Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation unveiled its long awaited iPad news application on Wednesday, called the Daily. Following the launch at New York's Guggenheim Museum, reviews from the tech community are pouring in.

The BBC's Rajini Vaidyanathan says if you had to characterise the Daily then it is definitely the kind of iPad app which wants to impress - and impress everybody:

"Sections include news - reports on Egypt and US snowstorms; gossip - an interview with Natalie Portman and piece on Rihanna; opinion and off-beat features, including a report on New York's doggy disco.

"There's so much content it's easy to spend your entire time flicking through pictures and navigating, rather than reading the text of the stories.

"The whizz-bang factor is definitely high, utilising much of the iPad's functionality. There are some excellent visual devices including 360-degree photo galleries, stylish videos embedded into pieces and a neat sudoku and crossword puzzle."

Joel Mathis, writing for Macworld, thinks the Daily is well-designed with a pleasurable, tactile experience, but he isn't entirely sold on it:

There's just one problem with the hype: Rupert Murdoch's new iPad newspaper closely resembles other - often unsuccessful - attempts over the last decade to "reinvent" the news. The only difference, from a user perspective, is that a few semi-new digital flourishes have been thrown into the mix... As a piece of technology, then, The Daily is promising. As a journalistic endeavour, though, it's confusing.

On Valleywag, Ryan Tate has hopes for the Daily, but so far is not particularly impressed:

It's like an iPad magazine, except it comes out every day. If that sounds boring, well, it probably should given that's how the event itself seemed. The product didn't seem bad - it looked nice enough - so much as humdrum, given the possibilities opened up by the iPad. At one point in the presentation, Angelo was even touting The Daily by pointing out that a television review contained a link to IMDB. Later, someone bragged about a direct link to the Apple Store. Woah, slow down with the innovation there, guys!

Time magazine's James Poniewozik praised the Daily's aesthetics, but had a lukewarm view of its journalism:

I found little in the first issue that I really wanted to read beginning to end (besides Havrilesky's review). The story choice so far seems to assume little interest in longer reads; a few stories of two or three pages are rounded out by a collection of briefs and graphics. That said, the real test will be how compelling The Daily is when I pick it up first thing in the morning, rather than at noon when it's already behind the news cycle. (About which: Daily editors say they'll be able to update the app with breaking news, but I haven't seen much evidence of that yet.)

 

At Wired Magazine, Sam Gustin believes the most revolutionary aspect of the Daily is its business model:

The launch of The Daily was accompanied by an announcement from Apple that The Daily would be the first publication to allow one-click subscriptions, of either $1 a week or $40 a year - a departure from the company's requirement that all subscriptions be funneled through the iTunes store.That key change may open the floodgates by publishers, who thus far have largely avoided any subscription model - and pricing - for their iPad editions in part because there was no agreement from Apple to share subscriber information.

John Biggs of Tech Crunch says that there isn't a clear audience for the Daily, but believes that high quality content along with the business model will probably lead to a bright future for the app:

News Corp knows how to sell news. Whether you agree with some of their channels and outlets or not, they deal out supremely popular content produced on a daily basis. While I'd say I'm worried about who they'll sell the Daily to, I believe that the subset of users who read the NY Times and other news sources in Safari on the iPad will welcome a move to a standalone app. Provided the content quality stays high and the news value is there, this could be the first iPad app to beat Angry Birds and, more important, truly bring journalism into the 21st century.

At CNet, Greg Sandoval thinks that the success of the the Daily will hinge on one thing:

The trick to The Daily's success will be in the quality of journalism it can provide, News Corp. execs have said. Clearly, a media company can't charge for an online publication if it's simply stuffing the pub with the same content readers can find online for free, or if it's just repackaging material from existing magazines, newspapers, broadcasts, and the like. Murdoch seems to understand that he needs to hand readers features they can't get offline (or elsewhere online).

Larry Magid, in the Huffington Post, worries that the Daily is already out-of-date in the current media environment:

Despite its fabulous appearance, I found The Daily to be disappointing mainly because the news was already out of date... I'm not saying there isn't a role for newspapers (I still write a column for both the dead-tree and online editions of the San Jose Mercury News) but I think many people have become accustomed to news that's updated very often throughout the day. There is still a role for analysis, opinion and long-form journalism which is why magazines still have their place but if you're going to create an electronic news source it had better be more than up-to-date. It has to be up-to-the-minute.

The bottom line is that, for an hour or so, the noise and accusatory tumult of our argumentative culture was totally gone. No one shouted "you lie!" No one said "Nooo!" No one jumped up in an aggressive effort to show up or challenge anyone else. It was as though talk radio did not exist, and both MoveOn and the Tea Party had disappeared.

Former political speech-writer Joshua Greenman concluded in his New York Daily News column that Obama's speech did the job:

Obama was optimistic, as we expect our presidents to be even in troubled times. He was bipartisan, continuing the clear swing to the centre that began after the midterm elections. And he weaved in enough specifics to give Americans hungry for hope something to latch on to - investments in roads, schools and scientific research. These investments may not deliver jobs next week, next month or maybe even next year. But they'll create fresh confidence that the economy is headed in the right direction, which most Americans doubt.

Gerald Seib, writing in the Wall Street Journal, wonders about Obama's decision to hark back to the Cold War space race:

The differences between now and the Sputnik era are significant... The government had ample resources then, and sags under deficits now. Trust in government was high then, but has plummeted since. Perhaps more important, for many Americans the economic future takes a back seat to lingering fears of the economic present. Many of them are likely to judge the president, as well as his Republican counterparts, above all on how many jobs they can create here and now.

The Washington Post's Ezra Klein, who writes a blog about domestic and economic policy, liked the themes of Obama's speech, but bemoaned its lack of detail:

At more than 6,000 words, there was a lot in tonight's State of the Union. The bulk of it was a vision of what American economic policy should be pointed towards in the years to come: A country that has a better educated workforce, a more sophisticated infrastructure, and a more innovative economy than any other. A country where the public sector has an acknowledged and crucial role in supporting the private sector. But vision is there to support policy. And though there were a lot of policy proposals in the speech, there weren't enough specifics to really know where the president is going.

Mark Halperin of Time magazine thought the speech heralded a return to Mr Obama's inspirational, motivational best. He says a culmination of borrowed techniques from his predecessors helped make the speech great:

From Ronald Reagan, upbeat tales of American success stories, showcasing the real-life heroes sitting in the box with the First Lady. From Bill Clinton, rhetorical carrots dangled across the aisle - Obama cheerfully expressed an openness to medical malpractice reform, nuclear power, entitlement and tax reform, and changes in his cherished healthcare law - while drawing lines in the sand on issues where the American people support his positions by 70% plus. And from George W Bush, a confidence that if a president says he what he means and means what he says, he can't go wrong....Rehearsals with one of the Democratic Party's best speech coaches clearly paid off, allowing him to internalize the text and focus on conveying the emotion of the words with grace and spontaneity.

Jonathan Chait of the New Republic thought Mr Obama's transcending themes and ideas were communicated well:

I thought Obama explicated his idea about American unity better than he has in the past. The notion of unity has always sat in tension with the fierce ideological disagreement of American politics, and indeed the latter has served as a rebuke to the former. I thought Obama effectively communicated that the messiness of political debate is a part of what makes America great, to turn that into a source of pride. He simultaneously placed himself both within and above the debate.

Esteemed economist Paul Krugman, who writes for the New York Times, firmly disagrees with Mr Chait's take:

The best thing about the speech was exactly what most of the commentariat is going to condemn: Obama did not surrender to the fiscal austerity now now now types. Overall, however, I have no idea what the vision here was. We care about the future! But we don't want to spend! Meh.

Kevin Williamson, writing for the National Review, was not impressed by the speech. But it would seem that he isn't a fan of the tradition at all:

I hate, hate, hate the State of the Union speech, our republic's annual excursion into the abasing pomp of monarchy. But if you have to transform the president into a New Age totem, I suppose Obama is your guy: He's largely content-free. If he ever figures out that there is more to being president than giving speeches, our nation will truly be in trouble.

At the Atlantic magazine, Garance Franke-Ruta focused on the speech's political strategy, in particular, its use of buzz words:

Tonight is about many things, but one of them, perhaps encouraged by the pressures of the 140-character tweet stream, is KEYWORDS. Ones the White House is emphasizing: innovate, educate, build, reform, responsibility. Ones it is not: climate; gun; abortion(/choice/women's health); Clinton; Bush; Israel; Egypt; England.

Fred Kaplan of Slate says that the American innovation Mr Obama spoke of - the 'Sputnik moment' - nearly always relies, at least in part, on government help:

Toward the end of his speech, President Obama mentioned several entrepreneurs who in recent months have revamped their businesses to solve new crises and meet new demands. They're inspiring case studies. But if the US economy is going to do big things - and Obama said, twice, near the end of his speech, "We do big things" - they often don't get there without a spurt of government funding.

Liz Sidoti, national political writer for the Associated Press, writes that the country is divided over what to do next:

"Can this new power structure - one with different ideological philosophies to fix increasingly complex problems - actually lead a sharply polarized country that can't agree on where it wants to go? Will the politicians even try? If voters don't know what they want beyond something different from the status quo, how can a government deliver, much less one that's divided? These will be the central questions of the next two years as a weakened Obama, diminished Democrats and resurgent Republicans try to figure out how to meet the demands of a suffering electorate that now seems to perpetually crave change. And how to keep their jobs in 2012."

Karen Tumulty of the Washington Post thinks it will be difficult to get Democrats and Republicans to work together:

"Governance - and particularly building consensus on tough and complicated challenges - can be painstaking and require a degree of trust between the parties that is not likely to be restored anytime soon. The Democratic caucus that will return to Capitol Hill in January is likely to be more liberal than before, after some of its most moderate and conservative members were wiped out Tuesday. And in the tea party, Republicans must grapple with a new political force for whom compromise is seen as a problem, not a solution."

Megan McArdle writes in the Atlantic about the big issues in the next few months:

"The biggest wild cards are on tax cuts and health care. On tax cuts, as someone who thinks that we're going to need to let the Bush tax cuts go in order to address America's mounting entitlement problem, I think the worst-case scenario is that the GOP manages to bully their way to a full repeal. But perhaps optimistically, I think there's at least a chance of a best-case scenario: in the Congressional stalemate, the Bush tax cuts expire. On health care, I think it's likely that the GOP will try to defund much of the health care bill, while leaving the pre-existing condition rules, and perhaps the addition of adult children to their parents' health insurance. If that happens, health care reform will collapse under its own weight, perhaps taking the US insurance market down with it. Can they do it? If they're very smart and strategic, confining their defunding to health care, maybe."

Newsweek's Andrew Romano notes that Republicans were helped in no small part by older voters, a group President Obama has always struggled to connect with:

"Chances are Republicans will be too busy celebrating Tuesday's big victory to ask any questions. That would be a mistake. Winning a single midterm election on the backs of disgruntled older voters in a time of severe economic anxiety is one thing. Basing your party's electoral future on seniors is something else entirely. If Republicans knew what was good for them, they'd start figuring out how to expand their reach beyond retirees before the next election rolls around."

Jonathan Strong of The Daily Caller reminds readers that the new congress doesn't take office until January. Until then, the existing Congress will remain in a "lame duck" session.

"Some of the items on the lame duck agenda are political musts. For instance, if Congress doesn't address the Bush tax cuts, they will expire, a result almost nobody wants... Insiders say it's difficult to gauge the dynamics of the coming lame duck. Democrats could be wary of flaunting the public's repudiation at the polls. Or, fired incumbents free from the tether of their constituents' wishes may use their freedom to push for legislative action."

Links in full

• Liz Sidoti | ABC News | Analysis: United but Divided
• Karen Tumulty | Washington Post | Once again, the electorate demanded a new start
• Megan McArdle | Atlantic | Republicans Take House, Democrats Keep Senate: Now What?
• Andrew Romano | Newsweek | The GOP's Senior Moment
• Jonathan Strong | Daily Caller | Lame duck outlook: the musts, maybes and the liberal wish list

Washington Post scribe and policy wonk Ezra Klein applauded the idea of political parties proffering such policy documents, but gave the substance of the GOP pledge a scathing review:

"When you get past the adjectives and soaring language, the talk of inalienable rights and constitutional guarantees, you're left with a set of hard promises that will increase the deficit by trillions of dollars, take healthcare insurance away from tens of millions of people, create a level of policy uncertainty businesses have never previously known, and suck demand out of an economy that's already got too little of it... This proposal avoids the hard choices of governance. It says what it thinks will be popular and then proposes what it thinks will be popular - even when the two conflict. That's an idea that may help you win elections, but not one that'll help you govern a country."

Over at Think Progress, left-leaning blogger and author Matt Yglesias railed against the spending priorities expressed in the document.

"Perhaps the most telling thing about where the modern conservative movement is now, however, is their pledge on spending which says that "with common-sense exceptions for seniors, veterans, and our troops we will roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels." Of course once you except Social Security, Medicare, and defense from cuts you're talking about not touching the government's three largest programs... it's a plan that says we'll cut spending on children, the poor, and the next generation's infrastructure in order to ensure that taxes can be cut on the rich while protecting our own base constituencies - old people, defense contractors, veterans - from the scythe."

The editors of conservative magazine National Review offered the document a full-throated endorsement:

"The pledge commits Republicans to working toward a broad conservative agenda that, if implemented, would make the federal government significantly smaller, Congress more accountable, and America more prosperous... the pledge is explicitly a beginning to the lengthy task of providing conservative governance, and a very good one."

Meanwhile, conservative pundit Kevin Glass admonished fellow conservatives who have criticised the pledge:

"Many complain that this will give the GOP something concrete for the Democrats to run against. And conservative blogger Erick Erickson has derided the Pledge as 'milquetoast rhetorical flourishes.' To an extent this is true. The GOP leadership's number one task between now and November 2nd is "don't blow it." As such, they can't afford to take the kinds of risks that many in the grassroots want them to."

Jonathan Chait of the left-leaning New Republic magazine argued that the promises of the pledge are not realistic:

"The big money 'saving' measure is a cap on non-defense discretionary spending. This is a hoary tool for pretending you plan to make serious cuts when you do not. 'Domestic discretionary spending' is a popular category to target because it is a collection of programs, not an individual program, like Social Security. But when the programs to be cut are given names, like "food safety inspectors" or 'the Coast Guard,' then the will to cut those programs inevitably (and, usually, correctly) disappears."