Fate Therapeutics, a Seattle-based stem cell biotech company focused on cell fate control, has raised $12 million in VC funding. Backers include ARCH…

CNN hosted a YouTube debate for GOP presidential candidates this week. I’ve not paid much attention to any of the debates, from either party, YouTube or otherwise, given that so little is revealed given the constraints of the debate format. The YouTube series has been promoted as giving voice to the average person through submitted questions that are then answered by the candidates.

As is often the case with political theatre many of the questions are just dumb, but more to the point of why these debates are based on a false premise, instead of an online meritocracy where the audience determines what questions will be asked the questions are screened and vetted by CNN and reflect their own political agenda.

It seems more “plants” are being uprooted with each passing day. Almost a third of the questioners seem to have some ties to Democratic causes or candidates. Another questioner worked with Democratic Senator Dick Durbin’s staff. A former intern with Democratic Rep. Jane Harman asked a question about farm subsidies. A questioner who purported to be a Ron Paul supporter turns out to be a Bill Richardson volunteer. David McMillan, a TV writer from Los Angeles, turns out to have several paens to John Edwards on his YouTube page and has attended Barack Obama fundraisers.

When a significant number of the so-called average joe questioners turn out to be Beltway insiders or campaign volunteers working for the other party, just how much trust should anyone place in the debate itself and in CNN? CNN has claimed ignorance despite almost universal disbelief that the producers were truly unaware of the backgrounds of the questioners they selected and paid travel expenses for, given that Google searches revealed the participant backgrounds.

What is ironic is that is has been the bloggers, often the real average joes, who have unmasked CNN. Perhaps instead of answering questions from their peers, who in this case are largely silent despite overwhelming evidence of a rigged debate and serious flip-flopping by CNN executives over just what they knew and didn’t know, CNN executives should host a YouTube press conference to respond to their critics.

- Today’s Top Story: Greater China Media & Entertainment Corporation, an integrated professional media…

Avail Media, Inc., a provider of IPTV and advanced media services to broadband operators, today announced it has closed the final tranche of a $25 million Series B equity round. First time…

Amobee Media Systems, the world leader in mobile advertising solutions for mobile operators today announced that Vodafone has made a strategic minority investment in the company, joining Sequoia…

I Love Rewards, one of North America’s leading web based reward program providers, today announced that it has completed a $3.3 million Series A financing round with JLA Ventures,…

HLM Venture Partners, a Boston and San Francisco-based health care venture capital firm, announced today that it has made a $6 million investment in Vericare Management, Inc. of San…

AdBrite, the Internet’s Ad Marketplace, today announced $23 million in Series C venture funding.  The current round includes follow-on investment by Sequoia Capital as well as new…

Sometimes I wonder why corporate chiefs just don’t state the obvious when it is in fact obvious… as opposed to trying to spin it. Paula Wagner, of United Artists, said this about the studios first major film, Lions for Lambs:

“Wagner said that “Lions” represents everything that the revitalized UA stands for, and that its importance extends beyond just box office haul. She said the film helped UA secure the Merrill Lynch fund.”

“Represents everything that the revitalized UA stands for”? Like, for example, making crappy films? Wagner would look better by just coming out and saying “Lambs didn’t meet expectations, but it didn’t suck as bad as Redacted did”.

And if that one film helped them secure $500 million in financing, led by Merrill Lynch, well maybe we have some explanation for how screwed up the credit markets are right now. Perhaps the German finance minister is right in referring to “snooty” investment bankers.

Wagner says in the next graph that:

“We do recognize that it hasn’t performed as well as we would have liked, but we don’t regret making it. I think it’s very important that a film company be judged by a slate of films, not just one film,””

Okay, judging on an entire portfolio is a fair point but she can’t really expect anyone to believe that they don’t regret at least a tiny little bit making a film that bombed badly and put a spotlight on them for something they would rather not have attention drawn to. Again, why dig the hole deeper?

The thing I’ve always found curious about Hollywood is that it really is like the venture capital business in many ways. A studio develops a portfolio of assets, in their case films instead of companies, and those assets then go on to generate returns through growing an audience, achieving multiple distribution options, and hopefully developing a durable franchise. Also, like VC, the equity holders get paid at the end.

Hollywood is a trend business, similarly with venture capital, where a major hit sees many imitators. In recent times it appears that Hollywood badly read the trend but instead of going in the other direction they insist on judging the product by it’s importance rather than by it’s financial return. In tech and with venture capital no one will suggest that a failed company was important in spite of it’s failure… in our world the body gets buried and nobody talks about it anymore.

But I’m sure that Merrill Lynch is comforted by the fact that UA’s bomb is an important bomb to someone.

Group chat has been added to GTalk , nice. It would be really useful to embed this in Google Groups for a persistent chat room function.