This Is Going To End Terribly

It's pretty clear that Canadian networks don't really understand the whole media conglomeration thing. Bell, Rogers, Shaw-Canwest-Global-whatever love the idea of reminding everyone what other properties they own. And I'm sure they love the thought that they're shepherding their audiences from one outlet to another. But in practice, this leads to things like sports announcers awkwardly shifting from commentary into a promo for Orphan Black.

But the awkwardness of media crossovers will reach new heights this weekend when Will Ferrell, as his Ron Burgundy alter ego, makes an appearance at the Canadian Olympic curling trials. Who thought that was a good idea? Look, I've mentioned my problems with Ferrell in the past, but I'm wondering how many of his fans will turn out for curling. Is there that much of an intersection between curling fans and the potential audience for Anchorman 2? Sure, curling's older-skewing audience does include many people who can remember the golden age of local news that the movie satirizes, but that's also unlikely to be the people who go to movies.

So why would Farrell spend so much of his precious pre-release promotion time on such an unproductive publicity stunt? It could be that he just loves playing the character. It could be that he no longer has a personality of his own and is slowly turning into Ron Burgundy. But I really hope it's not this: that it's all about producing indirect marketing. Imagine: he yuks it up on the curling telecast; hardly anyone sees it, but TV stations and networks all over America pick up highlights of this goofy footage of the semi-fictional buffoon commenting on this oddball sport that no one understands. I wonder if curling/Winnipeg/TSN know they may be about to become patsies in someone's guerilla marketing campaign.

Hello Out There, We And Only We Are On The Air

There's lots of talk in Canada's media about the new NHL rights deal, in which Rogers Sportsnet has bought the national rights to show NHL games in Canada for the next twelve years for a cost of over five billion dollars. Putting aside the worries about whether this is the end of Hockey Night In Canada, and whether Don Cherry still has a job, there's been a lot of doubt about how good it is that one company has a monopoly for the near future.

Some people are hoping that this represents a shift in the NHL's picture of itself: if the league is getting a big chunk of its revenue from Canada, might it be more open to having more Canadian teams? On the other hand, they may realize that they've got all the money out of Canada that they're going to get, so there's no point in expanding here.

But I'm hoping the deal will be good for Canada in a totally different way. I've found it quite surprising and a little alarming how our highly connected, multichannel world has somehow seen Canada become more hockey obsessed. You'd think that all the media outlets would cause us to diversify our I interests, not to mention constant immigration from non-hockey-loving countries. But the media seems to be our enablers is this addiction. It's part of a widespread phenomena in broadcasting, in which adding channels somehow homogenizes the content. In the U.S. it causes countless reality shows, and in Canada it causes a focus on hockey. I hope some young Marshall McLuhan out there is working on the problem.

But now that TSN is largely shut out of hockey, they have little choice but to push the Canadian sports culture in a different direction. Yes, in response to the Sportsnet announcement, they pointed to their raft of hockey analysts as proof of their commitment to the game. But it seems hard to believe that they'll continue to put money into That's Hockey After Midnight or NHL Trade Deadline Three-Month Countdown if it's just going to get viewers excited about a sport on another network. TSN made big media properties out of the CFL and curling, so they do have some experience building up popular interest in sports pushed to the periphery.  And now they have the advantage they can easily outbid Sportsnet and its maxed-out budget for any other rights they want. So, Raptors, lacrosse, MLS, get ready for your closeup.

Cellevator

It just occurred to me that in the year since I've had this (mobile) phone, I don't think I've used it in the elevator yet. That may seem like an odd thing to point out, I realize.  But when I was non-mobile - on the tech outside looking in - the elevator was one of the prime places I saw people using their phones. Many people would whip the phone out before the doors had even closed, and be going through texts or tweets or something.

Elevators have always been awkward spaces for me; I'm unsure if I should start a conversation, or just watch the floors go by. Phones changed all that. I didn't have to worry about conversations when everyone else steps in and immediately buries their faces in their phones.  I assumed I'd eagerly take up this behaviour too, but it never did happen.  There never seems to be anything I can look up on the phone that can't wait the one minute until I get to my apartment.

What Else Do I Have To Say?

I was surprised at the fiftieth anniversary of JFK's assassination. I wasn't looking forward to all the self-important reminiscing. Indeed is all seemed quite subdued. I'd even say Doctor Who won this weekend's battle of the incongruous fiftieth anniversaries. 

There was less of that usual "do you remember where you were when..." As there seemed a tacit acceptance that most of today's population wasn't anywhere. I actually felt sorry for the baby boomers for once.

But as a student of twentieth century history, I was disappointed in the superficial rehashing of Kennedy's life. According to today's media, there are two views of his legacy:

• He didn't really do much, and people's memories of him are just their projections of their own hopes and dreams.
• He did do something: he gave lots of speeches and gave people hope.

I'm sorry, am I the only person who remembers the Cuban Missile Crisis? It was one of the most difficult situations the U.S. has ever been in, and Kennedy managed to defend American interests while preserving the peace.  Moreover, the strategies recommended by virtually all other American politicians and military leaders would have been disastrous.  First, we all owe him a big thank you on that.  And second, it compares well with recent American actions which seem to be the opposite: failing to keep peace, and failing to make the country safer.

And The Wheelie Goes To...

I've heard comedians ask the question of why it took so long to think of putting wheels on suitcases. I propose that we go one step further and in inaugurate a new award: the Golden Suitcase Wheel. It would go to great inventions and innovations that took an inexplicably long time to make an appearance. I nominate these sideways plugs:

For years, devices that required a large plug had big, roughly cube-shaped plugs, blocking any lower outlets. But after just a few generations, someone thought of making them thinner and with most of the bulk off to the side. I believe it is the embodiment of the Golden Wheel's philosophy: the human race will always get it right, eventually.

Lies, Damn Lies, And Crack

Now that the Rob Ford cavalcade has calmed down a bit, people have a chance to look past the buffoonery and look at what he's actually been saying.  And when they do that, they see that he's also told a lot of bald-faced lies that have nothing to do with his troubling addictions and behaviours. He claimed he had a bigger electoral mandate than anyone in Canadian history (that wasn't even close to true - Ford didn't even have the biggest win in merged-Toronto's short history.) He claimed - as he often does - that he got Toronto the lowest tax increase in North America (San Antonio didn't even have an increase, and even economically-pummeled Windsor did better than Toronto.)

That's got me thinking about Ford's supporters and their motivation. Their explanation for standing by him is that whatever his behavior, he's been a good mayor. And their definition of "Good Mayor" revolves around telling-it-like-it-is and saving the taxpayer money. His personal life may be a disaster, but he's forthright and cares about the little guy.

Which makes the above lies seem curious. Yes, it may not be unusual to hear about a politician lying, but this is a guy who portrays himself as the outsider type, someone who's above all that. And yet he doesn't just lie, he makes big, easily-disproven lies, rather than hiding his lies in exaggerations and lies-of-omission like most politicians.

As for his record, he and his followers frequently claim a billion dollars in taxpayer savings. He has done a lot of the work one would expect of a conservative politician, though the billion dollar figure relies on some fishy accounting.  But even if you believe the whole billion dollar claim, that saving will still be swallowed up by the extra cost to implement his transit plans, as compared to the plan he canceled upon taking office. You'd think that conservative voters would see this as more of what they're starting to tire of in conservative politicians: they practice austerity, but blow the savings on pet projects, never actually reducing the size of government.

So if Rob Ford just mediocre as a conservative, and worse-than-average for honesty, why do people love him enough to overlook his shortcomings?  My guess is that he's straightforward.  His lies may be bad, but they're simple.  His claims and his plans - whether good or bad - don't sound politiciany.  It's easy for him to play the outsider role: he may have many of the traits that people hate in politicians, but he still doesn't seem like a politician.

Skipping Meals

I made jokes recently about Soylent, a Silicon Valley startup that is making a nutrient drink that can replace any meal. Let's put aside the name and look at the product, since it's an interesting idea: a drink that provides for all the human body's nutritional needs.  Many people react with disgust at this concept, and it seems to be more than just their ill-chosen name.

The premise of this product seem to be, why eat food when you don't have to? I can understand why that question rubs people the wrong way: I'm no foodie, but even I get enough enjoyment out of eating that I wouldn't want to give it up for convenience. Thus, the company is being characterized as the geek lifestyle run wild, in which physical activities are just an inconvenience.

But really, I think the company may be on to something. While I often enjoy eating, I do also consider it inconvenient at times. I'm trying to picture myself at the moment I'm about to prepare a meal, and giving myself the offer that I can give up the pleasure of this meal, and with it, the inconvenience of preparation and washing. If I'm being honest, I have to admit that for many meals - probably the majority of them - my answer would be to just skip it.  Looking at it that way, it seems like a good deal: go ahead and treat yourself to your favourite food occasionally, a weekly big production of a meal, and the odd dinner out.  But then replace the rest of the meals.  The leftovers, the frozen stuff, the generic sandwiches and cereal: just take a quick drink and be done with it.