CANADIAN NOVELIST

The spur for the discussion was (surprise surprise) the recent launch of the Canadian arm of the Huffington Post, which Smith dubs “that unapologetic exploiter of eager, clever people.” He notes that the HuffPo, which doesn’t pay its writers, is being sued south of the border by a group of ex-contributors who “are keenly aware that the online magazine was recently sold to AOL for $315-million.”

The matter has prompted heated debate in both countries about the difference between “canny self promotion and slave labour,”  Smith writes. He continues:

The two sides are neatly divided by generation. Older writers, who have made a living from selling journalism, ghostwriting and corporate writing and who see their writing as a product with a quantifiable monetary value, are horrified that anyone would collaborate with the HuffPo, the Mordor of magazines. It’s not a start-up run by ambitious recent graduates, not an environmental or human-rights project, not a good cause of any kind, but the cash-cow possession of a giant media conglomerate. There is no question that the HuffPo can afford to pay, and pay well. You’d think it would be an easy target for a concerted boycott by Canadian writers.

But a recent graduate would say: It’s great for my career to publish (which is exactly what HuffPo says). I can publish an opinion piece, basically a blog entry, say anything I want, not be subject to rigorous editing or have to do any difficult research, and then I have something to my name. I’m building my brand. This will be good for me when I send my completed book of essays to an e-publisher, or when I go to investors to look for money to start my own online magazine (that I will then sell to AOL for a zillion jillion dollars).

Smith acknowledges that times have changed, and that older writers came of age in an era when there were limited outlets for their work, and as such, most were profitable; and making your mark was easier. Young writers today tend to wonder, “How are we supposed to get our voices known in an infinitely wider and more crowded room unless we speak loudly and often? We can’t afford to wait to be paid for it.”

The younger generation often doesn’t expect to be compensated for their imaginative work, Smith says, but maybe that’s not their primary concern. They’d rather have the exposure that a hugely popular site like HuffPo can provide. “They can get famous fast this way, and it’s gratifying to have a huge audience,” he writes.

What’s more, these writers can sound off on whatever topic they wish, and, unlike old-school young journalists, today’s aspiring scribes “never have to prove themselves by chasing down police radio calls on the night shift, or by writing a dozen numbing profiles on local hair-salon owners. They can go right into wise observations on Iraq and gender roles.”

Perhaps it is true that for today’s young writers, having a prominent place to share their thoughts and views is more important than making money. And fair enough. Problem is, they’re not operating in a vacuum. As Smith notes, their willingness to work for free stands to hurt the old farts. “If they don’t play along in the work-for-pay convention, then all of our incomes are undercut.”

Sadly, the argument that you get what you pay for becomes far less compelling when sites like the Huffington Post can make hundreds of millions on the backs of an army of narcissistic young slave labourers.

ryan@roadtostarrdom.com

Perhaps. But check out The New Yorker’s fabulous cover tribute to Jobs:

Says it all really, doesn’t it?

ryan@roadtostarrdom.com

NEGATIVE OPINIONS

This according to a new survey from the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, which has been tracking press performance since 1985. According to a summary of the poll:

•66% of 1,501 respondents to the news attitudes survey say news stories “often are inaccurate;”

•77% think that news organizations “tend to favour one side;”

•80% say news organizations are often “influenced by powerful people and organizations;”

•And a quarter of those polled said that “in general news organizations get the facts straight,” while 66% said “stories are often inaccurate.”

Local news is more trusted than national news, the survey showed. Nearly 69% of respondents said they have a lot or some trust in information they get from local news organizations, while 59% say they trust information from national news organizations.

And though the media is certainly not held in high regard, at least news organizations are doing better with Joe Q. Public than government or corporations.

Half of those surveyed by Pew say they have “a lot or some trust” in information provided by their state government and the Obama administration. Smaller percentages trust information business corporations (41%), Congress (37%) or candidates running for office (29%).

I think the most interesting tidbit in the survey comes via a question on people’s awareness of news organizations. When asked what first comes to mind when they think of news organizations, 63% said the name of a cable news outlet (CNN and Fox News were most prevalent); about a third (36%) named one of the broadcast networks.

But only 5% mention a national newspaper such as the New York Times, Wall Street Journal or USA Today. And a mere 3% name a website, whether tied to a newspaper or not.

Sounds to me like a lot of couch potatoes who are super cynical and hyper-critical about TV news, but too lazy to get off their duffs and find an alternative.

ryan@roadtostarrdom.com

NEWSPAPERS TEND TO

Researchers at Tulane University have discovered a bacterial strain – TU-103 – that uses newsprint to produce butanol, a biofuel that can serve as a cheaper and more environmentally friendly substitute for gasoline.

TU-103 is the first bacterial strain from nature that produces 
butanol directly from cellulose, an organic compound found in all green plants – and “the most abundant organic material on earth,” the research team notes in a news release.

Nice to see that newspapers still have value in the digital age.

“Converting (cellulose) into butanol is the dream of many,” one of the scientists said. “In the United States alone, at least 323 million tons of cellulosic materials that could beused to produce butanol are thrown out each year.”

What’s more, the researchers note: “as a biofuel, butanol is superior to ethanol (commonly produced from corn sugar) because it can readily fuel existing motor vehicles without any modifications to the engine, can be transported through existing fuel pipelines, is less corrosive, and contains more energy than ethanol, which would improve mileage.”

And, compared to conventional gas, it would be much cheaper and produce less harmful emissions.

Newspapers: Not just for lining your birdcage anymore.

ryan@roadtostarrdom.com

Andy loses his shiz.

LOVE THE NOW-NOTORIOUS video of CNN anchor Anderson Cooper, consumed by an on-air giggling fit while discussing the story of French actor Gérard Depardieu getting tossed off an Air France flight after urinating (sort of) in the airplane cabin.

Cooper, normally a pretty serious guy but given to the occasional light-hearted moment, triggered his own laughter outbreak with a few puns that I think were quite clever – he spoke of Depardieu’s “jet stream” and concluded: “All I can say is they should thank their lucky stars it wasn’t Depar-two.”

That last one was particularly good. Good enough for Andy to embarrass himself on international TV? Not sure. But hey, who am I to judge? Maybe AC had a stressful day; perhaps he just thought his material really was that funny.

Regardless, anyone who’s ever tried to restrain themselves from laughing knows that it only makes it harder to do so. Behold the giggle fit:

ryan@roadtostarrdom.com

Just another day at the office...

I DIDN’T KNOW ABOUT The Brokers With Hands on Their Faces Blog back in 2008, when the global economy took a big ol’ tumble into the toilet. I’m sure it would have lent a bit of bizarre lightheartedness to an otherwise f-d up situation.

The blog – which, as per its name, showcases images of brokers with hands on their faces, those cliched photos that most every newspaper in the world runs whenever the economy takes a turn for the worst – was launched in the fall of 2008 as a humorous response to the big crash. It ceased operations in 2009 when things seemed to be improving, at least as far as financial markets were concerned.

With the markets having resumed their madness over the past week, however, TBWHOTFB creator Matthew Robison – who has since relocated from New York to Wisconsin, and is struggling to make ends meet – decided to re-start his Tumblr photo blog with fresh images of, well, brokers with hands on their faces. Honestly, you’d think these guys would be used to watching the markets get hammered; that reacting like that would just be a waste of energy at this point.

Anyway, kudos to Robison for being able to find a bit of funny in these deeply depressing (or is that Depression?) circumstances.

ryan@roadtostarrdom.com

This simplistic “he said, she said” portrayal of the debt debate prompted pundits to “fantasize about some kind of ‘centrist’ uprising,” Krugman notes, “as if the problem was too much partisanship on both sides.”

Paul Krugman

The essence of the media’s cult of “balance,” he says, is “the insistence on portraying both parties as equally wrong and equally at fault on any issue, never mind the facts.” If one party declared that the earth was flat, Krugman quips, “the headlines would read ‘Views Differ on Shape of Planet.’”

The thing about always covering political disputes as if both parties are equally to blame is that there’s “no penalty for extremism,” he adds. “Voters won’t punish you for outrageous behavior if all they ever hear is that both sides are at fault.”

During the debt deal negotiations, President Obama seemed to be bending over backwards to accommodate Republicans, while the GOP – certainly the party’s Tea Party fringe – did everything they could to make reaching a deal impossible – bringing the country to the brink of an economic crisis. Yet, as Krugman notes, Obama’s being treated by the news media as “the same as his utterly intransigent opponents.”

The media needs the balls to do away with this whole “balance” business and report it like it really is. “The problem with American politics right now is Republican extremism,” he says, “and if you’re not willing to say that, you’re helping make that problem worse.”

And it sure looks like it’s going to get a lot worse.

ryan@roadtostarrdom.com

As I prepare to head off for some much-anticipated holiday weekend R n R, I see that Newseum has rated the cover of Friday’s New York Daily News one of today’s top front pages. Wouldn’t you agree that it accurately captures the essence of the current state – and maturity level – of U.S. politics:

ryan@roadtostarrdom.com

The word, which Muther writes is “gaining popularity as both a throwaway intensifier and a replacement for ‘figuratively’ … has been misused by everyone from fashion stylist Rachel Zoe to President Obama, and linguists predict that it will continue to be led astray from its meaning. There is a good chance the incorrect use of the word eventually will eclipse its original definition.”

As seen above – “literally” means “in a literal sense, as opposed to a non-literal or exaggerated sense.” Simple enough. “It should not be used as a synonym for actually or really,’’ author Paul Brians is quoted noting in Muther’s piece. “Don’t say of someone that he ‘literally blew up’ unless he swallows a stick of dynamite.’’

Alas, much as grammar sticklers might gripe about flagrant misuse of “literally,” it’s probably a waste of energy. “Linguists and academics believe the word will soon join others that are so misused as to be past restoring,” Muther writes. “Nothing has done much to discourage incorrect usage of the word. Watch any talk show or listen to any conversation and “literally’’ will pop up as often as “like’’ or “um.’’ He continues:

If misuse of “literally’’ continues at the current rate, its true meaning could meet the fate of words such as “nonplussed’’ (meaning surprised and confused, but often misused as a synonym for disconcerted), or “bemuse’’ (to bewilder or puzzle, but often misused as a synonym for amuse). These are words that have been misused for so long that their original definitions have been completely distorted.

(I’d like to add a personal pet peeve to this list: “reactionary” – as an adjective describing someone who is reacting to something, versus the proper definition: Someone who opposes political or social liberalization or reform. Grrr.)

One solution to the “literally” problem, Muther’s story suggests: encourage  misusers and abusers of the word to try and rephrase their sentences. A nice idea, but I’m certain the effort required to do this, likely futile, could well end up driving grammar mavens crazy – literally.

ryan@roadtostarrdom.com

AS THE PHONE-HACKING

Columnist Viv Groskop zeroes in on Brooks’ free-flowing red mane – which, IMO, makes Brooks look like a scary cross between Medusa, Sideshow Bob and Carrot Top – and the supposed power it wields:

Brooks doesn’t have a hairdryer. Her look is natural. It says: “I do not waste time at the salon. Don’t mess with me.” Big hair with no effort. That is real power. Or at least it was for Brooks.

Big hair is always impressive. If you have it you either are important or you want to be. Big hair cannot be ignored. It is big for a reason.

Not sure about the value of this analysis, though to be fair to Groskop, she was probably just looking for a fresh angle in a mega-scandal that’s being exhaustively covered by the British news media, a frenzied lot on a normal day.

Far as I’m concerned, had Brooks – editor of the News of the World when the staff at the now defunct Sunday tab hacked the phone of murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler – been able to see better through that crazy carroty coif of hers, she might have envisioned how her staff’s amoral antics might end up ruining her career and bringing her boss Rupert Murdoch‘s media empire to the brink.

Maybe it’s time for a hair dryer.

ryan@roadtostarrdom.com