Notes from north of 49ºN

I’ve been immersed in Canadianess on several fronts this week. There’s the Vancouver 2010 Olympics, of course, and I went to an innovation talk by the CEO of Porter Airlines, an emerging Canadian success story, at MaRS here in Toronto.

I’ve heard about some backlash about Canada’s “Own the Podium” programme, which I’ve dubbed “pwn the podium,” but I find the whole spectacle fascinating. The first Olympics I remember, which will date me, is Montréal-1976. I remember watching, on a B&W TV in the kitchen, Nadia Comăneci dazzle the world, as well as Gilda Radner’s impersonation of her on Saturday Night Live. I remember the US hockey gold medal in 1980 and the US-led boycott of the summer games in Moscow. I was in Westwood near UCLA during the 1984 Olympics in LA and still recall the pastel iconography and the feel-good pervasiveness that just didn’t jive with my own brand of teenaged angst. Over the years, I’ve followed the Olympics, as I’m interested in spectacle in the Debord sense, but not soooo cynically. So much hinges on the dramas, albeit often hyped by the media. Although, the story of the first Canadian to win gold on Canadian soil, Alexandre Bilodeau, is quite compelling. Alexandre took up skiing, as his mom wanted her kids to take up a more family-oriented sport, which could include his older brother with cerebral palsy, Frédéric.

The coverage of the Olympics is a perfect example of mediascapes, as described by Arjun Appadurai::

“‘Mediascapes’, whether produced by private or state interests, tend to be image-centered, narrative-based accounts of strips of reality, and what they offer to those who experience and transform them is a series of elements (such as characters, plots and textual forms) out of which scripts can be formed of imagined lives, their own as well as those of others living in other places.”

So, what made me laugh out loud was Salon.com reporting they got hammered for the snarky remarks made by writers on their site on articles on the Olympics . Oh, Salon, desperately trying to be relevant by stirring the pot, which I find it often does with gendered issues—oh cruel fates, why can’t Roman Polansky get arrested monthly?! Salon writers are like ironic hipsters who aren’t quite clued in to how planting “tongue-in-cheek” with one’s writing doesn’t preclude you from looking like an idiot for missing the forest for the trees.

Heather Havrilesky and Steve Almond both poked fun at Vancouver Games. Heather’s “D’oh, Canada!” piece was a play-by-play on how the opening ceremonies were cheesy, boring, and with poor production values—a colossal fail. She ends with a reiteration of her take on how the bland NBC is, along with how they are complicit in not accurately depicting the ceremonies as an embarrassing mess::

“And do Costas and Lauer acknowledge what a big mess it is? Hell, no. Instead they’re happily prattling along as Wayne Gretsky rides to the real outdoor Olympic cauldron in the rain. Why didn’t they just have one cauldron? Sadly, this outdoor one looks just like the malfunctioning heap inside.

Oh, Canada. You may among the friendliest and most welcoming people on earth, but sometimes friendliness, politeness, and “making it be” just isn’t enough.”

Almond went through the various gaffes and SNAFUs of the first few days of the games. Bitch bitch bitch. He concludes with this trenchant observation::

“We’re really sorry it had to go this way, Canada. We love your health care system and your uncomplaining tolerance of sub-freezing weather and your almost freakishly low-key attitude. But when it comes to mindless, over-hyped spectacles of late model capitalist excess, you should probably leave the driving to us.“

While NBC provides a mainstream mediascape, Salon is providing a cynical, urban-liberal hipster variant, slathered in a fatty gravy of pseudointellectualism and punctuated by cheese curd five-dollar-turns-of-phrase, like so much poutine.

In my opinion, this is nothing to get in a lather about, since it’s so utterly predictable. Mediascapes are all about persuasion, promotion, and, in Salon’s case, pageviews. Their depiction of Canada as bumbling bumpkin cousins to the north is really just the flipside of NBC’s mainstream message of pro-US feelgood candy. Hand in glove. I can just hear George Peppard say, “I love it when a plan comes together.”

Salon should have more compassion for Canada. Salon has spent 15 years trying to be an über-hip West coast New Yorker, but are still just bumbling bumpkin cousins to the West.

BTW:: The idea that Canadians are polite. Ha! It’s another myth.

Twitterversion:: Salon.com pwned 4 snarky #Olympics articles. Urban uberhipster liberalism just flipside 2 mainstream NBC feelgood candy. @Prof_K

Song:: The Smiths-“William It Was Really Nothing”

Notes from North of 49ºN

Charles McGrath in the NY Times wrote a curious and annoying piece on Canada’s quest for gold in the upcoming Winter Olympics in Vancouver {HT: LinnyQat}. I thought his characterization of Canada to be a collection of what I call “university-educated” stereotypes complete with quotes of Canadians, such as Margaret Atwood, that make the country sound like a nation of self-loating and self-deprecating sots. It’s articles like this that remind me that the New York Times often is a purveyor of moderately well-written naval gazing with all the right references to make it seem legit.

I’ve written blogs on Canada’s postcolonial experience, as well as how a trajectory of regionalism may be at play. Reading McGrath made me think about my own blogs. He thinks he’s stumbled on a new Canadian consciousness that cares about Olympic medals that’s out of place in the zeitgeist of the nation::

“They want to rewire the national mind-set and come away with not just a couple of golds but the most medals over all. They have dedicated roughly $118 million to enhancing the performance of Canadian athletes, and have financed something called the Top Secret project, in which teams of scientists have been studying the various winter sports in hope of gaining a technological edge.

The organization in charge of improving Canada’s medal performance has the un-Canadian-sounding name Own the Podium, and its chief executive, Roger Jackson, said: “We’ve never been pressured before to perform to a stated goal. Thirty medals or more is what we’re hoping for this time. I think we can get those.”

Talk like this, so nakedly ambitious, makes some Canadians uneasy. Theirs is a vast country that in many ways is run like a small town, with small-town values, and it has a highly developed culture of modesty, if not a collective inferiority complex. The athletic record in general is a little underwhelming, and some Canadians think that is because their countrymen prefer that, considering a good effort just as valuable as a trunkload of trophies, maybe better.”

McGrath is sounding like an American version of Andrew Cohen in The Unfinished Canadian. While I’ve argued that Canadian identity may be “fuzzy,” that has more to do with its sheer size, distinct regions, and relatively small population. Never underestimate the power of sports to galvanize a sense of identity, as evident in the recent film Invictus::

What McGrath fails to parse is the effects of capitalism and of culture. Hockey galvanizes Canada, solidifying an identity that may be fuzzy. It’s not that Canadians are OK with losing, as McGrath implies, it’s question of economics.  It looks like Canada is willing to invest in its teams and I’ll bet a box of Timbits that if Canada wins medals, there won’t be a collective national sheepishness over the feat. Canadians don’t fear winning, it’s just that Canadian capitalism, to date, hasn’t fostered it. It looks like that’s changing.

The Canadian embracing of funding the medal count may not be without controversy. The Olympics have their detractors because of the astronomical costs involved. So, Canadians may like winning, there may not be a collective willingness to finance it at stratospheric levels.

Some may argue that if Canadians are so into hockey, why did they let the sport become Americanized and lose the Winnipeg Jets and Québec Nordiques in the process? It’s all about capitalism. I’ve blogged about the NHL on Rhizomicon and while the NHL has tried to expand heavily in the US to vie for the sports entertainment dollar, it’s the Canadian fans that are making the Canadian teams the top revenue generators.

Unfortunately, given scarcity of resources, the Canadian biatheletes are out in the cold, i.e., no corporate sponsorships. So, I’ll give them a shout out::

While Zina Kocher is a World Cup bronze medalist from the 2006-7 season, the funding just isn’t there for the biathlon.

Here’s a response to the NY Times pirce from the Toronto Star, which is pretty funny::

“We started talking about what we’re hoping for at the Olympics.

Ned said he hoped Canada would win so many fourths that they’d have to make a special new medal. Maybe a nickel medal. With a beaver on it. But not a cocky-looking beaver. Just a plain work-a-day beaver. We could hand them out after all the foreigners leave – so that no one feels left out.

I said I hoped we might sweep the fourths and fifths. And the odd sixth. But Ned shook his head at me, and I felt awful for a few minutes. And then ashamed of feeling awful.

But it was exciting to talk this way. Maybe the most exciting thing we’ve talked about since they (whimper) let Wayne drift away into that heaven-on-Earth they call California.”

Twitterversion::  NYTimes #fail confuses Canadian culture with capitalism re: Olympic medal push. Hilarious response in #Toronto Star. @Prof_K

Song:: The Besnard Lakes {Montréal, QC} -“Albatross”

Notes from North of 49ºN

This morning, the city of Toronto awoke to a mayoral candidate sex scandal that is likely to have zero effect on the outcome, given the strength of the frontrunner, George Smitherman. The Toronto Star had an article on how a woman came forward with text messages of a sexual nature and allegations that she had an affair with mayoral candidate Adam Giambrone, the Toronto Transit Commission chairman and City Councillor. Giambrone has a long-time girlfriend, Sarah McQuarrie. The article was full of lurid details, reminding me why I think of the Star as a bastion of hack journalism and often poorly-written articles. In the article, Adam called it a lapse in judgement and apologized to those close to him for the embarrassment his actions will cause them.

What I find interesting is not just how this story plays into the routine morality play of political sex scandals, but also how the press frames them. The above photo was in an article posted within the last 90 minutes on the Star, reporting that Giambrone is staying in the mayoral race. I found it interesting that the photo had images of “the couple” in clean-cut political mode, contrasted with “the other woman,” complete with low-cut blouse.  Here’s the photo from the story that ran this morning, echoing more of the same::

The Toronto Star might think I’m full of it {along with others}, but I think these photos are meant to reinforce, with a visual rhetoric, a specific normative political narrative with the intent of selling papers and fueling pageviews. WJT Mitchell wrote about “what do pictures want?” a few years back. These images attempt to simultaneously evoke an emotional response from us along with a judgment, as well as reinforce a narrative of our politicians.

The Torontoist had a good point by saying that this story is telling of our political culture.  They also question the correlation between one’s private life and the ability to be a good public servant. I have no idea what the truth is in this story, but I have three points to make::

1. If politicians are to be held to a high moral standard, why not all persons in positions of power? If a boss has an affair, should that be unequivocal grounds for termination?
2. Doesn’t this scrutiny of politician’s private lives, given how technology is eroding privacy, set a precedent for all of our lives to be potentially in the public sphere?
3. Doesn’t this scrutiny incentivize more bad behaviours, as in the case of John Edwards who not only had an affair, but went to great lengths to cover it up.

Does this preclude a mainstream politician who is a “player” or polyamorous? I think it does. And the Star will ensure we get out collective fill of any lurid details or allegations of “deviance” to express our collective outrage, just like in Victorian times, when “smut” was published as a cautionary warning—and make fistfuls of cash.

Update {10 February 2010, 8:39a EST}::

Giambrone admitted to more affairs and politicians are going on record expressing shock, dismay, and calling for his withdrawal from the mayoral race. It looks like the Toronto Star wasn’t the only one interested in sexy pictures. There was just differences on the definition of sexy. Here’s an excerpt from today’s Globe & Mail::

“At first, Ms. Lucas seemed eager for more exposure. She sent several photos of herself to a local gossip website yesterday morning because she disliked the portraits that appeared in the Star, according to David Robert, manager of drinktheglitter.com. “She wanted sexy pictures of her to be out there,” he said. “She’s like, ‘They’re going to get out anyways.’ “ But she shrank from attention as interest in the scandal swelled. Ms. Lucas swiftly deleted her Facebook and Twitter pages. Mr. Robert said she also disconnected her phone number and shut herself inside her house in East York to escape the media swarm.

“I think this is crazy for her,” he said. “But, my god, I mean, [yesterday] morning she sent Canada’s highest-rated gossip site 10 pictures of herself.”

Twitterversion:: Blog: Trending topic #Giambrone dustup in #Toronto. Star reciting familiar verbal/visual tropes to make $$. #ThickCulture @Prof_K

Song:: The Wedding Present-“Unfaithful”

Sarah Palin has gotten on Obama’s case for being a “charasmatic guy with a teleprompter”, but it looks like her hand was literally caught in the crib note cookie jar for the post-speech Q&A::

I think the only thing more embarrassing would if “left” or “L” were scrawled on it.

Here’s a short MSNBC {not Olberman} story on it::

and the full speech::

It’s interesting how social media enables the viral spread of stories like this. Is this unfair? Does this really matter? Why is this news? It reinforces what many think of her and there may be more than a little “trainwreck” effect, i.e., it’s gruesome, but one cannot help but slow down and gawk. Of course, the writing on the hand—it’s satire, people.

Twitterversion:: Pic of Sarah Palin’s “crib notes” for Tea Party speech Q&A {video of full speech avail.} spread virally via social media. #ThickCulture

Song:: David Bowie-“I Keep Forgettin'”

What follows is an excerpt from Frankfurt School theorist Walter Benjamin’s “On the Concept of History” {1940}::

My wing is ready to fly

I would rather turn back
For had I stayed mortal time
I would have had little luck.
– Gerhard Scholem, “Angelic Greetings”

There is a painting by Klee called Angelus Novus. An angel is depicted there who looks as though he were about to distance himself from something which he is staring at. His eyes are opened wide, his mouth stands open and his wings are outstretched. The Angel of History must look just so. His face is turned towards the past. Where we see the appearance of a chain of events, he sees one single catastrophe, which unceasingly piles rubble on top of rubble and hurls it before his feet. He would like to pause for a moment so fair [verweilen: a reference to Goethe’s Faust], to awaken the dead and to piece together what has been smashed. But a storm is blowing from Paradise, it has caught itself up in his wings and is so strong that the Angel can no longer close them. The storm drives him irresistibly into the future, to which his back is turned, while the rubble-heap before him grows sky-high. That which we call progress, is this storm.

When I was in graduate school at UC-Irvine, I was in a doctoral seminar where we pondered these words. What did Benjamin really mean with his Angel of History? I struggled with it then and scholars have pondered Benjamin’s essays for decades.

I’ve been thinking of The Angel of History a lot these days, in terms of globalization, the financial meltdown, and the Big Recession. When Benjamin wrote this essay, he was thinking of the revolutions in France in of 1789, 1830 and 1848 and the Paris Commune of 1870. These “revolutions” are separated in time, but are part of a constellation. This is what the Angel sees when looking back at the rubble and the destruction of revolutions, but nothing can be done, as progress propels a trajectory. Benjamin’s view of the world was non-linear and dealt in gestalts.

In a global sense, I wonder if we are witnessing a shift. Progress and history are moving along a trajectory punctuated by discontinuities that affect the entire globe. These discontinuities aren’t isolated, but part of a constellation of ideas, concepts, events, actions, etc., such as::

1. The fall of the Soviet empire
2. The formation of the EU
3. The rise of global financial flows
4. The ubiquity of media
5. The rise of fundamentalist Islam
6. The rise of technologies and resultant efficiencies from IT and the web
7. The rise of China
8. The problem of intellectual property rights & their enforcement
9. The rise of emerging technologies like biotechnology based on the genome
10. The Big Recession of 2008-present*

What can be said of a constellation of the above? Are they isolated or interrelated? More importantly, how do these inform where we’re heading?

*Is this a discontinuity or a merely a part of ordinary business cycles?

Twitterversion:: Thoughts about Walter Benjamin’s Angel of History, as it pertains to the global economic meltdown. #ThickCulture http://url.ie/4yje @Prof_K

Song:: Young Galaxy-“Long Live the Fallen World”

First off, I think there’s little that can be done about the forthcoming yearly deficits and total debt of the US federal government. Reigning in spending at this point will just make a bad situation worse. Nevertheless, what are the implications of the deficit. People have views about it, as Pew Research shows. It is currently #7, in terms of people’s top priorities and for the past two years, both Republicans and Democrats see it as a priority, being within a percentage point of each other. Over the years, the concern has gone up and down::

What I’m not sure is whether or not people get the implications of a huge debt. I remember in macroeconomics being taught about “crowding out”, where government spending and resultant borrowing “crowds out” entities seeking capital in lending markets and drives up interest rates.  Now, the Wall Street Journal is singing cassandra’s tune, warning that foreign creditors holding US Treasury securities is a threat to the nation’s national security and Leon Panetta, CIA Director, agrees::

I don’t see this happening. Why? I think we’re in for the dollar depreciating, as I see policies on the horizon that will lead to inflation, higher interest rates, and a devalued dollar, as does Jim Jubak at MSN. Holding the dollar won’t have the appeal it once had, given that it’s likely to devalue, and the Chinese are already curbing their appetite for US debt. In any case, this level of debt isn’t a “game over” situation and the US won’t go bankrupt, no matter which “expert” says it on CNN.

Currently, inflation is practically non-existant, as is nominal GDP {i.e., national income} growth, and interest rates are rock bottom.  The inflation and interest rates give the economy some degrees of freedom. A more troubling issue is GDP growth, which might be hindered by structural problems in the economy. We may not “grow” out of this, where economic growth increases incomes and tax revenues. Unemployment is the highest it’s been since 1983 and will be a political hot button issue in 2010.

As for deficit spending and the increasing debt, total public debt as a percentage of GDP {a debt to income ratio} is high, approaching the levels it was in the late 1940s. While the numbers are mind-boggling, the debt isn’t unprecedented.

I’m not staying up at night worrying about the deficit, although there will be several policy implications::

1. The true danger of the deficit spending is if there isn’t a multiplier effect, i.e., the impact of a dollar spent is some multiple of that dollar. I’m afraid that spending may not be directed towards projects/endeavours that get the most “bang” for their buck.
2. Too much emphasis on the deficit may hamper spending that achieves multiplier effects.
3. Read my lips, expect higher taxes in the long haul.
4. There will political pressure to reduce unemployment and {in my opinion} spending should focus on this, in ways that achieve a multiplier effect, e.g., jobs that also increase innovativeness and/or productivity or improve infrastructure.
5. Expect programme cuts and pressures towards privatization.
6. Expect reductions in military spending.

Ideally, deficit spending is an “investment” in the country when there aren’t tax revenues to cover it, as in a recession. The real question shouldn’t be how much is being spent, but how and where it’s being spent.

Twitterversion:: Are you concerned about the US deficit? Blog post focusing on the real implications of running up the bills. @Prof_K

Song:: Hem-“When I Was Drinking”

“Living it up when the rent was due
With nothing and no one to live up to”

Notes from North of 49ºN

The above video from YouTube does a decent job of explaining what the big issue in Canada is at the moment, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s proroguing of Parliament. Proroguing? It may seem like a Sarah Palinism, as in “pro-rogue”, but it’s a suspension of Parliament without dissolving it. Harper, a Conservative, prorogued Parliament last year when the other parties were threatening to form a coalition of New Democrats, Liberals, and the Bloc Québécois. This time around, Harper was being asked tough questions by Parliamentary committees about what his government knew about the torture of Afghan detainees after they were turned over to Canadian Forces. On 30 December, the Governor General, upon Harper’s request, prorogued Parliament until 3 March 2010, killing all bills and suspending all committees. The official reason given was the economy, but nobody bought it.

There were two major results::

1. A grassroots effort using social media mobilized sizeable protests across Canada
2. The Conservatives have lost ground in the public opinion polls and are in a statistical dead heat with the Liberals

On Facebook, a group for Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament has amassed 219,600 members {28 January} and last Saturday nationwide protests were organized. Here in Toronto, a sizeable crowd assembled downtown::

The prorogation of Parliament is viewed by many as anti-democratic {See Rick Mercer’s opinion piece in the Globe & Mail}, although Harper has supporters of his decision. For the time being, anti-Conservative momentum has picked up the pace and support for the Liberals has increased—at the expense of the NDP, Greens, and Bloc.

It’s over a month until Parliament reconvenes. It will be interesting to see if the anti-Conservative sentiments will weather the Winter Olympics in Vancouver and any possible coherent response by Harper. Upon Parliament reconvening, I’m not sure if an election will be triggered. A weakened Harper that’s ready to deal may do more long-term damage to the Conservatives. I’ll be blogging on Rhizomicon within a few days on my detailed analysis of the EKOS poll data, which should make the Liberals a bit cautious about another {expensive} election in the near future.

Twitterversion:: Harper’s proroguing triggered Facebook mobilized protests.EKOS poll:: Grits surging @ expense of Tories,Greens,NDP,& Bloc. @Prof_K

Tonight is Barack Obama’s State of the Union address. Let’s hope it’s more exciting than Steve Job’s iPad announcement and I’m sure many Dems. hope it elicits less ridicule.

The WSJ has an even article on Rahm Emanuel, the White House Chief of Staff, about how he’s taking heat from the left.

“The friction was laid bare in August when Mr. Emanuel showed up at a weekly strategy session featuring liberal groups and White House aides. Some attendees said they were planning to air ads attacking conservative Democrats who were balking at Mr. Obama’s health-care overhaul.

‘F—ing retarded,’ Mr. Emanuel scolded the group, according to several participants. He warned them not to alienate lawmakers whose votes would be needed on health care and other top legislative items.”

From a strategic perspective, I feel both the Republicans and Democrats are rudderless. The Republicans have taken potshots at Obama and the Democrats, but don’t have a unifying vision. The Democrats led by Obama are taking heat for not addressing the problems-at-hand head-on and the left wing of the party feels the administration is compromising ideology.

A year ago, Obama was ushered in on a mandate of change. Emanuel is a Clintonian centrist and deals in a raw pragmatism in the service of getting things done. So, while many in the Democratic party in wake of the loss of Ted Kennedy’s old Senate seat in Massachusetts {hey, I spelled it right, unlike Coakley} think the party should go more centrist. Strategically, the Obama administration needs to address the concerns of the people in effective ways. While Emanuel’s centrist pragmatism may seem like a reasonable way to push policies through, it’s passive. Love him or hate him, George W. Bush was good at changing the game with the help of Karl Rove. Jon Stewart for weeks has lambasted the Dems. for focusing so much on retaining a filibuster-proof Senate majority, something W never had. While it could be argued that this is because of many centrist constituencies that Senators are beholden to, I see a dearth of effective communication and policies that people can get behind.

The lack of support on health care reform is a perfect storm. The right has framed it as a government interventionist boondoggle and the left have failed to communicate what they perceive the stakes to be. I see “centrist pragmatism” as resulting in the proposed healthcare legislation, which is overly complex, hard to understand, and reeks of compromise.  As we’ll see below, healthcare is now the “wrong” issue, no matter how hard politicians try to spin it as being tied to the economy.

Rahm’s centrism is wrongheaded, but blindly following a hard left agenda would also be a mistake. I think the Obama administration needs to look at the priorities of the people and the challenge will be to craft policy addressing these and communicating how the policy will effect change.

What are the public’s priorities?  According to a Pew Research study conducted earlier in the month, overall, the economy is looming large as a concern::

Terrorism is third, with the Christmas airline bombing attempt fresh in people’s minds. The next three are interesting with possible drivers:: social security {decimated retirement plans and obliterated pensions}, education {rising costs}, and Medicare {rising pharmaceutical costs}. Breaking things down by ideological lines, the following pattern emerges::

Interestingly, what matters to all groups is pretty similar. Healthcare is only in the top 5 for Democrats, painting the issue as partisan, given its divisiveness.

What to do? All roads lead to the economy and while the deficit is a concern, strategically, I see populist Keynesian measures that put people to work as a way to win over independents, appeal to the Democratic base, and would be hard for Republicans to fight.

Twitterversion:: Centrist pragmatist R. Emanuel under fire from left-Democrats, but what about people’s priorities? Insights fr. Pew data. http://url.ie/4sen  @Prof_K

There’s much anticipation for Apple’s announcement today out in California about a new super secret insanely great killer hardware. Leaks by McGraw-Hill CEO have confirmed eBook capabilities and other sources revealed TV tuner, PVR, and videoconferencing features. This is sort of along the lines of my speculations:: “I’m thinking this new offering will be a hybrid that will be more like an iTouch that ideally offers users tools for the better management of and experiences with media—of all digitized forms,” but it’s still all speculation.

One implication that’s being focused on is how this new Apple tablet {some have dubbed it the “Jesus tablet”} could save the ailing print publishing industry, as newspapers and magazines struggle to remain relevant in the era of searchable digitized content. Will the Jesus tablet {or something like it} save publishing and what are the implications for the field of professional journalism, i.e., the fourth estate?  The business model of newspapers and magazines was simple. Create content that drives subscriptions that allows selling of adspace. The Internet allowed easy access to searchable digitized content and consumers just didn’t want to pay for it, from day one. Ad revenues at newspapers and magazines declined. Craigslist made matters worse with electronic classifieds further eroding revenues. McKinsey quantified the price destruction of the Internet and discusses paywalls as a avenue for some. While revenues dwindled, so did the staffs of newsrooms and magazine offices. Some night argue that citizen bloggers are filling the void and that “good enough” information is readily available free of charge.

Will a tablet that makes accessing multimedia content a snap, if indeed Apple delivers such a device, bring revenues that will enable journalists to get paid? I’m not so sure. The iPod is a triumph of usability. It creates a great user experience and a platform for MP3 sales and while it has spurred strong Internet sales growth, the revenues aren’t enough to offset declining sales of CDs. The iPhone creates a great user experience for telephony, texting, and the mobile web, creating a platform for apps, $3B US in apps as of this month. The steep subsidies in the US for the iPhone have hampered the sole carrier’s earnings, AT&T.

Apple is great at creating platforms, built around great user experience regarding digital content, that benefit them—for now. I think digital music and mobile communications are in a dynamic and turbulent trajectory and I see social media being a major decentreing force. Newspapers and magazines will need to rethink their business models and their relationship with content, pricing, and intellectual property enforcement.

Publishers need to look at new tools like the Apple tablet as a multimedia platform for their content that allow for contextual ads. Some industry analysts are on the same page::

“There’s a real opportunity for Apple to raise the bar here…
Not only by making digital publications accessible to the mainstream reader, but also seamlessly interweaving online features, apps and streaming audio/video content to enhance the general reading experience.” —Scott Steinberg, Digitrends.com Analyst

I feel that content is a “loss leader.” The music industry is coming to terms with this. Sales from the music are secondary to the brass rings of tours, merch, and licensing for TV shows and films. Over on Loudpaper, Mimi Zeiger made an interesting observation::

“What’s become more clear to me over the last year as more and more titles close, is that a publication can’t rely only on the stakes and rigging of print, nor is the move to a digital format as surefire fix. But maybe embracing publishing as pure folly—that is, as spectacle, as event—can offer a worthwhile model. Magazines like GOOD take an integrated approach, content is online as well as in print, and it hosts events based its featured subjects. It also has the good sense to team with other titles, like Readymade, to build cross branding and robust content.”

I couldn’t agree more. Once a path to cash can be mapped for publishers, then we can tend to our code blue patient, the profession of journalism.

Twitterversion:: Leaks about #Apple’s new gadget pt to multimedia tablet w/eBook & videoconf. Can print publishers leverage this platform @Prof_K

I must admit I’ve been a bit intrigued by the Jay-Z song, “Empire State of Mind” featuring Alicia Keys, which is a perfect example of a crossover hit complete with musical hooks, orchestral pop grandeur, and an anthemic quality that goes beyond mere shout-outs. On my other blog, I have a link to a mashup showing the places the song is referring to. The comparisons to “New York, New York”, which Frank Sinatra made famous, are obvious and Shawn Carter makes it explicit::

“I’m the new Sinatra
and since I made it here
I can make it anywhere
yeah they love me everywhere”

What strikes me about this song is how it embodies an American mythology that’s perfect for the Great Recession and has the potential to transcend place. In contrast to the lyrics of “New York, New York”, “Empire State of Mind” crafts a narrative that contextualizes the American dream with its darker elements. Here’s a link to the lyrics. Granted, it’s just a song and not ethnography, but I think it offers up a revised mythology that’s from a different point of view and one that resonates in these times of uncertainty. The song makes references to being from Bed-Stuy in Brooklyn, but with characteristic bravado showing the upside of success::

“now I live on Billboard
and I brought my boys with me
Say what up to Ta-ta
Still sipping Mai Tais
Sitting courtside
Knicks and Nets give me high-5
Nigga, I be Spiked out
I could trip a referee”

“I made you hot nigga,
Catch me at the X with OG at a Yankee game,
shit I made the Yankee hat
more famous than a Yankee can”

The soaring chorus sung by Alicia Keys reinforces this part of the mythology, which may well be what listeners “hear” the most::

“New York!!!!
Concrete jungle where dreams are made of,
There’s nothing you can’t do,
Now you’re in New York!!!
These streets will make you feel brand new,
the lights will inspire you,
Let’s hear it for New York, New York, New York”

The overt and subtle drug references, e.g., “MDMA” and “If Jeezy’s payin’ LeBron, I’m paying Dwayne Wade” {a reference to Jeezy’s song, “Kobe and Lebron” that uses the players’ numbers as code for cocaine prices per kilo}, and cautionary tales of smashed-up dreams and getting addicted to the limelight, serve to juxtapose possibilities with the darker elements of modern life. A modern life increasingly “hard knock” for many in 2009-10. Falling prey to the limelight may not be a life lived by most, but serves as a metaphor. The public consumes through a thirst for the entertainment spectacle, pointing to our collective culpability with respect to what is valued.

I’m not sure how closely people are paying that attention to the lyrics, but I think it’s the simultaneous depiction of what “can be” and “what is” that resonates with listeners. It captures how many see the mythology of the American dream, in the wake of financial meltdowns, bailouts, and double-digit unemployment, which is now 10.6% in NYC.

Twitterversion:: DDoes Jay-Z’s Empire State of Mind create perfect depiction of the American dream, warts&all? Life in the great recession @Prof_K