Yesterday, BoomTown wrote about the status of the regulatory approval for the Microsoft-Yahoo search and online advertising pact.

While none of the key constituencies wanted to comment or make predictions about the outcome of the government scrutiny, most seem to agree that the MicroHoo partnership is more likely to be approved than not.

One of the few vocal critics of the deal, though, is Jeffrey Chester, the executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, a public interest group.

CDD, along with several other consumer groups, recently sent a letter to the Justice Department’s antitrust head, Christine Varney, expressing concern about the control and collection of consumer data in the deal.

CDD also has been querying Microsoft (MSFT) and Yahoo (YHOO) directly about the data collection and privacy implications of the deal, which is something the government should be doing.

So, to further get a glimpse into MicroHoo’s arguments, here is a set of important questions Chester asked then that were answered in a memo by the pair:

What specific data collection, interactive ad technologies and targeting applications will be used for search under the 10 year deal?

Today, Yahoo! collects data about Yahoo! visitors to our search product and uses that information to deliver products and to customize advertising and content, among other purposes described in its Privacy Policy. Microsoft and Yahoo! have each adopted industry-leading privacy practices with respect to search. For instance, under Yahoo!’s global data retention policy, Yahoo! anonymizes user log data within 90 days with limited exceptions for fraud, security and legal obligations. For search specifically, Yahoo! will convey certain data to Microsoft to fulfill a user’s search request. This includes the query and the IP address. Microsoft will anonymize this data sent to it by Yahoo! in accordance with Yahoo!’s announced data retention policies. Microsoft is only permitted to use search data that it obtains under the deal to operate and improve its search services and for no other purpose.

Will Yahoo’s behavioral targeting technologies for search still be used?

Yahoo! does not currently employ behavioral targeting in search. [Ed. note: Not completely true; see press release from Yahoo here on new targeting capabilities.]

Will any of Yahoo’s targeting apparatus be incorporated in any way with Microsoft Advertising, including with Bing?

No. This deal is limited to search, and as noted above, Yahoo! does not employ behavioral targeting in search.

Will search ads be sold by either Yahoo or Microsoft that provide for multimedia results, such as video?

Video advertising is still a small and growing area and as such, it’s impossible to predict what video ads in any form, including what a potential video search ad, could look like several years from now.

How may this deal affect the Yahoo! Newspaper Consortium?

The partnership Yahoo! has with the newspapers is broad and includes everything from content distribution, advertising cross sales, and technology platform development, to the display of Y! sponsored search listings on the newspapers’ own Web sites. Yahoo! Does not see the Microsoft deal as having an immediate impact on its newspaper consortium dealings. However, by combining its platform with Microsoft’s, Yahoo! and Microsoft will be in a position to offer the Newspaper Consortium and other web publishers more competitive bids for search syndication deals than either company can offer separately.

What ad research and development will be shared or done in common?

It is premature to speculate about the exact research that will be done, but the increased scale that will result from this search deal is expected to significantly enhance the ability to conduct meaningful research in a timely manner.

What rationale was used to embrace the 3 month data retention time? Why isn’t a shorter retention time adopted?

Yahoo! did an extensive analysis and review of all our data systems globally in 2008. Yahoo! arrived at 90 days retention as the right timeframe for most of its log file data that allows it to deliver the industry-leading products and services its users expect from them, but that also minimizes the duration of time Yahoo! holds data in identifiable form. It’s important to note that some of Yahoo!’s log file systems retain identifiable data for less than 90 days but none will hold data longer except for a limited number of specific systems dedicated to fraud and abuse and to meet legal obligations.

How do you envision Yahoo remaining viable when it no longer has a meaningful independent search service, given the need to have a coordinated search/display environment for digital marketing?

Future growth in online marketing will come from shifting spend from offline advertising to the online world. Offline advertising spend is disproportionately held by the largest advertisers and they control the vast majority of ad spend. Yahoo! has the leading position in branded advertising and Yahoo! also serves the needs for the growing market of performance advertising. So this deal with Microsoft enables Yahoo! to deliver a fully integrated solution that meets marketers’ needs at scale. Through this deal, Yahoo! retains a revenue stream in search without incurring the costs of developing a search platform or engine. Yahoo! will get paid an 88% TAC rate while eliminating significant expenses, enabling Yahoo! to invest more heavily in other areas of focus: amazing audience properties, web products, enhanced display advertising capabilities, and fantastic mobile experiences.

Since it debuted last week, a spoof video for Twitteleh is rising fast, with close to 200,000 views on YouTube.

It’s one of the many parodies of the popular microblogging service, Twitter, which attracts them the way it attracts valuation-mad VCs.

This one urges good sons to tweet answers to classic Jewish mother questions such as: “What have you eaten?” and “Are you wearing a sweater?”

Here it is:

And, here are BoomTown’s two favorite Twitter-mocking videos so far, one from Slate for Flutter and one from “The Daily Show,” with the incomparable Samantha Bee:

If there’s an earnings call at Yahoo, you know BoomTown is going to liveblog it!

Will Yahoo (YHOO) CEO Carol Bartz say something naughty? (Nope!) What is new CFO Tim Morse like? (Nice!) Will they say anything about the talks with Microsoft (MSFT) about a search and online advertising partnership? (No!)

Oh, it might be a corker!

The earnings results for the second quarter certainly were not.

As I wrote in a previous post:

Yahoo reported so-so second-quarter earnings results today, with a decline in revenues, but with a slightly stronger-than-expected improvement in net income.

For the three months ended June 30, the Internet giant said it had revenues of $1.14 billion, excluding traffic acquisition costs, down from $1.35 billion in the same period a year ago.

That profit was up eight percent, due to cost-cutting. Yahoo said it earned $141.4 million, or 10 cents a share, in the quarter, compared to $131.2 million, or nine cents.

That’s not really saying much, since Wall Street analysts had such low expectations, estimating Yahoo would earn eight cents. But, with a weak advertising market, it is also not that bad.”

Here’s the conference call, updated as it happened:

2:02 pm PST: Music followed by investor relations lady, who had a very nice voice.

She was quick and to the point, and soon enough Bartz was on.

First, she welcomed Morse as CFO, noting he was strong in “efficiency and process.”

Then she pointed out that the new home page for Yahoo–pictured here and you can read about it here–was “available…starting…today.”

Bartz dragged out the words, with a small dramatic flourish.

Then, it was right to the results, which Bartz was bullish on: “Considering the economy, I am pleased with the results.”

Bartz noted that “overall, we are seeing less fear in the marketplace,” although she added that she had no idea when the econalypse would be over.

“It’s easy to see it bumping along the bottom, but it’s too early to call…so, we’ll leave economic predictions to others,” she said.

She moved onto her being happy about all the new execs she had hired, noting that Yahoo was “closing in” on picking an international head (note to myself, get a Yahoo to leak the news to me asap).

2:07 PST: Morse (pictured here) came on and introduced himself. He looks like a CFO and also sounded like one too–calm, cool and collected, as it should be.

After a short talk about his background, he moved onto all the particulars of the quarter–results that had already been released, but Morse repeated them with verve.

I try to listen carefully in these explanations, but I confess that I actually don’t, unless something new happens. It didn’t.

Then Morse was looking forward, including talking some more about marketing spend coming up, as well as explaining what kind of CFO he was going to be.

2:18 PST: Back to Bartz, who started talking about well the long-troubled Silicon Valley icon was doing, even in the weak economy.

She kept calling Yahoo the “world’s biggest Internet media company,” and then said that Yahoo was an “Internet kingmaker” for other Web sites.

Well, it’s kind of true on both counts, so we’ll overlook the bragging.

Bartz then quickly moved through all the various arenas at Yahoo–from advertising to the home page to mobile–where Yahoo was trying to improve and increase its business.

She apparently is aiming to make online ads less annoying–if successful, I propose that Bartz should be awarded some medal of honor.

“We have a clear simple vision to be the center of people lives online,” said Bartz in conclusion, throwing in “kingmaker” again. “At the end of the day, we know who we are and know what we need to do to win.”

2:33 pm PST: Question time!

The first was about what Bartz thinks about Bing, the new Microsoft search engine, because it might take a while for these Wall Street analysts–reporters don’t get to ask questions–to screw up the courage to ask her outright about any Microsoft deal.

Bartz was unusually cordial, which is how someone about to be hitched needs to be.

“I think Bing is a good product…I think Microsoft should be given kudos for Bing,” she said. Hmmmm….

The next question was about the intent of Yahoo to invest in search, as opposed to display advertising. Another veiled Microsoft search deal question.

Bartz noted that Yahoo was investing in the user. Nice way not to answer the question!

2:38 pm PST: A question about spending and if there was going to be more.

Bartz noted that Yahoo was restructuring costs, rather than cutting and burning. She noted, for example, that more marketing spend was part of the plan.

Morse used a bucket analogy, and talked about draining costs back and forth, which was apt.

The next question was about advertising revenues, and whether they would grow. Also, more questions about costs.

Morse noted good strength in a lot of areas in the premium sector. As to cost structure: “We’re repositioning the business.”

2:48 pm PST:

Another cost question. I am officially ignoring it.

The next question was about how Yahoo was going to keep fixing APT, its newest advertising platform, which some think is too hard to use.

Bartz, who has insulted it in the past, was now kind of nice about it, noting that they were working on making it better.

A question about owned-and-operated search and its relationship with Yahoo’s affiliate search, which had been stronger. Not a trend, said Bartz flatly.

More about search and whether scale matters in search (another sneaky way to ask about Microsoft). “Of course scale matters,” said Bartz, who joked she would be happy to switch share positions with Google (GOOG).

A question about the new home page and its monetization and why it was announced today, as opposed to the fall, as planned.

Bartz did not really explain why or about revenue, but she sounded good.

The last question was about improvements in search share and monetization (translation: I want to ask about Microsoft, but I am too much of a wimp).

Bartz talked about better targeting, improved experience, driving relevancy and the prominent position of search on the front page. That will lead to more money, she noted.

Again, it’s not exactly an answer, but it sounded good.

Then it was over, although Bartz ended by urging everyone to “go look at the new home page.”

Well, despite the news being as bad at Microsoft as it was at Yahoo (YHOO) earlier this week, the conference call after the software giant released its third-quarter earnings was 100 percent less naughty and 200 percent more glum.

In other words, while there were no F-bombs dropped, there were lots of E-bombs–as in econalypse.

Microsoft’s earnings and revenue took a big hit in its third quarter, with profits down 32 percent from a year ago on a six percent sales decline.

It was the company’s first-ever year-over-year quarterly sales drop.

There were also more than $700 million in charges from layoffs and investment declines, both a result of the weak economy. The culprit for most of the bad news was the decline in consumer and business spending on computers.

And Microsoft CFO Chris Liddell did not even bother to act as if there was any hope, painting a semi-apocalyptic picture of the business landscape that he predicted was not going to get better anytime soon.

Here’s BoomTown’s liveblogging of the call:

2:34 p.m. PDT: The call starts after some very stern marshal music was played. This turns out to be the perfect mood-setter.

First up, the investor relations guy who talks about all the rules, like those folks who come on after, say, a Viagra commercial and quickly list the scary side effects.

But scary was what Liddell was serving up from the get-go, as he pretty much spent the entire conference call talking about just how bad the economy has been, is and will be.

What’s most disconcerting perhaps is the fact that he was delivering the bad news in a cute-as-a-kiwi New Zealand accent.

Nonetheless, Liddell said the company had had to “adapt to a new reality” and that Microsoft was “more cautious than most about the state of the world economy” and–let’s not forget–the “economic pressures are both broad and deep.”

Liddell also noted that the recovery will not happen quickly, but be “slow and gradual.”

Perhaps this is not the right time to mention that both Google (GOOG) and Apple (AAPL) essentially killed in their recent earnings reports.

2:38 p.m.: Microsoft’s investor relations head Bill Koefoed–without any jaunty inflection whatsoever–delivered the numbers in that droning way that all financial types who deliver numbers on calls like this do.

My assistant, Ed, actually fell into a temporary coma from across the room.

Basic message of numbers: Bad.

2:54 p.m.: Back to Liddell for some forward-looking stuff.

Also not good, with consumer sentiment and spending weak, he said, there would be “significant pressure until market conditions improve.”

“In summary, it was a tough quarter,” reiterated Liddell, restating what he already stated and stated again. And then restated.

2:59 p.m.: Now to questions! Maybe things will look up here.

But…nope!

Thus, more worries about Microsoft’s growth, a weakness in sales and even some clucking over renewal rates of its operating system software licenses.

Then someone noted that it seemed as if Microsoft at least had its “arms around” the problems.

Would Liddell show any glimmer of hope?

“I guess we are all learning… how do I feel about the shape of the quarter [to come]?” he pondered.

Wait for it, wait for it, wait for it. Said Liddell, the sad-sack CFO: “I do not see anything that gives me any encouragement.”

Big, big sigh.

3:16 p.m.: Someone asked about one remark Liddell made about some “countercyclical” products, which might be bright spots in the Microsoft empire.

Indeed, new versions of the Windows operating system, Office, Exchange and its search offering are all set to come out in the next year.

Will they be gamechangers? Liddell was not saying, of course.

Finally, at the end, after a question about stock repurchases, there was some light at the end of the tunnel.

No matter what, Microsoft is still a cash-spewing engine.

“One of the great positives,” said Liddell was the company’s free cash flow of $20 billion, at an annual rate.

In other words, there is nothing like money stuffed under the mattress in times like these.

A major Yahoo investor yesterday told me that he liked what he saw so far from new Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz, but he still remained wary.

“I like the sizzle,” he said, referring to Bartz’s decisive take-no-prisoners style. “But I am still waiting to see if steak is there too.”

Well, Bartz handed over some tough news to chew on today, announcing Yahoo’s first-quarter earnings, which were just as weak as expected.

The company reported an eight-cent-per-share profit, down from 37 cents a year ago, a 78 percent drop.

Revenue in the quarter came in at $1.6 billion, a 13 percent decline from last year’s $1.8 billion.

And Yahoo (YHOO) also said it would cut five percent of its staff of 13,600, which means layoffs of close to 700 employees.

BoomTown liveblogged the Yahoo earnings conference call, with Bartz and outgoing CFO Blake Jorgensen.

(Bartz, well known for her ribald words and sassy phrases, lobbed several, and also tossed out a small F-bomb at the very end of the conference call, so read on to the bottom.)

2:04 p.m.: The call started off a few minutes late, but who can blame Yahoo, given the poor results? But Bartz finally came on the call with an upbeat tone.

“What an amazing and busy three months it’s been,” she said, outlining what she had learned so far on her whirlwind visits across the Yahoo empire and “deep dives” into the products and services of the troubled Internet giant.

“The most important takeaway was the importance of having a ‘Wow!’ experience,” concluded Bartz, who noted the definition of that particular enthusiasm was different, depending on who you were.

“Wow!” did not describe the earning results, to be sure.

But we pressed on.

2:08 p.m.: Bartz noted that Yahoo remained focused on investment and also renewed investment in the company.

She pointed to content, email, search and advertising as key building blocks of Yahoo and focused on three key goals:

1) Globalizing the Yahoo platform

2) Building “fantastic products” that deeply impact users

3) Investing in “industry-leading” online ad solutions

You know, getting back to basics of exactly what made Yahoo great before.

2:09 p.m.: Bartz complimented Yahoo CTO and Product head Ari Balogh, as well as other current Yahoo staff at the Silicon Valley-based company.

Then she announced that Yahoo had hired Jeff Russakow (pictured here) as its new customer advocacy head.

I am guessing he is now the key guy in charge of monitoring the “Wow!” level.

Russakow is currently VP of corporate strategy for Symantec, the online security software firm, which does not trumpet Yahoo! to me.

So, I wonder if Yahoo engineers should build a “Wow!” meter to help Jeff?

Bartz then noted that Yahoo has been and will continue to “slim down our portfolio,” while continuing in investing.

That would mean dumping the non-”Wow!”

2:11 p.m.: CFO Jorgensen hopped on, noting the “difficult economic environment.”

We noticed!

Jorgensen then proceeded to go through the unimpressive numbers for a while, in a voice that lulled me into a slight stupor. There was essentially no good news anywhere for Yahoo.

Then, he summed up and said goodbye, as he is leaving Yahoo soon and there will be a new CFO by the next quarter’s call. Jorgensen said he will be watching Yahoo “with interest.”

Blake! We hardly knew you! Call me anytime and we’ll chat and maybe have lunch (bring lots of internal memos!).

2:20 p.m.: Bartz complimented Jorgensen, although she did kind of “part ways” with him.

Then, finally, came a patented Bartzism, which is that special sassy phrase or ribald word, with her noting that users were looking for a “kick-ass” experience from Yahoo.

She obviously could not resist, which was a good instinct.

Bartz soon threw in a “freakin’” too.

Then, she non-answered anticipated questions about Yahoo’s talks with Microsoft over a search and advertising partnership by noting, “search is a very valuable asset for Yahoo.”

And that, she said, in a Forrest Gumpism, “is all we’re going to say about search today.”

Also, life is a box of chocolates.

2:25 p.m.: Bartz then discussed the economy, especially the impact on branded display advertising, which she said was not going to be killed off.

Brands were always important, she noted, and Yahoo could even help damaged brands revive themselves.

Like, um, maybe, Yahoo?

She closed the talking points part of the call on another upbeat note: “Let me say again how happy I am to be here.”

Us too, cuz Bartz is a definitely a live wire, as it later turned out.

(Bartz also announced an analysts day on Oct. 28.)

2:29 p.m.: Now began questions from said analysts (media folks are muted, of course).

The first was about ad price differences, which was dull.

The second, though, touched on the Microsoft (MSFT) talks, with someone essentially asking if Bartz was smart enough about search to be able to entertain an offer.

Well, what do you think she was going to say?

That’s right: “I am well versed enough in the search business to say it is critical to Yahoo.”

Bartz also noted that she thought advertisers prefer a combined search and display experience, which felt like she was channeling Yahoo EVP Hilary Schneider.

But Bartz also managed to keep the door open, saying–and I just know she had a mischievous smile while she said this–“Relative to anything else related to Microsoft, no comment.”

She was also not gaming the economy, noting that no one knows what will happen in the future.

“A wise person stays to the sides and lets the economists figure it out,” said Bartz.

As if!

2:33 p.m.: More questions were asked about costs and layoffs (sad!) and about ad inventory.

Bartz underscored the importance of its premium ad sales staff and placement over ad networks and randomness.

“Chanel does not want to end up next to Harley-Davidson. It kind of doesn’t work,” she asserted.

Well, it works for me! I mean, black leather and more black leather–what’s not to like?

2:39 p.m.: More about globalizing the Yahoo platform, which Bartz said would take a while.

“It’s not like flipping a switch,” she said. “This is work, this is not just words.”

Bartz also talked about how non-easy the current ad management systems at Yahoo are. Several times.

2:46 p.m.: A question then came about reinvestment, which was really about selling off stuff like the Asian assets.

No answers were forthcoming, although weak product groups are getting tossed off the good ship Yahoo quite quickly under Bartz.

More questions about the economy, the ad business and another attempt to find out about the Microsoft talks.

“Search is important,” to consumers and advertisers of Yahoo, Bartz underscored again, noting she was not going to fall for a “tricky” question.

Good lord, she’s a sharpie.

3:03 p.m.: Last up is a question about the investment in the global platform and the reorganization.

And, in the end, Bartz uttered the naughty word many had expected sooner.

It came when Bartz was on a roll about how engineers have been “scattered to the winds” at Yahoo and that there have been too many product managers overseeing things and annoying those windswept engineers.

She was dead right about this nagging issue at the company, as it has slowed down innovation and rollouts of key services and products.

“Nobody’s f#*king doing anything,” Bartz stated with apparent exasperation.

She tried to take it back quickly, adding, “I knew that would slip out some time.”

But Bartz should not take it back. Never ever.

In fact, most would agree that it was well past time that such an assessment should slip out of Yahoo.

WhiteHouse.gov just opened for questions for a “community-moderated online town hall,” setting up for a Web appearance by President Barack Obama on Thursday.

According to the site, anyone can:

“Submit your own question about the economy and vote on submissions from others. We also encourage you to include a link to a video of yourself asking your question, but text submissions are all you need. Come back on Thursday to watch the President answer some of the most popular submissions live at WhiteHouse.gov.”

The site has held similar online events twice in the transition period, but questions were then answered by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and not Obama.

This time, it will be the President, taking questions picked from those voted most popular.

The site is using Google (GOOG) Moderator technology, although there is no branding of it, as well as Google-owned YouTube for the video from Obama posted below.

At least, according to this excerpt from a 10-questions interview former Wonkette blogger Ana Marie Cox, who now contributes to Time magazine’s Swampland blog, did with Stop Smiling magazine recently.

Cox (pictured here) was on a blogger panel at our third D: All Things Digital conference in 2005, where she talked about the changes in the media industry due to the rise of blogs.

At the time, there was a lot of controversy about the rise of bloggers.

But now, in questions No. 7 and 8 here, Cox discusses the huge differences in the 2004 and 2008 presidential campaigns, in terms of blogs, and how the image of bloggers has shifted dramatically with mainstream media.

From Cox’s lips to traditional journalists’ ears.

Here are the excerpts:

Q7: You’ve been around long enough to see the differences between the 2004 and 2008 presidential campaigns. Do you have any strong feelings about how this year differs from the Kerry-Bush election, in terms of the role that blogs play?

AMC: In 2004, MTV hired me to cover the Democratic convention, and I swear I did two or three interviews just on the fact that I was a blogger covering the convention. I doubt that would happen today. In 2004, people would be highly suspicious of me, because at any moment I could break out my computer and blog about them. I went to YearlyKos in 2006, as one of my first assignments for Time, and I was hanging out with the real reporters, and there was this running joke: As soon as someone said something off-color or impolitic, you’d say, “Hey, I’m gonna blog that.” Like a taunt. In 2008, I was at a Republican debate during the primaries, and I looked around the filing center and everyone was blogging. Everyone has that force propelling them to publish whatever they can. Anything that happens to them is now fodder for a Washington Post blog.

Q8: Do you think more traditional reporters still frown on blogging as if it were not a serious form of journalism?

AMC: The whole “are bloggers journalists?” question, which was always stupid, is finally fading, especially thanks to people like Josh Marshall [of Talking Points Memo], who have shown you don’t have to have a big organization behind you to be a journalist. The defining characteristic of a journalist is what you produce. I think it’s changed the question from “are bloggers journalists?” to “what is journalism?” And that is a perfectly acceptable debate to have. There’s never going to be an answer, but it starts us at a better place than simply talking about delivery systems.”

Ana

But–as many readers have requested–they will all be available in their entirety over the next two weeks in this column.

Here’s Part 6 of 6 of our interview with Rupert Murdoch, chairman and CEO of News Corp. (NWS) (owner of this site and the conference), in which he answers questions from the audience about competitors, the future of newspapers, China, more Sen. Obama, technology and magazines.

Here are the rest of the videos from the interview:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5