Consolidation of Culture

I had a pair of conversations this week that goes together with some recent news that I found irritating. The news was that the Disney Corporation may be seeking to buy out 21st Century Fox.  The conversations with my friend involved the artistic hollowness and shallowness of the film industry and culture more broadly.

I would like to think I am not a terribly naive person. Popular culture is a business enterprise. That's fine, since the time of patrons and master craftsmen artists have needed supporters to financially back them. But for those who love to the market it might be time to consider the consolidation of our cultural industries.

An alarmingly small number of massive corporations produce most of our popular culture, especially in the areas of film and television. Furthermore, these companies are often deeply entwined with one another in business deals and frequently share common interests. If you want to see the twists copyright laws they are a good case in point. Disney perhaps is the peak of these oligarchs, and I fear nostalgia and positive associations deflects much of its criticism.

Defenders of, or those comfortable with, these few titans dominating our cultural life might point to the "meritocracy" of services like Twitch or YouTube which allow 'anybody' to find their own audience and create content and share it widely. Both are platforms owned by massive companies, Amazon and Google respectively. We have many example of creators running afoul of these company and losing their businesses, demolishing the illusion of their independence. Market concentration has made competition incredibly difficult as has the simple reality of creating such a service in 2017.

While many enjoy the products of these few dominant media companies the consolidation and death of meaningful competition is a concern. Disney has being pressuring distributors for special treatment for the upcoming Star Wars film. Though distribution is also problematic, this can happen as companies become excessively dominant in the market. The space for small, independent artists is dictated by large companies over again. A rich culture is a diverse culture that takes risks. It may be time to shatter the oligarchy that dictates the terms for the films and television we watch.

The Nerd Economy Bubble

This blog post is going to be a bit strange. It had its origins as a response to a response to a I asked question, but then I thought it started getting long and convoluted so instead I decided to try something a little longer format.

I am a patron of a new podcast called The Mixed Six. The premise is really straightforward, two friends (and their producer) sit down to have a conversation on six different topics with six beers. What makes it special is that the hosts, in my opinion, are a wonderfully intelligent, sharp, funny, critical, and nerdy. I believe in one episode they switched from discussing comic book properties to a Marxist critique of gift cards. As a patron I can submit questions so I asked them if they thought the nerd economy was a bubble. I will do my best to summarize my question and their answers, but you can feel free to listen yourself at 52:15. If you choose to listen you can skip the next four paragraphs.

My question I posed was this (roughly), are we in the midst of a nerd economy bubble? All over the internet there are people trying to make money on YouTube, Twitch, Kickstarter, Patreon, etc. and I question the ability of the market to sustain them. There is also the aspect that young naive creators rush headlong into an industry that ruthlessly exploits them for little in return.  

Caleb Stokes admitted that he has feared there is a bubble. Producer Ross Payton made the point that this not a nerd specific phenomenon, ex. make-up tutorials and compared it to the shift from radio to TV, or sheet music to radio. How we consume media. He admitted that there is a lot of exploitation. However, he didn't believe it was a bubble, but a seismic shift. Patreon is a tool that empowers the creators (somewhat).

Caleb argued that if there was a bubble that popped it would be on the supply side. Most people who do these projects do them as a side project. A crash would hurt the platforms. While there are huge earners most people are scrapping by for a little extra money. If it goes away it will be because of how platforms treat their users/creators. Quality control is an issue.

Spencer added it does feel like a bubble because there is so much content for people even willing to pay a small amount. However, there is a quality question and a lot of what's out there is bad, so quality and content is the measure. Caleb said that the only other crash he can foresee is that if these things start supporting people's lives as a career and then they begin chasing the money, perhaps from dubious sources. But, the thing with a bubble... no one can see it.

Now my response to their response. Yes, I realize already that this is ridiculous.

First, Ross is absolutely right. It's not a nerd economy, though I think traditional nerdy areas are a significant portion of it. Consider that Twitch is a huge component of this new economy and almost exclusively, until recently, catered to video game streamers. Comedy channels, beauty channels, news, music, and other entertainment are a significant portion of the market out there.

Two things, I think, prompted me to ask this question. The first is the number of people/groups that have held out a tin cup and asked for me to chip in. At first it was semi-professional outfits so I could appreciate them seeking some financial compensation. However, a growing number of amateurs beginning with a Patreon page was a tad galling to me. Perhaps that is because I was introduced to it as a tool for fans to supplement income and not as a third-party subscription service. There does seem to be a growing number that feel this can be their meal ticket, and that concerns me from a rational and pragmatic point of view. Caleb is right, if you want a little spending money, great, but this isn't grounds for a career.

Decades past young people would dream of becoming actors or athletes. Now they want to be "YouTube famous." A surprising number of my students have their own YouTube channels. They talk to me about building their audiences and their subscriber counts. As most of us know various platforms offer only a pittance for advertising. I am also concerned about the pressures they might feel to gain eyeballs and the wisdom of the decisions chasing those metrics. In short, I worry about exploitation. Platforms like Twitch, YouTube, and Instagram make incredible profits off of naive, young creators. The low barrier to entry is both a blessing and a curse. We have so much content, but it does look like "anyone can do it" which ignores the economic and personal costs in chasing these dreams. Sometimes it feels like creators are chasing the lowest common denominator in order to gain any kind of attention, which hardly seems healthy. 

Another aspect of this that I wonder about is the exploitation of a small amount of productive people by 'critics.' Whenever a television series becomes even modestly popular it spawns a bevy of podcasts, video casts and reviews. It starts to feel like an entirely false economy based on the machine of whatever movie sequel Disney pumps out. How many review channels/podcasts can the market sustain? 

I grew up, like most of us, in a free media environment. Television, radio, newspapers, and the internet was largely free on the basis that advertising would pay for the content. The audience wasn't the customer, it was the product. Trends seems to indicate that the audience will have to pay for anything resembling quality content with subscriptions. This is a seismic mental shift for many people; it certainly is for me. I feel vaguely guilty about the media that I enjoy that I don't support (ex. Canadaland). Still, if I donated to the 30+ podcasts I listen to and the dozen or so YouTube channels I watch on a semi-regular basis, plus Netflix, and on and on, we are talking about a pretty expensive media diet. As I'm economically limited it would mean a big change to my habits.

I wish that I could easily accept the position that this is a beautiful time. A thousand flowers bloom and creators can receive financial support for their work. It's a grand meritocracy! Except it isn't. A handful of giant corporations (Apple, Google, Facebook, Amazon) control a huge stake in this developing industry. A few start ups and independents have significant sway, but if you look at the top YouTube channels that are increasingly dominated by corporate media. I've thought about starting my own YouTube channel, or podcast to reflect my interests, and I have been on podcasts in the past, so I understand the impulse to participate in this low risk, low cost field. Creators should be paid for their efforts, but I'm uncertain of our current arrangement. So the question is whether or not this is a permanent change or a bubble. I'm not sure I know which side I want to win out.

The Return of Yellow Journalism

Something I have followed with great interest is the declining state of the media. Major newspapers are closing their doors, cutting services and laying off journalists. In Canada, and many other places, we cannot rely solely on the traditional media to hold governments, businesses and individuals to account. For me, for a long time, we have been entering an unsettling period where accountability is in steep design and we may be living in a post-media socio-political world shortly.

And then something strange began to happen. In the wake of the Trump election I heard that the New York Times has been growing and the Washington Post announced a massive expansion. To be clear I do not believe the Times or Post participate in yellow journalism. The sad reality is that Donald Trump is so divorced from reality that straight edge journalism now comes off as scathing criticism.

We certainly live in interesting times.

It's not merely the success of the Times and Post that make me think we may see a transformation in media in the coming years. The proliferation of fake news and other dubious information sources, including Canada's own Rebel Media, points to the fact that people want a point of view and an agenda with their information. Psychologist can prove with stacks of papers that people get psychic and social pleasure from information confirming their biases and worldview. It's not merely the right. I caught a CBC news item about the growth of left-win political podcasts in the last few months. John Oliver is no doubt a trusted authority to many around the world, but his politics are fairly transparent.

This is, of course, nothing new. Fox News has been on the air for decades. News magazines and periodicals have with a clear bend have been part of the mainstream decade for more than a century. The problem is that the so-called neutral media will be increasingly outflanked by their more partisan colleagues. Anti-Trump consumers of media want to read how he lies, not that he misspoke or was inaccurate. His defenders want to hear about how the Muslim ban was overturned by activist judges and that Americans have a right to defend their borders.

Early journalism was all yellow. The high-minded, unbiased image of the press is a relatively modern phenomenon. Most newspapers originated as the mouthpiece to a particular political faction or party. Oddly enough I find I have fewer problems with this than I at first imagined. There are definitely problems with this drift, no doubt. However, as we move forward, I would much prefer to live in a world of yellow journalism than no journalism at all.

The Public, the Partisans and the Press

Yesterday Prince Edward Island held a provincial election. The Liberals will remain the government but there were a few interesting changes. The Greens won a seat and the Liberals lost several seats to the Progressive Conservatives. Despite performing well the NDP failed to win any seats this time. Today Albertans will cast their ballots to choose MLAs in their own election. Some of the coverage I've read and listened to had me thinking about election coverage.

The most shocking thing about the Alberta election is that polls indicate that the NDP are surging and may form government. All the caveats that polls are polls should be kept in mind, but it shapes the conversation, especially for the media and media shape the conversation for the public. The trouble is that the press and the partisans they talk to see elections very differently than the public who ultimately decides them.

I will be forced here to speak in generalities because it is not as though I have done specific research to back my observations. With that disclaimer in place I think it is fair to say that partisans (supporters of particular political parties) see things through ideology. Because they are interested in politics they develop a set of values and beliefs and attach themselves to political parties that closely align. There are, for a lack of a better term, tribal partisans for whom the ideology may be incidental to their support of the red or blue or purple team. This level of dedication is how partisans can stay committed to a party even when the values of those parties change. In the mind of ideologues the parties are nicely arrange on a spectrum with camps of voters who move between the parties left or right.

To write stories and gain understanding journalists talk to partisans (ex. political operatives, campaign managers, strategists, candidates, activists, etc.) about the political dynamics inside the city/province/country. As a result the view of the political world that we get is one shaped by the partisan perspective. This is fundamentally flawed.

Both the media and the parties have an assumed classic liberal disposition towards how our democracy works. That means that voters are rational actors who weigh the policies, experience and character of politicians and make informed decision, along with whatever values match their own. It is an ideal that was espoused by the American Founders and democratic theorists now for centuries and one that I fear bears little resemblance to reality in mass democracies.

The assumptions of partisans (and therefore the press) is that there cannot be such a thing as a Wild Rose-NDP swing voter, or PC-Green, which obviously does exist. The truth is that unfortunately politics is driven much more by personality than one might initially suppose. I think American presidential elections really prove this point. How is it that there were voters who would support Hillary Clinton but not Barack Obama if he were the Democratic candidate for president? They were members of the same party and had essentially the same platform but within the public mindset their differences made it so Barack Obama would struggle in the general election where Clinton may have sailed by easily. In 2000 it was summarized by "Who would you rather have a beer with?" This in general better reflected the public's mood. The move in politics in recent years acknowledges this, such as in Issenberg's Victory Lab book.

Coming to Alberta. How is it "conservative" Alberta might elect a NDP majority government tonight (not likely but a possibility)? Albertans are frustrated by the ruling party and Premier Jim Prentice. Naturally Albertans cast their eyes to the alternatives. Brian Jean is unsteady and new in his role as leader of the Wild Rose. David Swann, leader of the Alberta Liberal Party, has been somewhat of a dud in the election and his party has never gotten off the ground. Rachel Notley has been a credible alternative with a family name in politics and by all accounts has presented herself and her party well. Voters don't see things in the harsh black and white lines that partisans, and by extension the media, do.

Personality matters. Values trump policy. The gut feeling of a voter on who they 'like' can do more good than any number of debates or talking points or TV ads. Alberta and PEI's elections could be valuable case studies as we move towards the autumn federal election.

Happy Election Day, Alberta, make good choices.

Governance in the Post-Apocalypse

Warning: The following contains light spoilers for The Walking Dead. 

This past Sunday was the fifth season finale of the immensely popular The Walking Dead. Because I am a big political nerd I cannot help but notice that many of the seasons following season one are wrestling with questions of governance. It should be noted that The Walking Dead is no way unique in this. Post-apocalyptic literature, film, and television have often tried to deal with the questions of rebuilding order when everything falls to hell. Part of the explanation for this is the close relationship between the post-apocalyptic and dystopian genres. Very few stories simply deal with the aftermath of the collapse of the 'old world', but instead include the  tendencies of our fellow man in dark and twisted new societies.

If there's people, someone must be in charge.

Most of the time in post-apocalyptic fiction the narrative focuses on a small group of survivors, usually fewer than twenty. Is that really government? Government is a complicated word and imbued with a lot of what we think of as the state. Governing per se is nothing more than providing management and direction. The lesson of most fiction indicates that lone wolves who exist outside of a community or group are usually not long for this world. Any time two people interact there are structures and patterns in place to 'govern' behaviour, but as a group grows in size these patterns must be strictly outlined and made formal. So, while a group of survivalists picking through the ruins of our civilization may not seem the same as what happens in the House of Commons (or maybe too similar...) there is a common thread there.

First let's take a look at the arc of The Walking Dead. Season one of the series was much more focused on the question of what has happened and how to survive. Rick Grimes, a former sheriff, and close associate of several among a group of survivors instantly becomes the de facto leader. However tensions exist within the group, particularly with his best friend and former colleague Shane. Season two and onwards much more tackles the question of governance. In many ways the failures of the group can be tied to factionalism and rival leadership camps. Famously at the close of the second season Grimes says after challenging the group about his decisions, "If you're staying, this isn't a democracy anymore." How to govern the group is often at the heart of conflict in the series.

Since that point, despite the fact that Rick's power in the group has waxed and waned and waxed again the fundamental element has remained in place that once Rick has made a decision the group keeps to it. Instead of infighting the group has produced a number of trusted advisors who counsel Rick (Herschel, Glenn, Michione, Carol, to name a few), but ultimately stick with his policies, even when they disagree. In brief, season three saw the consequences of Rick's unchecked powers and approach. When the group was established inside the prison in season four we see Rick relieved of leadership and a "Council" take charge of running day-to-day affairs until things reach a crisis point. Season five saw the return of Rick's advisor-assisted leadership. The central conflict in the most recent season was the tension between two different governing structures: Rick's group with a centralized, pragmatic and harsh leadership style versus the more traditional, theoretically democratic and lenient style of the Alexandrians. Remember, governing is not just about making decisions and giving orders; how to carry out justice and relationships with outsiders is also part and parcel of the responsibilities of leadership.

The Walking Dead is hardly unique in this depiction. Within the zombie genre Max Brooks' World War Z rarely shows a vibrant democracy, but a much harsher, more centralized, more militant, less democratic governance all around the world. The 28 Days Later/28 Weeks Later films depict military-based governance, as does the video game TheLast of Us and TV series Falling Skies. In all three cases the military is depicted as a means of providing security (the most precious commodity in instability) but also oppression or containment of the people they are protecting.

Communities tend to find creative places to call home after the end.

Interesting enough is that even democratic governments that survive in many pieces of fiction immediately take on extra-legal powers to control the chaos. In the novel One Second After or the TV series Jericho) the elected municipal governments begin acting like city-states to try to survive in the absence of the state and national governments.

Another common trope in the post-apocalyptic genre is the theocracy. In times of crisis people often turn to religion as it is a powerful unifier that provides social cohesion in a way a single leader often cannot. Margaret Atwood's A Handmaiden's Tale blends the military rule and religion quite nicely, but the results are the same. James Kuntsler's series of post-collapse novels prominently features a strange religious group with a prophet-like figurehead and a charismatic leader in the ruins of Upstate New York.

The theme repeated over, and over again in hundreds of books is remarkably similar. The new leadership class tends to come from ex-military (Mike Havel in Dies the Fire), police (Rick Grimes in The Walking Dead), former/current politicians (Johnston Green or Senator Tomarchio in Jericho or the Warden in Children of Men) or a charismatic, capable person (Carnegie in The Book of Eli or Caesar in Fallout: New Vegas). Ultimately the "Strong Man" governance all likely stems from the inverse sentiment of the Benjamin Franklin statement, "Those who would sacrifice liberty in the name of security deserves neither." As wise as Benjamin Franklin was there exists many instances when centralized control is badly needed in emergencies. Post-apocalyptic fiction trades on the fact that scared people will surrender a great deal of authority to those who can protect them, provide for them and keep them safe. To be sure this is not a new phenomena. Think back to the Republic of Rome who would surrender its semi-democracy to a dictator in times of profound crisis. In the modern United States there are any number of provisions to institute martial law to keep order. 

In my opinion writers in this medium and consumers of it are attracted to authoritative or authoritarian for some very simple reasons. While the leadership model provides a structure for traditional hero narratives it also harkens to our own thinking of how to deal with issues. In addition we admire, just as the other characters within the narrative, competent and capable leaders. It also helps from the perspective of elevating characters and creating drama. Believe it or not, but The Walking Dead and other post-apocalyptic fiction are deeply political. They are not only critiquing social issues but providing a framework to work out fundamental philosophical questions at the heart of governance and ethics that have been debated since before Ancient Greece. I know a lot of people have had the conversation/debate over what their "Zombie Survival Plan" is, but have you ever thought what your plan to rebuild and get along with your fellow survivors might be? Ultimately that's what might keep you alive longer than any machete or canned food.

Reflections on Feminism in Modern Culture and Media

I try to think of myself as a progressive man, but I fall within many categories that place me in a privileged position in society. I am perceived as white (despite not having a purely European background). I originate from a middle-class family and currently earn a comfortable living. I am heterosexual and cisgendered, and, most importantly to my comments that follow, I am male. I offer this as a prelude because on this topic I feel disclosing how a person self-identifies is a valuable piece of information for understanding their comments and perspective.

I am not sure if it is because of the growth of critical analysis of more topics in popular culture, or the fact that I am more interested and so follow up on articles that discuss these topics, but regardless I have read many more feminist or gender-issue articles over the last year on popular culture. Popular feminist figures in new media such as Laci Green and Anita Sarkeesian have helped to broaden my perspective, along with the formal education I received at university.

As far as I understand it the basic premise of feminism is that all people are equal and that historic prejudices and power structures exist within our society and institutions that disadvantage certain groups. As a historian this is a very difficult premise to disagree with. I do not have the space here or the knowledge to outline the historic development of this important movement, but it is fair to say that how this end is accomplished has been hotly contested.

I’ve wanted to write on this topic for a while. My interest in writing about this topic has been spurred on by three issues that pointed out that social problems are more imbedded than most of us are comfortable admitting.

GamerGate. Sigh. GamerGate is the catchall term to describe the vociferous attacks, online and real-life, directed towards women in the video game industry and the media outlets that cover them. These attacks are perpetrated under the banner of “ethical journalism” that doesn’t even provide a fig leaf’s worth of decency for the most horrendous misogyny the internet can offer up. For example, Ms. Sarkeesian has been targeted with threats to her life and public talks where she is critical of tropes of video games damaging depiction of women.. Several women have been harassed and had their private residences shared on the internet forcing them to leave their homes.

GamerGate is particularly disturbing because video games have done a lot in the last few years to shed the “boy’s club” and overtly sexist appearance. A growing cast of interesting video games, designers and studios are creating experiences and characters much more relatable as human beings and not just digital eye-candy. Still, the medium has a lot more work to do. There are real questions of ethics in the video game industry, but this has been made irrelevant in the witch hunt. Sex sells and there are more than enough depictions of elf-maidens in bikini-armour out there to depress anyone hopeful for the future of video games.

In Canada media the firestorm swirling around Jian Ghomeshi once again highlights how we deal with prominent, powerful men accused of sexual assault or violence against women. For various other crimes large segments of the public would unquestionably consider the allegations against Mr. Ghomeshi, but as is tragically typical of rape/assault cases the character and credibility of the victim is the first questioned. I am embarrassed to admit that my mind first went there. While I am not a fan of Mr. Ghomeshi I have listened to and enjoyed his interviews and thought he was a valuable contributor to Canadian media. The only protection his accusers seem to have is that they are not alone and that Mr. Ghomeshi has left a trail of women behind in his life who are now ready to stand together.

When a similar story happens to, for example, a college football player I can easily and comfortably dismiss the defenders because that person is not part of my cultural tribe. As a Toronto-based media icon and progressive the willingness to accept Ghomeshi and openly reject his victims at face-value proves that elements of rape culture and misogyny are not too difficult to find when the perpetrators of these crimes are people we ourselves are fond of. The treatment of these victims and how these crimes are handled makes it no surprise that they go underreported.

The third piece of media I wanted to share was the video recorded of a woman walking down New York City’s streets and the endless parade of catcalls made after her. See the two-minute video below.

In my heart of hearts I hoped that brash New Yorkers were more inclined to this behaviour. However my opinion was heartily rebuffed when I was told by a journalist that his female friends often experienced harassment and a former co-worker of mine reported serious, and threatening street harassment twice in the space of a week. And upon reflection I can remember how my friends were sometimes treated as we walked down the street and suddenly this video did not feel so alien.

It should not matter what any of these women were wearing. No one deserves to be harassed. No one deserves to be assaulted. No one deserves to be attacked. In the cool, dispassionate mind many would accept this. Except we don’t. Many of us still cannot help but blame the victim because we are socialized to believe that women are not in control of their own bodies.

One of the reasons I am writing this piece is that I deal with these contradictions. Do I respect women more or less because of their appearance? Do I judge a woman on how she’s dressed rather than who she is? While I think a woman should dress as she pleases do I still quietly slut-shame her? It’s the contradictions in our culture that further confuse and problematize these issues. A popstar dancing in limited clothing in front of a giant lit sign reading “FEMINIST” seems to drip with hypocrisy to me, but conflict among the intelligentsia can’t seem to determine whether or not this is a betrayal of feminism or celebration. At least it’s not as dumb as a young actress declaring that she’s not a feminist because she “loves men.” 

Some of the most ardent misogynists are those who say this is a settled issue. That sexism is “fixed” and that only those ardent man-haters are the ones that want to talk about it. This is not a settled issue. Across our culture and entrenched in our media are symbols and exploitation defined by gender. More and more men are openly the victims of sexism as well are their depiction in media becomes more masculinized and dissociated from reality. Perhaps the great curse is that progress means both genders are blatantly objectified now.

This is by no means a “correct” opinion. Given the diversity of opinions and approaches I am confident that I have failed to properly articulate these various perspectives in some way. Try as I might to be a proper 21^st century feminist man I am burdened and conflicted by a socialization and culture and reinforces misogynistic values towards many different groups. So far the only solution I have found is to actively challenge the status quo both external to the world around me and, perhaps more importantly, the world inside my head.

The Loophole around Canadian Content

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission has recently drawn attention in this country for trying to regulate Netflix. Netflix’s content competitors, Bell, Rogers and others have complained about Netflix’s ability to circumvent regulations that impede their own performance. The CRTC threatened Netflix to regulate them and impose penalties if they did not voluntarily comply, which Netflix has declined to do.

It strikes me that Canadian content laws rest in a place that between meaningless and useful to make them just ineffective. As I understand it Canadian content laws require a certain percentage of their broadcasts to contain material made in this country. Going off of my memory (and I admit I could be wrong here) during prime time, defined as between 6 PM and midnight has to a certain percentage produce in Canada. Theoretically this is to encourage the broadcast of Canadian television shows, and encourage these companies to produce their own shows set in Canadian locales and themes. However, Global, CTV, CityTV and others use the time to broadcast their news hours, evening and late night, and simultaneously show American television programs.

As near as I can tell the Canadian content laws for television have done nothing to encourage broadcasters to produce new Canadian programs. The occasional show pops up, such as Corner Gas or Murdoch Mysteries, but they are by no means the centrepiece of the private television channels. Just flip through the Canadian channels between 7 PM and 11 PM and that much will be clear. In recent years a certain number of Canadian-light shows have been making an appearance, such as Rookie Blue and Orphan Black, which are both quietly set in Toronto and filmed in Canada.

However, as Canadians turn away from their televisions and rely on pay-as-you-go services such as Amazon, iTunes and subscription services like Netflix these regulations seem increasingly irrelevant. Given their toothless nature of the current laws I see no reason why we should continue them unless we fundamentally rethink the approach. I am not comfortable with the idea of mandating what should be broadcast. I think the changing media landscape and the success of shows like Orphan Black and Rookie Blue in the global market that Canadian produced shows can find success elsewhere. This country has a strong and talented film and television industry. I don’t know why a sitcom set in Toronto, or a police procedural in Vancouver could not be successful. American networks don’t disdain Canadian content, and there are so many of them that they’ll take cheaper foreign-made content.

Instead of mandating quotas perhaps we should do more to encourage more Canadian production. If we insist on regulation is must not be as ineffective and meaningless as it is now.

Note: A commenter on Twitter informed me that the location of a television show does not define it as Canadian content, but who makes it. The example provided was that the TV show "Vikings" is considered Canadian content. To my point of view this points out further flaws. This commenter, Ian Kiar, added that the main complaint of companies have is that they pay revenues into the Canadian Media Fund and Netflix does not. 

Shallow Politics: Canadian Politics and Media

In the back of my mind on Tuesdays I am always thinking about what I am going to write. Sometimes the news of the day just doesn’t provide me with the materials I want to work with. Today I saw these tweets on Twitter from a Toronto-based journalist:

Trudeau using Layton words all over evening news. Serious Q: How is this relevant? Senate, omnibus bills, ANYTHING ELSE
— Ashley Csanady (@AshleyCsanady) November 26, 2013

There's a lot of serious, serious issues facing our country. Should the dauphin's latest gaffe lead national broadcasts?
— Ashley Csanady (@AshleyCsanady) November 26, 2013

You can follow Ms. Csandy at @AshleyCsanady. I highly recommend it.

Over the last couple of weeks I have been pleased with our media, on balance. They have done a good job at holding our dysfunctional politics to some form of account. At least the grubs under the rock are being exposed and we have to deal with it.

However, our media and politics, one must admit, are burdened with an incredible shallowness. Before I take both out behind the metaphorical woodshed, I should add that the public may be largely to blame in this. Politicians and media are serving us, they do not perform this twisted theatre for their own amusement.

Media outlets are hungry for eyeballs, and politicians live and die on their ability to draw attention. These (should be) self-evident truths, but both groups have learned an important lesson in the modern era: emotion is more valuable than reason. I should probably couch that claim in that it is as old as the Age of Reason itself. Ironically we are re-learning it with disastrous consequences for public life.

I recently finished reading Sasha Issenberg’s book The Victory Lab. One of the key discoveries is that people seem to be rarely swayed from their political positions. Political campaigners used to believe that with the correct policies voters could be won over. From my understanding this was particularly prominent problem among the Democrats. However, people are not interested in marginal tax rates and infrastructure programs, they are interested in values. It is a more complicated concept than I explain in a paragraph, but basically emotional factors and whether or not a voter feels connected to a candidate has far more to do with a candidate’s likelihood of success than policy. Policy can reflect this values, but it seems the latter informs the former, rather than vice versa. This was famously captured in the “who would you rather have a beer with?” question. With fundamentally different approaches to foreign policy and the world voters were often more split on a question of personal comfort.

Combine this with realities of new (and old) media and you start to get a rather unsettling picture of what our public discourse may one day become. Consider Ms. Csanady’s tweets. If evening news programs decided to lead with the recently introduced Conservative crime omnibus bill and framed it as a dispassionate discussion of the impact of criminal charges to cable thieves (or another nail in our parliament’s coffin) I sincerely doubt many outside the hardest of political junkies would have stayed tuned in.

Justin Trudeau (LPC – Papineau, QC) is a strong embodiment of this problem to my opinion. His strong name recognition and (inexplicable to me) public appeal means that any story that features him would attract disproportionate part of the political-news audience. By invoking the name Jack Layton, a politician that many Canadians have at least a passing affection for, and setting Trudeau loyalists against New Democrats you have set the stage for meaningless conflict that has great appeal.

The Rob Ford saga presents a similar problem. Often elements of the story that were more salacious made headlines and grabbed attention. The lewd comment Ford made regarding an alleged incident of sexual harassment is a perfect example. In the very same interview Ford confessed to drinking and driving. A crime that most Canadians take very seriously, but because sex and the embarrassment of his wife was involved that was buried. It returned in the later coverage, but it is still an important symbol of what is valued in the current culture.

I sincerely doubt that the politicians from years gone by who we praise could survive in such an environment. The inability for only the most cursory of labels of issues to permeate and the inability for sustained discourse on issues of importance means that our public life is facing a breakdown. Democracy is dependent upon an informed electorate, yet our electorate cannot (or will not) make decisions based upon information. Post-modernists would point out that this fantasy of the rational citizen never really existed. Everyone is burdened with their own peculiar set of bias and dispositions; there is no dispassionate evaluation of policy choices.

Debates and elections are no longer battles of ideas, but battles of personality. In such a shallow measure it should not be surprising that those with more persona than sense rise to the top and those bookish politicians who prefer to concentrate languish in obscurity. As a trend it is hard to imagine it changing any time soon, if at all. There is rarely great thoughtfulness or eloquence in 140 characters or a 10 second sound-bite. In a system where power is often bestowed to he/she who can hold the spotlight longest is it any surprise things begin to look more and more like a circus? 

Is It Over Yet?

When 2012 started I was quite excited about the Republican primaries to select their presidential candidate to face off against Barack Obama in November. To put it bluntly I have become quite bored with the contest. Perhaps that is my problem, watching American politics as a sport rather than a serious process to select a leader. Is that a fault not also found in the media?

There was something great about the first month or so, from the Iowa Caucuses to the Florida Primary, but I think the Florida Primary put any doubt to bed in any substantial way – Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee when the delegates meet in Tampa, Florida.

Virtually every week my chosen commentators have proclaimed that ‘this week is the most important in the primary process.’ It got to the point that I could tell they were laughing under their breath at their own choice. South Carolina was critical, then Florida was critical, then Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri, most recently Michigan was the critical battle, and this week it is Ohio. Romney has won virtually every one of these contests. More importantly he is steadily amassing delegates.

I think the media has done a good job at ginning up the audience that these are all important primaries. My opinion remains that Republican voters, the base itself, is not convinced. A huge number of Republicans are unhappy with their slate of candidates. It makes me happy to be a New Democrat, really. Despite all the hype turnout is down state after state compared to 2008. I also heard on MSNBC that overall ratings for the elections are down.

This could very well be a consequence of only the Republicans having a contested primary. Four years ago Clinton and Obama struggled to win the final support of their party. Still, the dismal Republican field has failed to inspire Republican voters and the broader public, including junkies like me north of the border. I would hope that if Romney wins Ohio tonight the discussion about the GOP nomination dies down. Even if Santorum wins Ohio the race is still over, he has proven he is too conservative to have appeal broadly. I understand that statistically he has not won yet, but really it feels all but a formality. Though maybe tomorrow morning when I turn on the news I will hear how the ‘battle really moves on to Kansas [or perhaps Missouri], there we’ll see if Romney can finally put Santorum away.’

The New York Times has a great website for following the GOP primary, link here. 

Give Peace a Chance

Today at school I spoke with someone about the election results in Toronto. Last night Rob Ford was elected with 47% in the municipal election in Toronto for mayor. To say Rob Ford has been a controversial character in this year’s election is somewhat of an understatement.

Some of the conservative elements of my mind think that Ford has been the target of the liberal-elite that characterizes every major metropolitan area. Ford does not have the refined elite air about him, not in the slightest. I don’t believe Smitherman did either, but at least he ran in the right circles from the point of view of these so-called elites.

Attempts to caricature Ford as an extremist seems baseless. He’s a Toronto city councillor, that gets you to Red Tory at best. That doesn’t mean Ford is not to the right of the average Torontonian, but I doubt he’s a paleo-conservative that Dick Cheney would be proud of.

Attacks on Ford’s personal failings, well, that’s something else entirely. Drug use and allegations of domestic violence may have soured my vote for him. I probably would have voted for Joe Pantalone, but I didn’t follow the race that closely.

While I have a very small readership there’s something I believe in that I wished more people would follow. While I am highly critical of candidates during a campaign, once their elected I think a certain grace period should be allowed before we start making judgments on their competence and effectiveness.

One thing I worry about is whether or not Rob Ford is a fiscal conservative or a fiscal extremist. I have, at times, labelled myself a fiscal conservative. Being smart about balancing budgets and cutting spending requires a surgeon’s hands and a scalpel. Ford has made comments, such as removing streetcar lines (which was a rumour denied by the campaign), that he intends to tackle the budget with a hacksaw and the grace of a drunk.

That being said, I am going to reserve final judgement until Ford actually does something I can evaluate. I bet Mayor-Elect Ford wishes the media would cut him the slack a small-time blogger does.

Also, congratulations to the candidates that won in Ontario's municipal/local elections yesterday. Best of luck in serving your communities and leading them into the 21st century.

Teaching Today

While sitting in my dentist office last week I picked up a copy of Maclean's magazine, essentially a Canadian version of Time magazine. As I flipped through the magazine one article in particular caught my attention. The headline was as follows, "Watch and learn, kids". The article discussed the role movies and films have taken in Ontario classrooms over recent years.

Films have long since had a place in the classroom. Educational films have been around since the cliche "duck and cover" videos distributed in the 1950s. However, according to the article and my own anecdotal experience, Hollywood films are increasingly present in the classroom. Films are intended, or at least should be intended to supplement lessons, not provide them. Romeo + Juliet, the Leonardo Dicaprio version, provides additional insight, but in no way should replace the classic text in English classrooms.

The worst offender, according to the Maclean's article, is geography classrooms where films like The Day After Tomorrow are shown. The film has no basis in scientific fact, and teaches nothing of value. Movies nowadays are used as tools to help control classes, as the carrot to reward good behaviour. There's nothing necessarily wrong with this as a concept except that films eat up an extraordinary amount of class time given the length of the films and the periods. In classes of specialized study, like geography, playing a 2-hour movie can cut considerably into the percentage of time for that subject in a semester.

As a future educator I can see the value in using videos in the classroom, but I cannot truly see the value in watching a film that has no connection to the material you are teaching. There would be nothing wrong, in my opinion if in a history class you played the first few minutes of Saving Private Ryan to illustrate the invasion of Normandy on D-Day, or in Enemy at the Gates for the fierceness of the Eastern Front.

Students should not have to be openly bribed to pay attention and work in class. Films are being misused by some teachers in my opinions to give themselves a break, which though understandable may be inappropriate.

A documentary is soon to be realized called Waiting for "Superman". The film focuses on the plight in the modern American educational system. I strongly urge you to watch the trailer. While it's easy for us here in Canada to get up on our high horse and look down at the Americans two important ideas are key to keep in mind. One, trends tend to match our continental neighbours. What happens in one tends to exist in the other, so we may be about to plunge with the Americans in quality of education. Second, apathy is a recipe for failure. The system of education and standards of teaching must constantly be revised.

I worry that our system of education in Ontario (and most of Canada) protects teachers and their interests than those of their students. It's not enough to be qualified, you have to be compassionate and caring enough to really make a difference. I've worked with some amazing, and a few bad teachers, and some definitely give the impression of coasting through their lessons and just letting the chips fall where they may. I suppose the first step is to try, both students and teacher for real learning to occur, save the blockbusters for the weekend.