eight other girls on campus but that they had no idea who was committing the crime. Meredith Vieira asked Abrams how this could be. he explained that, while this clearly fit the spectrum of illegal cyber stalking and harassment laws in Florida, the trick was finding the culprit. Normally, this would be done by finding the computers that were used to commit the crime, however, Facebook doesn’t keep track of this information. Abrams believes the authorities best bet will be the fact that the culprit knew so much about the way these sororities ran (times and locations of meetings, etc.). This would imply that they could be someone locally, perhaps who matriculates or is employed by one of the schools. Unfortunately, no one knows for sure.

Check out the segment from NBC below: