The missing link: Worth the hype?

Posted: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 2:03 PM by Daily Nightly Editor

by Robert Bazell, chief science correspondent

With great fanfare, New York's Mayor Bloomberg and others today unveiled a model of a 47-million-year-old fossil of a baby monkey-like creature at the American Museum of Natural History. The unveiling was part of a promotion effort by the History Channel and Little, Brown Book Group, which are producing a documentary and a book about the discovery.

There is no question that this is an important scientific finding. The fossil purchased by scientists at a market in Europe is exceptionally well preserved. But the documentary is titled "The Link: This Changes Everything," and the press kit for the event declares that reporters are about to "witness the most important find in 47 million years."

So I phoned Dr. Tim White at the University of California, Berkeley. White is a renowned paleontologist who played a key role in the discovery of "Lucy," the first ape-like creature to stand erect and many other important findings about the evolution leading to humans.

"Three words," he said. "Over the top."

The people who promoted this event make a big deal out of the possible place this newly discovered fossil plays in the evolution leading to humans. But if you read their actual scientific paper in a respectable peer-reviewed scientific journal (http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0005723) the scientists make no such claim.

The big question about this finding, White said, "is whether it is the 'Mother of All Monkeys?' and that is not even resolved. With years of study the scientists will learn whether this is the creature that stands at the intersection of one group of primates that went on to be best represented by lemurs today or another group that went on to be chimps and humans. But they don't know yet."

The event organizers do seem to know, however, the potential value of hype.

Click here to watch Robert Bazell's Nightly News report, "Fossil Frenzy."

EMAIL THIS

Comments

To refute this fossil as not evidence of evolution, or to claim that human life was spurned by the thought of a diety on the instant of it's thought speaks of pure fanatcism. You claim science is a repeatable and there-fore unreffutable art yet deny the thousands of "well choreographed" experiemtns proven so wrong in the past 40years. This fossil is an amazing find, to see parralels, whether they are unreffutable as of yet or not, is beautiful. The fact some people are going to get rich is no reason to refute their claim unless YOU yourselves who dare to refute it can so so with more then a snide snub you are not part of the clique so respected. Science is far more then sitting in a labrotory, science in it's earleist form was (and still is) high adventure, try getting out of the classroom once and awhile. I look forward to the history of this find and the future it may well represent and unlock for all good, and, evil it may.

Eag, Boston, Mass. (Sent Wednesday, May 20, 2009 12:18 AM)

I would like to know how the scientists dated this fossil to 47 millon years ago. Carbon 14 dting is not valid. Counting tree rings is absurd. Counting layers of sedimentation on top of this find? It was found in a crater. Even if in a sedimentary rock, how many layers were there when God first created the earth? I do not believe this find is nything more than a "cat, dog, lemur or whathaveyou" preserved in rock for a period of time long enough to fossilize.

Kevin Schell, Fort Mill, SC (Sent Wednesday, May 20, 2009 12:18 AM)

I am deligthed to see some scientists still understanding english usage, another 'link' discovered (even if yet the whole chain is not readily available for perusal and opinion). I look forward to more pieces of the puzzle comming to light. "Show me the links and I'll buy the chain."

Eag, Boston, Mass. (Sent Wednesday, May 20, 2009 12:23 AM)

Men would rather worship the creature rather than the creator!

twilliams, haleiwa, HI (Sent Wednesday, May 20, 2009 12:38 AM)

Why are people so hunge-up or which is the truth evolution or creation if there was some great creator who created the whole univers with all the planits and stars, all the plants and animals, which would take in humans, HE created them all out of the same matirals, ie the same eliments. If you read the Bible every think comes from the dust of the of the earth. If you have ever study any scince all plants and animals contain mostly the same basic eliments some have some eliments that are the same but all the eliments are not always the same there are many difference as to how much each has and how those eliments are grouped. All aminal and humans have the same basic genetic materals but they are not all in the arangement. It is the arangement of the genetic eliments that make a human and all rest have thier body shape. The embros of all animals have the same basic shapes with in the first few day of devolpment. Over time as they start to grow thier shapes change so they all look different from each other but yet they are still very much the same as each other. All animals inclouding humans have body hair, they all have bones, they all have blood and that blood is always red, they all eat some type of food, they all have to drink, all creat new life, they all have to get ride of the food that thier bodys could not use and they all die when thier body are old. After death their bodies all decompose back to the same materials they started from. So why does there have to be and either or between creation and evolation GOD could have done them both. He created every thing and over time every thing changes

John Dedrick, Sunnyside, Wash (Sent Wednesday, May 20, 2009 12:46 AM)

This discovery is just trying to let people go astray from the binblical teachings which God hs revealed to mankind. Even a thousand discoveries to come could'nt change the reality about creation that had been tried by many scientists to distort the fact about the exixtence of a supreme creation.

Nerio M. Bungcaras, Philippines, sia-Pacific (Sent Wednesday, May 20, 2009 1:08 AM)

The amount of Creationist criticism here is daunting. Let me first say that "theories" are not just "theories" in science, they are not made up mumbo-jumpo conjured from thin air. Theories are and always have been based on evidence, and until evidence surfaces that specifically disputes the theory, theories are considered fact in the scientific world.

What I find much more plausible is that people are afraid to admit that they did indeed evolve from primates, and from lizards before that, and from fish before that. The inability to comprehend such a huge timescale and countless generations required for evolution make people run to conjecture and seek importance in fairy tales.

You don't need discrete "links" between this fossil and Lucy. Some simple logical and rational thinking will lead you to see how this fossil contains many primitive functions of our own bodies. Some people also don't seem to understand how pain staking it is to find fossils. They think we can just dig a certain depth into the ground and find them. There are a multitude of situations that need to exist for a fossil to be preserved for millions upon millions of years.

Pete XS, Easton, PA (Sent Wednesday, May 20, 2009 1:09 AM)

People spouting nonsense about 'show me teh evidence' need to spend ten minutes reading up on evolution. It is basically considered fact...we don't understand it completely, but there is no doubt it is there.

Toasterbot, Atlanitis (Sent Wednesday, May 20, 2009 1:10 AM)

Yeah, I don't think this can be considered a missing link til there's more proof. Anyone remember the Piltdown man and the Nebraska man? But it's still amazing, and the preservation wows me.
To reply to the poster above me, humans are actually evolving less now, since we have more power to control our surrounds. And the H. sapien DNA will always be more dominant than the Neanderthalensis in humans.
But this "missing link" story is interesting, I shall keep reading about it.

nikki, the southern hemisphere (Sent Wednesday, May 20, 2009 1:42 AM)

Once again here we are in denial. Our Creator really must just shake His head when He sees His created man continue in this evolution theory. 43 million years is in no way provable...this is a young earth and if we would just stop the denial we would see the evidences of how young our earth is and that God created all.

DebBee, New York Landing, Idaho (Sent Wednesday, May 20, 2009 1:44 AM)

Please, The guy is just trying to recoop his purchase of an old find. hogwash

leftyofcourse (Sent Wednesday, May 20, 2009 1:48 AM)

Neurotic primates on a spinning dirtball to nowhere, doesn't that make us special. I know, lets pretend each is better than the other!

Thomas. Rogers, ND (Sent Wednesday, May 20, 2009 2:34 AM)

Come on, it's a lemur with opposable thumbs. That alone speaks volumes and is clearly visible!

Liz (Sent Wednesday, May 20, 2009 2:52 AM)

If it looks like a lemur, walks like a lemur and sounds like a lemur (it most certainly didn't sound like a human), well then it is a lemur!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemur

What's more likely? Do any of you actually believe that it shed its tail and fur, it climbed down from the trees and walked on two feet, its jaw shrank and it started using language?! No this primate stayed in the trees and is the first reported species of lemur, tarsier or possibly a bush baby.

Martin, Oslo, Norway (Sent Wednesday, May 20, 2009 4:03 AM)

haha so many of you "experts" doesnt even know what evolution is, calling it "random" etc.
The scientist themselves doesnt promote this as "The" missing link, as there is not one, but many links in a gradual evolution.
stop with the "god must have something to do with this, cause i sure dont have a clue!" -well some have more clue than you, and thank nature for that!

Henrik, europe (Sent Wednesday, May 20, 2009 4:46 AM)

A find of this potential can answer as many questions as it creates. I'll wait to cast my judgement after weighing the evidence the documentary brings. To do otherwise makes a monkey's uncle out of us all.

Pat Dalton (Sent Wednesday, May 20, 2009 7:08 AM)

Well maybe there is a little excessive hype but I don't think that's a bad thing. It gets the general public interested in science instead of worrying about who's divorcing who in Hollywood.

Robert (Sent Wednesday, May 20, 2009 7:17 AM)

Wow finally some sense on this message board annemarie.

"Just as ludicrous as saying I came from a fish or ape"
Yeah? as ludicrous as putting 2 of every animal on a giant arch the size of a jumbo jet built by a frail old man?

"Theory and true science are not the same." What are you on about? What is true science? Something you've made up thats what. Read a book, understand theory, then comment.

It's an amazing find, the most complete transitional species fossil we have to date.
People dont understand that the chances of bones of an animal millions of years old being preserved are remote to say the least. So yes, it is worth the hype.

Mark, Worcester, UK (Sent Wednesday, May 20, 2009 7:17 AM)

Whether you believe in evolution or not: Does any fossil tell you how it's parents looked like? Or how it's children looked like? Certainly not. Make assumptions if it pleases you, but it is not science and it doesn't prove anything, except that an animal died.

Heinrich Peter, Potch (Sent Wednesday, May 20, 2009 7:18 AM)

i dont believe this will be enough to silence creationism nuts i am a total supporter of darwinism everything evolves we are getting stronger taller smarter soon enough science will prove that god is a figment of too many peoples imagination (god an imaginary friend for adults lol)

jamie whiteoak hervey bay queensland (Sent Wednesday, May 20, 2009 7:22 AM)

Missing Link....again? "Lucy" was to be the missing link, but it was proved that "Lucy" was a bust, and was in fact a fraud on the part of the archeologists...and yet that propaganda is in the textbooks as we speak almost 20 years after it has been proved a hoax. Now we come to a "95%" complete link. Ok..let's dissect this Scientifically:
1) Missing link theory: What do you call a fish that evolves lungs? Dead. it would drown.
2) If over 47 Million years you have a 95% complete specimen...where was it found? In a crater...caused by what disruptive cataclysmic event? In tact? 47 Million years of undisturbed fossil? Don't think so.

Science is based on three things: 1) Observable events 2) Measurable outcomes, and 3) repeatable . What we DO have is a religion or FAITH in evolution THEORY....not science.

Sorry, I have FAITH that we are purposely made by a creator...after all, HE (GOD) was there ... IN THE BEGINNING!.

Try again...hit the reset button..maybe throw a few more millions of years for good measure.

AJB, Atlanta Georgia (Sent Wednesday, May 20, 2009 7:55 AM)

I am always amazed at those who claim there is no proof of evolution. Even the science of today's bacteria and viruses should prove - evolution is here - now. Mutation is part of evolution. It shows up every day. Even in H1N1 as it adapts to changes in the world around it. Stop denying the proof. If it must be said, the "theory" of creationist is more fancy - a book written by men some 2000 year ago is what you base your "facts" on? Please...

Kat Fitzgerald, Chicago, Il (Sent Wednesday, May 20, 2009 7:56 AM)

Not to worry Charles Bujan, seems evolution has left you safely alone. Just leave evolution to those pesky fanatics and educated people with all their 'facts' and 'books'.

Victor (Sent Wednesday, May 20, 2009 7:56 AM)

I find it interesting that this fossil was found over 25 years ago and is just now being discussed as a major discovery. If this is "THE MISSING LINK," then why did it take them so long to figure it out? And if this thing had been separated into several pieces, then at some point they had to re-assemble it. How can we be sure they did it right, or that they didn't do it wrong on purpose?

Will (Sent Wednesday, May 20, 2009 7:59 AM)

Thanks for this article. It's good to know that there is a reliable source where we can actually hear the truth in the news.

Mahalia Ohio (Sent Wednesday, May 20, 2009 8:18 AM)

God gave us eyes to see and minds to think, and those who prefer instead to rely on an ancient book of hearsay and anecdotes for their "knowledge" squander the great gifts God has given us. This may or may not be the missing link. But I'll take it any day over stories passed down from cavemen.

Mark F. (Sent Wednesday, May 20, 2009 8:20 AM)

Hey Michael Bujan: You say find the suggestion that I came from a lizard to be totally ludicrous. How about the suggestion that you came from a single sperm cell? Because you did.

Mark F (Sent Wednesday, May 20, 2009 8:22 AM)

There does seem to be a lot of hype...it would seem to me that this might be more of an effort to raise public interest in science than a be-all, end-all unveiling of some deep and definitive holy truth. That said, I do think that it brings up an important point: regardless of one's core belief system, there are so many incredible manifestations of life on our planet (including us) to celebrate and explore and wonder about. As an intellectual, I enjoy contemplating the idea of one form of life adapting and changing through countless generations; as a Christian, I rejoice that God has made so many creatures with thumbs!

Matt, St. Louis, MO (Sent Wednesday, May 20, 2009 8:23 AM)

i really dont see how this ties up Darwins theory, which has been clearly disproven so many times, yet those discoveries dont make the top of the press, or in the news at all.

all life on Earth was seeded by other intelligent life and this happens through-out the universe and has been happening eternally thoughtout infinity

i will never believe i came from a monkey - deep down it does not feel right

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1iCjKWzeEE

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case. " - Charles Darwin

there is NO God, there is NO Darwinism just beautiful and artful genetic creations from higher intelligent lifeforms - we are doing this now!

funkod, uk (Sent Wednesday, May 20, 2009 8:54 AM)

I am always amazed at the general lack of knowledge in the general public about things related to science. Yes, this fossil find is certainly relevant, since it fills one of the predicted evolution paths in the descent of primates. But the hype surrounding this is pathetic. I have yet to see good media coverage, that explains why it is relevant without resorting to incorrect, sensationalist factoids

Jorge Molina, Mexico City, Mexico (Sent Wednesday, May 20, 2009 9:31 AM)

Finding a missing link (which this apparently isn't) seems to get many aethiests very jovial and happy.
As if if we found a link to how we were formed there would be proof that there is no God.

However, it is a very small part of the christian church that will deny any possiblity of evolution. Actually the Catholic church doesn't even teach against evolution.

In life we are trying to find answers.

Why can't the science be the answer to what and God be the answer to Why?

Mark Rowe, Atlanta (Sent Wednesday, May 20, 2009 9:50 AM)

Oh wow! There is no proof of evolution? Evolution is just a theory? People should see what a theory is before claiming such things. A theory is made of FACTS!
And there is definitely no proof of creation so please keep THIS out of schools.

Benjamin, Munich, Germany (Sent Wednesday, May 20, 2009 9:57 AM)

I'm a little annoyed at the Creationists primary argment against The Missing Link. It's just lazy. How can one argue that creationsm is truth and evolution is not by means of a 'lack of evidence'. Show me evidence for creationism that exists outside of a bedtime story (available in all good hotel room bedside drawers) and i will believe it. This is true of eveolution too. I have an open mind, but it's open to evidence. This fossil i believe COULD be the missing link but i don't believe it's conclusive.

Luton, England (Sent Wednesday, May 20, 2009 10:00 AM)

I agree with John from So. Cal., The Book of Genesis doesn't hold any water. To be more accurate it's a complete falacy (lie).

<><><>

Purrpurrote Haschen (Sent Wednesday, May 20, 2009 10:13 AM)

Oh again , so many assumptions, not sure how long this link will stand because as past 19th centuary shows quiet a number of missing links were proposed and rejected. i.e. Piltdown man story of London ,where the teeth of moknkey skull wree foiled to falsely proof that it is a missing link.
If we think we are coming from monkey then why are we surprised when a man behaves like monkey or like a animal ( lusty ,greedy ,selfish,criminal mentality etc,etc)
And
If we are coming from God then we should not be surprised if a man have wonderful godly qualities (love ,compassion, selflessness tec,etc)
So a intelligent man should question wheather we are coming from monkey or God?

Shivshankar Upadhyay,Kolkata,India (Sent Wednesday, May 20, 2009 10:16 AM)

No matter how you look at it, this is a truly amazing find! I think it was especially fortunate that we were able to date it so accurately (47.8 million years ago)due to the fact that volcanic craters are helpful with isotope dating. Each find like this only helps us understand ourselves and our world more and more. As far as the "missing link" title goes, that was actually made up by the media types, not the group of scientists that found the fossil.

George, Northfield,MN (Sent Wednesday, May 20, 2009 10:31 AM)

It's sad and pitiful that so many people willingly choose ignorance and religious fanatacism over a real critical analysis of the physical evidence in this find. Unfortunately countries like the United States will continue to live in the Dark Ages (along with places like Saudi Arabia and Afganistan) as a majority of people cannot accept any shred of truth that may conflict with their own personal illusions about their place in the universe.

I used to cheer when science made discoveries, now I can only cringe and shed a tear for the human race -and hope that my own children aren't subject to living among fools who can't accept anything but what their churches tell them.

What's really a terrible thing is that fine, upstanding people in Texas, Kentucky, Tennessee... the places that I always considered to be the heart and soul of America.... these seem to be today's primary breeding grounds for ignorance and the worship of irrational behavior. As a matter of fact, it was not always so.

Craig, MN (Sent Wednesday, May 20, 2009 10:32 AM)

The monkey, the book, the film, the hype = the money$$$

This is a "far out there" THEORY with a big dose of gorilla marketing thrown in and it represents science at it's worst.

Kent Green (Sent Wednesday, May 20, 2009 10:39 AM)

Wow. If you peruse the actual scientific journal article they published on "Dawinius masillae," via the link above, you get quite a story: this thing was dug up by "private collectors" in 1983, split in two and sold, with one half being "partially fabricated to make it look more complete" and just now the other half has "come to light" and been "immediately recognized as being the unaltered counterpart" of the faked up half. Oh, and by the way, the skeleton was "crushed so individual bones cannot be handled, so imaging studies are are of particular importance." And the specimen died in infancy, probably during the first year of her life, so we basically just have to speculate how it may have looked as a mature animal.
Talk about a dubious find! Can anyone say "Piltdown Man"?

Cory Oswald (Sent Wednesday, May 20, 2009 10:43 AM)

When speaking of mythology, I have to wonder if these armchair neo-Darwinists have actually thought through the presumptions of their own worldview. That is, creation came into existence from nothing, evolved upwards to greater degrees of complexity and purpose, all without a creator guiding the process. Questionable fossil evidence is not what is at question here; it is the worldview by which they are approaching the evidence from. Today's neo-Darwinists don't hold to macroevolution because of proofs, they hold to it because they refuse to allow the possibility that a Creator of infinite complexity exists which they cannot study through the lens of their telescope or microscope. What we have here…is the result of a failed theologian and second rate naturalist (Darwin) who has given intellectual license to those who refuse to bend their knee to their creator.

George F (Sent Wednesday, May 20, 2009 10:47 AM)

Hey Kucner,
beauty is in the eye of the beholder... the beauty you see is the lie of licentiousness without accountability... you see evolution as liberating you from answering to the righteous creator who gave you life, but beyond the fecad of your false liberation is a lack of meaning for life or significance or any hope beyond your death sentance that is surer than taxes... how will you plea?

Where is your redemption? Evolution's "beauty and complexity" offers you what hope? a chance that you'll skate? What if you are wrong? Life is but a vapor, unless you can live forever... werewith you ought to say, if the Lord wills, we will do this or that, but you rejoice in evolution and it will not comfort you in your death bed if you should live so long or when you find yourself on the other side.

He is no fool who gives up what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.

http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/raycomfortfood/~6/1

Joe Schmuckateli (Sent Wednesday, May 20, 2009 10:57 AM)

Annemarie Kucner, I agree that some posters here aren't well educated, yourself included.

"some of us faster then others" - actually, individual organisms don't evolve, that would be a Lamarckian idea.

JC, New Jersey (Sent Wednesday, May 20, 2009 11:07 AM)

now i know why our feet seem to have been"created" on
two different moulds. The big toe is way out of proportion to the other four.
This specimen shows that it once had a seperate function!

aquatic (Sent Wednesday, May 20, 2009 11:09 AM)

Perhaps it was the pet of Tirannosaur Rex?

aquatic (Sent Wednesday, May 20, 2009 11:19 AM)

In this context it's always nice to consider the following poem by Catherine Faber titled "The Word of God":
http://www.cs.rice.edu/~ssiyer/minstrels/poems/803.html

Leilani Akwai, Honolulu, Hawaii (Sent Wednesday, May 20, 2009 11:21 AM)

" I might start to believe some of this nonsense if someone would show me (right now - in the present) a human evolving into something else!"

I don't think you quite understand the concept of evolution then.. unless you plan on sticking around for many, many years to watch the changes happen.

Even then no human changes might be observed because evolution is also based on survival of the fittest and adaptation to new food sources. Since predators no longer kill the weakest of our species and all humans (big or small, weak or strong) have a chance to reproduce then changes are unlikely to happen.

Evolution is likely to only be observed in wild animals who are in a constant struggle to survive, and once again, our current recorded human history doesn't even go far back enough to track the changes in a single species. The point is, there is evidence and the amount of it IS growing in our lifetime.

Does this new evidence indisputably prove Darwin right? No. However, since his time many discoveries have been made that are in line with his theories while his detractors have found little evidence to disprove him. Pope John Paul II even went as far as to say in 1996 that the theory of evolution was in line with the creation belief and that the process of evolution was designed by God.

In the end, this will always be a science vs faith argument. There is no changing ones mind about faith, you have it or you don't. Any scientist worth their salt has to be able to change their mind if presented with evidence that goes against their beliefs. Many won't, but they don't get into the history books.

Alfred Russel Wallace (Sent Wednesday, May 20, 2009 11:54 AM)

The creation account is real simple. If you believe "God is" then the account in Genesis "could be" true. We are not told "everything" from moment to moment, but we are given some basic facts. It's only when we ADD to the Bible that we get into trouble. Biblical accounts assert that creatures were created "after their kind" and that the "kind" or "species" "man" (Homo sapiens) was special. Created in God's image. (Gen 1:24-26). Nothing more, nothing less.

Selection is not the basis of evolution. The "link" is it's foundation. "Kinds" must "evolve" into different "kinds" for evolution to be true.

The difference between evolution and creation occurs when men attempt to find or document a link between "kinds". In this case lemurs to apes. In others, apes to man, reptiles and birds, etc. When really it is what it is. A lemur.

Even if some middle ground could be reached, more specimens must be found.

TJ Thomas, Alton, MO (Sent Wednesday, May 20, 2009 11:55 AM)

Looks more like a gorilla...gosh people are easy to convince

Samantha C. (Sent Wednesday, May 20, 2009 12:05 PM)

My dog eats bananas, too. Guess that makes him an ape, right? Or maybe human?

io saturnalia!, Merrimack Valley, Mass. (Sent Wednesday, May 20, 2009 12:12 PM)

Wow some of these comments are rediculous..This is a huge find and provides further evidence for how evolution of primates took place. Evolution is a theory, definition of a theory; explainations of phenomena in the natural world. For example gravity is only a theory. Evolution is a theory, which has 200 years of research, observation, and discoveries in geography, anatomy, paleontology, astronomy,dna/genome sequencing etc. etc. proving it right. The debate among scientists is not whether evolution occured, but the pathways in which it took. You can always tell the educated in science and uneducated on these message boards.

Lou, Milford PA (Sent Wednesday, May 20, 2009 12:25 PM)

<< Previous

Next >>

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

NBC NEWS IN THE BLOGOSPHERE

	World Blog: Correspondents and producers on assignment share their insight on news events.
	First Read: Analysis of the day's political news from the NBC News Political Unit.
	Deep Background: The NBC News Investigative Unit blogs about national security, spies, and government fraud.

More Daily Nightly

Recent Posts:

Archives:

Earlier Daily Nightly entries

Categories:

CONNECT WITH US

About the broadcast | Biographies

RSS is an easy way to get the news you want as it is updated even if you are not on MSNBC.com. More information about MSNBC.com's RSS feeds.

Podcasting brings you audio and video from each weekday broadcast on your iPod or other portable MP3 player anytime, anywhere. More information about MSNBC.com's podcasts.

Sign-up for our daily e-mail newsletter. It offers a preview of the stories and special reports featured on each weekday broadcast.

Syndicate This Site

Add The Daily Nightly to your news reader:

ABOUT THIS BLOG