Happy holidays and talk to you in 2012!

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

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

Serena sleepwalked through the match, but won in straight sets.

HAD THE CHANCE to attend the Rogers Cup tennis tournament Saturday evening.

The featured match was a semi-final between Serena Williams – in the midst of a comeback following health issues – and Victoria Azarenka, the Belarusian who is attracting quite a bit of notoriety, and criticism, for her on-court grunting, which the Globe and Mail aptly described as “a high-pitched warble (that) lingers for almost two seconds”:

Unfortunately, the match was a bit of a bore. Serena didn’t even look like she was trying, yet still managed to finish off an exasperated Azarenka in straight sets.

They couldn’t compete with the “Legends” match that followed between tennis greats Andre Agassi and Jim Courier. Prior to the start of the Rogers Cup, the organizers had gotten in trouble with women’s groups for ads promoting the event that invited fans to “Come for the ladies. Stay for the legends.” It was subsequently changed to the considerably lamer “Making history. Re-living history.”

Far as I was concerned, though, the legends outdid the ladies by a long shot. Agassi and Courier, despite being past their prime, delivered a more entertaining match, even if they were goofing around half the time – which is part of the show, after all. These guys obviously have never lost their competitive streaks, and it made for some great tennis (“they’ve still got it,” I found myself muttering quite a bit during the match).

The best part, for me at least, came after it was all over. It’s tradition at most tennis tournaments for the winner to sign balls and hit them into the stands for appreciative fans. So it was in Toronto. Agassi, who had just finished off Courier in straight sets, was whacking balls all around the stadium as fans hooted and hollered in an effort to attract his attention.

With one ball left, he turned toward where I was standing, drew back his racket and lobbed that fuzzy yellow ball high into the night sky.

It didn’t take me long to realize: Holy shit, it’s coming right to me! I excitedly moved into the aisle, kept my eye on the ball as it arced, descended, and lo and behold, the thing landed right in my hands – except I fumbled it, the ball fell away from me and I had to fight off a few other fans to re-claim my prized possession.

A prize indeed. Agassi was an idol of mine growing up; the rocker tennis star who played by his own rules. To see him live on court – albeit a decade late – and then get an autographed memento delivered straight from his racket, was pretty sweet.

My Rogers Cup experience might have started off as a snooze-fest, but in the end I had a ball.

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

A devilish delight, but at what cost?

THE CANADIAN NATIONAL EXHIBITION, Toronto’s annual summer fair, is a nexus of summer-eating naughtiness, a place where fatty food lovers can really get their fix.

Last year deep fried butter was the talk of the town. This year, it’s the donut cheeseburger, which has two Krispy Kreme donuts for a bun. This heart attack waiting to happen comes to the CNE courtesy of Epic Burgers and Waffles, a local proprietor which put out a press release earlier this week to promote their public health hazard. “The salty/sweet combination is a perfect convergence of all that is insanely good,” the company boasts.

But it comes at a cost.

This donut cheesburger is only $8, but its total calorie count is 1,500 – almost an entire day’s caloric intake for many folks – and that’s without including a fried egg and bacon, which can be added for a couple of bucks, and pounds, extra. To put this devilish dish in perspective, the Toronto Star notes that a double Big Mac (four patties) is 700 calories, while KFC’s Double Down is only 540 calories.

Epic Burgers is proud of its belt-/heart-bursting creations. Its other signature dish The Behemoth, a burger sandwiched between two grilled cheese sandwiches. Makes you wonder if these guys will be forced to take out extra insurance at the CNE, in case someone croaks after eating one their devilish but no doubt delicious creations.

At the very least they would do well to have a defibrillator close by.

ryan@roadtostarrdom.com

LIVING IN ONTARIO is sort of like being condemned to life as a perpetual teenager. I say that because this province has stupid laws dating back to Ontario’s tight-assed-Protestant days that give the government strict control over where alcohol is sold and who can sell it.

Residents can only buy beer, wine and booze from a limited number of distributors. The Beer Store (as our chain of retail outlets is so originally called) is owned by three large international brewing consortiums, effectively a foreign-controlled monopoly. Our liquor and wine store, the LCBO, is government-owned and operated.

The tightly regulated system means relatively stable pricing and selection, but the stock also could be seen as limited. What’s more, locations are few and far between, even in the heart of downtown Toronto where I live. Worst of all, the LCBO and Beer Store are closed on holidays, meaning mad, last-minute dashes and insane lineups the day before (and good luck to ya if you didn’t stock up properly!)

So it’s interesting to see this Angus Reid survey for the Ontario Convenience Store Association that shows 60 per cent of Ontario residents “support expanding the province’s alcohol retailing system to allow beer and wine to be sold by more types of retailers.”(The survey’s sponsor obviously has a vested interest here, but it’s still a significant finding, I think).

In support of the survey, the OCSA has launched an online campaign, Free Our Beer! “Wouldn’t it be great if we could run down to the local store to more conveniently buy beer or wine to entertain our friends?” the association says on the website. “Our alcohol retailing system is badly out of date. Let’s broaden the system – Let’s free our beer and wine so that more responsible retailers can give hard-working people in Ontario what they’re asking for.”

Other Canadian provinces like Quebec and Newfoundland “already offer the convenience of alcohol in convenience stores,” the OCSA notes. To head off the argument that convenience stores might be more lax about selling to young folks, the association cites a recent “underage secret shopper” test it conducted that showed convenience stores do a better job than either the LCBO or Beer Store at “keeping age‐restricted products from minors.”

The bottom line, OCSA president Dave Bryans says: “Ontario voters are simply asking for more convenience – like being able to pick up some beer for their BBQ on Canada Day. That’s not a lot to ask.”

It really isn’t. Selling beer and wine at corner stores – or better yet, private specialty shops – is a fine idea that should be embraced by a civilized society that respects its citizens. But when your province’s leader is known as “Premier Dad,” you know you’re due for a big buzz kill.

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