Apple CEO Steve Jobs introduced the iPad after months of speculation and carefully calculated media leaks.

THE BIG NEWS of the past week – at least for those of us who await Apple’s latest toys with bated breath – was the unveiling of the much ballyhooed iPad tablet.

The unfortunate name choice aside – are there no women working in the Apple marketing department? – print media folks have been debating the possibility the iPad could be the salvation for the struggling newspaper and magazine industries.

Most folks scoff at the notion that they should ever be made to pay for the news they read online; it’ll never happen, they say – unless you’re talking about niche products such as the Financial Times or the Wall Street Journal.

But is it possible that the iPad could enhance the digital news-reading experience to such a degree that it just might give people a good reason to pay for the pleasure?

Perhaps it’s akin to my rationale for still buying CDs in the age of digital music: I’ll shell out the dough for them if they offer value-added features  – quality liner notes, attractive packaging, photos, DVD extras, etc.

The iPad seems to represent the best of both worlds, combining the visually appealing design/layout of a printed news product with the interactive features of the internet, such as video, web browser/links and e-mail.

This Sports Illustrated demo offers a sense of how awesome the tablet experience could be:

For someone like me, who finds it difficult to read long-form articles online, having them laid out like they are in an actual physical newspaper/magazine might make things more enjoyable and tolerable.

(Then again, one of the reasons it’s hard for me to get through lengthy articles on the web is because of all the distractions that beckon me every second… e-mail, Twitter, Facebook, and the list goes on.)

The iPad is certainly cool, but is it going to be the solution to getting people to pay for online news?

Well, it counts for something that Apple CEO Steve Jobs was joined at the iPad launch by the New York Times’ digital operations chief, who unveiled a NYT app for the new gadget. (It’s worth noting that a week earlier the Times announced it would be introducing a pay wall in 2011.)

Apple helped rescue record companies from certain demise in the face of digital file sharing when it introduced the iTunes micro-payment system that has proven to be wildly successful.

Something similar has been proposed for online news operations, but so far the idea has been met with skepticism.

If newspapers and magazines are going to survive in the brave new digital media world, they’ll need to figure out how to get people to pay.

It may seem an impossible feat, but if any two companies are going to find a way to make such a business model work, I’d put my money on the New York Times and Apple.

ryan@roadtostarrdom.com

Free transit for everyone!

In keeping with the spirit of the times, the picture, snapped by a passenger and posted online via Twitpic, went viral, and this poor schmuck fast became the focus of worldwide ridicule.    

At first, news reports cautiously described him as “apparently” sleeping. But I think it’s pretty darn obvious that’s exactly what he was doing.    

Locals reacted with understandable indignation. This comes just weeks after a fare hike. What’s more, this isn’t the first time a TTC agent has been caught napping.

I’m not sure what’s more amusing: that this ticket collector got busted for snoozing on the job, or that the transit union came to his defence by suggesting it was somehow the riders who were in the wrong.    

“The reports that passengers were laughing at him as they passed by the booth makes this even more disturbing,” the union president was quoted saying.    

Maybe the snoozing ticket collector was suffering from a medical condition, he suggested. Why didn’t passengers tap on the glass to rouse sleepy head from his slumber?

My guess is because they’d rather laugh at him. I know I would. I mean buddy’s not just nodding off – he’s passed right out, mouth open and everything.

Making this situation all the more absurd, when the sleeping employee was eventually reached by the media, he had the nerve to criticize the chuckling masses for having their priorities “a little mixed up.”

“When you knock Haiti off the front page,” he said, “you know something’s wrong.”     

Perhaps this guy does in fact have a medical condition – it’s called narcolepsy, and it should disqualify him from a job that involves the collecting of money and tickets, not to mention ensuring the safety of passengers in the station.

I feel bad when workers get replaced by machines. But stories like these make me think it might be for the best.

ryan@roadtostarrdom.com

>> TTC sleeper back on job

>> Sleepy TTC in need of wake-up call

>> We’re sorry, says the TTC

SarcMark: At last, a way to say I didn't mean it.

I WAS QUITE excited last week when I read about the launch of this new symbol, the SarcMark, a punctuation mark to indicate sarcasm.

As someone who spends quite a bit of time dealing in sarcasm – the so-called lowest form of wit – versus actual genuine sentiment, I can definitely see how this will come in handy.

I’m forever getting into trouble with folks who don’t understand (appreciate?) my preferred approach to communication – and that’s even when they’re able to see my facial expressions and body language.

Though I try my darndest to steer clear of people who can’t handle sarcasm, alas, avoiding these lame-os all together is near impossible.

Some might suggest here that sarcasm is actually not-so-thinly-veiled rudeness and that I’m just being a dick. They’re probably right, but hey, if the truth hurts, maybe sarcasm hurts a bit less?

Online, as many of us have no doubt discovered, irony can often fall flat, or worse, can end up being misinterpreted and deeply offending someone (and then live on in digital perpetuity).

In my earlier e-mailing days, I thought it might help to add the word sarcasm in brackets to help avoid any misunderstandings.

To wit: Did you catch that George W. Bush speech? Man, he’s so intelligent and well-spoken (SARCASM)

More recently, emoticons and web short-hand have come in handy when conveying sarcasm, particularly in text messages or while instant messaging. As in:

that Xmas sweater looks great on u! – LOL … or: yeah, let’s order pizza. gr8 idea – u could really use the xtra calories! : ) … or:  ur baby’s sooo cute – its face def does not look like a can of smashed assholes - j/j (just joking).

I suppose you can also throw in ‘Not!’ at the end of your statement to indicate insincerity, but that’s kind of old school. And besides, it’s a device better used in actual speech: Wow, Glitter was a great movie – NOT!

It’s hard to know what works best. So I think it’s handy that we now have the SarcMark. Check out the promo video:

I hope this will eventually become standard on every computer keyboard.

After all, it’s really important to me that I don’t offend people anymore.

ryan@roadtostarrdom.com

Reporters in Haiti: In search of the most heartbreaking story.

EVERY DAY, as the extent of post-earthquake devastation in Haiti becomes clearer, planeloads of journalists from around the world continue to descend on the Caribbean island, looking to get their piece of one the biggest disaster stories in years.

But judging from the ongoing coverage, on television especially, many of these reporters seem a bit too interested in outdoing one another with tales of the unspeakable tragedy and utter chaos being visited upon the Haitian people.

As they fan out across the ravaged island in search of the most “gripping” and/or “heartbreaking” stories, these journos clearly have that old newsroom axiom at top of mind: If it bleeds it leads.   

Indeed, sometimes it seems as if the shell-shocked earthquake victims are little more than a pitiful backdrop for reporters who are shooting to win awards for Best Disaster Coverage.   

I really wouldn’t be surprised if just before they go on air, these reporters give their subjects specific instructions on how to create pathos for the camera:   

“You were in the earthquake, right? Terrific. OK – now just stand there and try and look really scared and hungry. And sad. No, look sadder. Perfect. Oh and if you can, go loot a store or something. Remember, the vibe we’re going for is desperate and frantic; savage, basically. Got it? Great. Roll ‘em!”   

I find disaster coverage often ends up exposing the ambitious, narcissistic side of journalists.   

Viewers/readers are supposed to believe these reporters and news anchors flock to Haiti because they care about the suffering of the people there and want to tell their harrowing stories.   

But the coverage can often ring hollow; it can come across as self-promoting and vain.

Most of these reporters likely have good intentions, and they’re doing tough work in brutal conditions. But let’s be honest: they’re attracted to Haiti first and foremost because it’s a big fat feather in their professional caps.  

As a journalist myself, I can’t act like this is shocking. I doubt I’d handle things all that differently if I were in the same situation. A big story is a big story, after all, and your primary mission is to cover it better than anyone else.   

It’s just grating that this usually means reporters end up dealing in far too much melodrama and over the top sensationalism.   

I’m sure that on some level, the correspondents in Haiti want to tell these stories to effect change/prompt action. And hey, if they can get an award/big promotion in the process, everyone wins, right?   

Well, not everyone…   

ryan@roadtostarrdom.com

As if Haiti didn't have it bad enough already.

THE IMAGES and news reports coming out of post-earthquake Haiti are gut-wrenching, to put it mildly.

So disturbing, this really makes you wonder about the way the world works; how a country already so godforsaken can end up getting razed like this, with significant parts of the capital Port-au-Prince reduced to rubble and tens of thousands feared dead.

How is it that the two greatest natural disasters in recent memory – this one and the 2004 Asian tsunami – ended up hitting some of the most vulnerable places on the planet?

One of countless disturbing images.

As I follow the blanket coverage of the devastation from thousands of miles away – anyone else find themselves staring at CNN for hours on end? – I feel useless; hopeless I can do anything significant to help.

(This isn’t the time/place to ask why no one seemed to care about Haiti before it got ravaged…)

I’m donating money to the relief effort. That’s a given; about the only thing I can think of that might make any difference at this point. I say “might” because I’m not entirely convinced donated money always ends up going to the right places.

Suppose it comes down to which organization you choose. Obviously there are a number of reputable relief/aid groups on the ground there, attempting what seems to be the near-impossible: to bring Haiti back from the brink.

It’d be nice to believe that in the long run this disaster and the resultant aid money will spur reconstruction in Haiti, giving the hard-luck nation the chance to get adequate infrastructure and properly constructed buildings.

Yet something tells me this is wishful thinking (isn’t New Orleans still limping more than four years after Hurricane Katrina?) In all likelihood things are going to get much much worse for impoverished Haiti. After all, the country’s daunting challenges run far deeper than simply infrastructure.

I probably shouldn’t look at things this way right now; such cynicism isn’t helpful. Besides, what I think doesn’t matter.

My money does, though. Just hope it ultimately does more than make only me feel better.

ryan@roadtostarrdom.com

>> Tips for safe and efficient Haiti donations 

>> How not to help Haiti

Conan and Jay: Pitted against one another by NBC.

THE MEDIA has been abuzz this week with news that NBC will bump Conan O’Brien and The Tonight Show up to midnight and move Jay Leno back to his 11:35 slot.

I think they’re making a big mistake.

I understand that the ratings for both men have been weak, and that Jay performed better than Conan against David Letterman as host of the Tonight Show. And Leno has been languishing with his new 10 p.m. show (and not delivering enough viewers to the local news that follows).

Still, booting Conan is a short-sighted move that could end up driving him and his talent into the arms of another network (Fox appears to be the likely suitor). Nothing against Leno here – he’s a funny guy – but far as I’m concerned, Conan is the future of late night; my generation’s Johnny Carson.

Not at NBC, apparently.

As David Carr noted in the New York Times: “The message to the younger talent is one thing — wait for a turn that may never come or may be taken back at any second — but the message to younger audiences is even clearer: a legacy industry will default to legacy assets and ride them down to the bitter end.”

I think viewers just needed a bit of time to get used to Conan in his new capacity. The poor guy has had less than a year to prove himself as Tonight Show host – he only started June 1, and already NBC is going to shuffle him along? He deserves better than that.

>>UPDATE (Jan. 12): Conan O’Brien says he won’t host ‘Tonight Show’ following Leno

It took Conan a while to catch on when he became host of Late Night back in the 90s. I remember when I first started watching his show; I felt I had made this incredible discovery because it seemed like nobody else was tuning in.

I marveled at how funny and original Conan was – and wacky, of course; he could be so out there sometimes (take the ‘Clive Clemmons Inappropriate Response Channel,’ for example… who comes up with this stuff?)

Conan wrote 'Marge v Monorail.' Nuff said.

Incidentally, the Simpsons episodes he wrote and/or produced were some of the best ever, including “Marge vs. the Monorail” and “Homer Goes to College“

Mr. Short Term Memory

Before that, Conan also created memorable sketches while working as a staff writer for Saturday Night Live in the late 80s. Some notable ones include “Mr. Short-Term Memory” (“He shouldn’t have stood under that pear tree…“) and” “The Girl Watchers,” memorably performed by Tom Hanks and Jon Lovitz: “He-llo… aaaand goodbye.”

Late Night with Conan O’Brien was great, too, obviously. Given the crappy time slot, Conan didn’t take himself too seriously; not seriously at all, in fact. This made for great television.

When he got the Tonight Show gig, though, I suppose he had to tone it down a bit. I admit, I didn’t watch him that much in his new new role (am I partly to blame for this whole poor ratings mess? Do they even count Canadian viewers?)

It seems like Conan has become a bit more debonair/less wacky to suit the Tonight Show. That maturing might have been inevitable. But it’s also what might have gone wrong for him. He messed with his formula for success; alienated his base.  It’s just not the same.

On Twitter the other day, someone said, “If I were Conan O’Brien, I would have the Masturbating Bear as my only guest for an hour every night until NBC fired me.” He’s referring, of course, to one of Conan’s many, and might I add brilliant/ridiculous, recurring characters:

I’m with this guy. Forget NBC, Conan – you’re too good for them. Move to Fox, return to your roots, and take on Letterman and Leno directly. In addition to Masturbating Bear, I suggest you toss in a few more throwbacks:

•If They Mated:

Mercifully, Suri turned out not to be the scariest looking baby ever.

•Horny Manatee:

A momentary cultural phenomenon.

•More “lip” interviews with the likes of Mike Tyson, Arnold Schwarzenegger – and definitely Bill Clinton (Conan: Is it true that you asked Monica Lewinsky to lie in her deposition? Clinton: No, I told her to lie there in dat position.)

Here’s another good one:

•Last but not least, of course, bring back Pimp Bot 5000 (who combines “the classic stylings of a 1950s robot with the dynamic flair of a 1970s street pimp.”)

It was better when Pimpbot 5000 was around.

Let’s see who wins the ratings war then.

ryan@roadtostarrdom.com

Harper: Taking advantage of Canadians' apathy.

IT’S HARD TO get all that excited about Canadian politics, even during an election. 

Whether it’s because nothing genuinely thrilling ever happens in Ottawa – compared to Washington or London, at least – or it’s simply that Canadians are apathetic about how our country is run, the fact is no one seems to care all that much about the goings-on in our capital. 

This sad truth was brought into sharp relief this week as the Liberal Party, Canada’s official opposition, attempted to stir up public outrage over Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s suspension, or proroguing, of Parliament until March (once the Vancouver Winter Olympics are over). 

Ignatieff: Not an attractive alternative.

The Liberals – led by Michael Ignatieff, who despite all his efforts has never gained much traction with Canadians – are accusing Harper of shutting down Parliament in an effort to avoid answering questions about a scandal over the torture of Afghan detainees. 

Whatever Harper’s reasons for halting the political proceedings in Ottawa, and despite the furor the Liberals have tried, and failed, to generate over the matter, the whole thing seems to have been greeted by Canadians with little more than a shrug and a yawn. (Mind you, there has been a Facebook group launched in protest – oooh, yeah, that oughta show that pesky PM!) 

It’s kind of curious. I can’t imagine Americans or Brits not giving a hoot if their leader suddenly pulled a move like this. Harper’s actions are really quite audacious, as satirist Rick Mercer noted in an opinion piece in the Globe and Mail this week: 

Snow days don’t apply to adults unless you happen to be the Prime Minister of Canada, who with one phone call has the ability to give every member of Parliament two months off…

Our Parliament has been suspended for no other reason than the Prime Minister simply can’t be bothered with the relentless checks and balances that democracy affords us. 

He doesn’t want to have to stand in the House of Commons and hear anyone question him on any subject. I don’t blame him. Parliament is filled with jackals, opportunists and boors. The problem is, like it or not, they were elected. 

It’s obnoxious that our PM knows he can get away with such antics scot-free. But as radio host John Moore wrote in his National Post blog, Harper “enjoys an uncanny skill at divining what the people don’t care about.” 

And he’s obviously well aware of what I’ve said before in this space: the one and only thing Canadians do care about collectively as a nation is hockey – and there’s been plenty of that to focus on lately. 

Canadians were more concerned with our junior team's showing than with Harper's antics.

Indeed, our team’s performance over the last few weeks at the World Junior Hockey Championship in Saskatoon, Sask. – including a heartbreaking loss to the American squad Tuesday night – was of far greater concern to most Canucks than a bunch of lame politicians giving themselves an extended vacation. 

That Harper can pull such a move with seemingly no consequences underscores another reality about this country: our governments usually enjoy free rein simply because there is a lack of a viable alternative. Ignatieff is nowhere near adequate, polls suggest. And the left-leaning New Democratic Party never has and likely never will form government at the national level. 

Harper realizes this, and he seems to be taking full advantage. After all, long as there’s hockey on TV, he knows Canadians have far more important things to focus on than what he’s up to – even if it is basically putting democracy on hold. 

ryan@roadtostarrdom.com

>> The Economist weighs in: Harper goes prorogue: Parliamentary scrutiny may be tedious, but democracies cannot afford to dispense with it

I’ve always thought these people were just a tad nutty – especially the dudes, who surely must spend the next week waiting for their frozen genitalia to descend from their stomachs.

Of course most of the groups that organize the events, such as Toronto’s Polar Bear Club, do so to raise money for charity, which is admirable, and the participants should be commended for making one heck of a personal sacrifice.

Some of these folks say that jumping into ice-cold water is an excellent way to get rid of a New Year’s Eve hangover.

Don’t know about you, but I prefer the cure that involves lots of fluids, a couple of Advils and a greasy breakfast. My genitalia does, too.

ryan@roadtostarrdom.com