Zerbie has left the building ... for a while

I'll be fine and I'll be back.

Until then, comment moderation will be light to non-existent.

Behave.

Think of it this way: Absence makes the heart grow fonder.

Please send your thoughts and prayers to regular commenter and fellow blogger Dr. Dawg and his lady Marianne. They need them. I don't.

xox

UPPITY DATE: Only because it made me laugh out loud, and we could all use more laughs.

Tip of the hat to Ron Saba.

NOT YET READY TO SET A DATE: Thanks for your emails and comments asking me to come back and pronounce on everything from the attack on my home province of Quebec by The Globe and Mail's Jan Wong to the resignation of CBC chair Guy Fournier, not to mention the 9/11 coverage and on and on. It feels good to be missed. But I will be away from the keyboard for a while yet.

Oh, and my Mom is as fine as an 89-year old can be, thanks.

DATE BOOKED: Watch this space. I will be back by Halloween. (BOO!)

Comments are closed on this post.

Oh and the rules around this joint will be changed.

That's what happens when some of you don't behave. Collective punishment!!

Comments

[Antonia Z.]

Thank you Dave. Very sweet.

I'll be back soon.

[Sony 800]

You peeked!!!!!!Now you'll have to start the withdrawl programme all over again.

[Randy]

Hi Antonia,

Hope you'll get the Maclean's university guidebook. At last count, 22 (!) universities have dropped out of the rankings, including biggies like U of T,
the University of British Columbia, Carleton, Queen's, and most recently, The University of Western Ontario.

Might be time to contact former editor Ann Dowsett-Johnston for her opinion.

Let's see if Ken Whyte and Tony Keller are still the golden boys at Rogers when sales of the latest guidebook circle the drain!

I knew things were bad at THE NATIONAL POST. But I had no idea they were this bad. THE POST's latest and greatest gambit: deep, deep, deep -- desperation deep -- subscription discounts.

I canccelled my home delivery a couple of months ago. Tonight I got a call offering to reinstate my Monday to Saturday subscription for....wait for it....

$4.99 a month.

That's right. $4.99 a month. Not a $4.99 a week, but $4.99 a month. The rate is guaranteed for one year. No prepayment is required. They will charge my credit card monthly. And I can cancel anytime.

Let's see. I think the POST sells for $1 on weekdays and $1.50 on Saturdays. So I'll be paying $1.25 a week for papers with a newsstand price of $6.50.

Now math was never my strong suit, but methinks that's a discount of about 80%. Or to think of it another way: for every paper I buy, the POST will give me 4 papers for free.

I agreed to the offer. THE POST got another subscriber. And you got an item. Your thoughts?

[Antonia Z.]

Hmmm...

Think I am gonna call the Post sub department and get them to drop my price from $10/month to $4.99 too. Those are my thoughts.

By the way ...

I hear that Jacob Richler has been cut, while Jason Kirby (BC correspondent) and Adam Radwanski are off to Maclean's.

[Classic]

_As a comparison, my ongoing subscription for the 7 days a week Star has also been at approx. $5 a month (tax included) for over a year. Outside of the Star, only the Toronto Sun has ever called me to sell a subscription - once.
_I'm sorry to hear of your recent loss.

[Bill-Muskoka]

I, not owning any pets, and therefore, not needing absorbent paper media, still would not subscribe to the National Compost!

[william fudger]

I was recently graced with a visit from Vicki Gabereau, a friend of many years. I mentioned your recent loss and she insisted I send her condolences along with my own, which I do. I lost my dear pal as well and got a new friend right away and that worked wonders. Vicki also corrected me saying, "It's not AnTOnia, it AntoNIa" so now everyone knows.

William Fudger

[Allan Sorensen]

would everyone agree that Antonia should have her own TV show?

[rob]

Let's see. I think the POST sells for $1 on weekdays and $1.50 on Saturdays. So I'll be paying $1.25 a week for papers with a newsstand price of $6.50.

Now math was never my strong suit, but methinks that's a discount of about 80%. Or to think of it another way: for every paper I buy, the POST will give me 4 papers for free.

I agreed to the offer. THE POST got another subscriber. And you got an item. Your thoughts?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Newspapers = Media

Subscribers = Product

Corporate advertisers = Customers

Newspapers (all of them , including Post) get nearly all (80%) of revenue from Corporate Advertising. Thats why they are the real customers, not you.

What you pay for newspaper doesn't matter. The bottom line is, if the reason you read a newspaper is to get facts without spin, then you shouldn't be buying newspapers at all, regardless of how much you "save".

Right now, a story almost no newspaper is covering is "Network Neutrality". This will be voted on in US congress fairly soon. If the Corporate interests have their way, web-sites on Internet will have different download speeds depending on how much each web-site can afford to pay to provider. Non-Corporate interests want things to remain as-is, which would eventually cause newspapers and tv news to become extinct.

[Antonia Z.]

I agree Rob. here is my feeble effort of a couple of months ago:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1150672506225&call_pageid=970599109774&col=Columnist969907624636

[Jiminy C in Rinbow Country]

Dear Madame Z -

Are we there yet?
Withdrawal pains are becoming disturbing!

JC

[Ivan Prokopchuk]

Antonia,
Having worked in situations similar to yours, and now though retired, getting back into it with a vengeance, I can really sympathise and empathise.

(Yours)
--Sadie M. Massie.

[Allan Sorensen]

Rob said
".. would eventually cause newspapers and tv news to become extinct".

This will never happen. Ever, never.
So get real.

[rob]

Dear Allan Sorensen,

New technology has a way of causing fundamental shifts in society. This has happened many times in the past. I’m sure there were people who said the train would never replace the horse, and who said automobile would never replace the train, and who said the airplane would never replace the automobile…

I think you can see where I’m going with this.

The key to whether television and newsprint are replaced by Internet will depend on two things. One is how much the new technology does something better or cheaper than previous methods. If the reason you watch tv news or read newspapers is to learn facts about the real world around you, then the Internet wins. This is because the current pricing structure allows a content provider to set up shop with minimal up-front costs. No building or printing press or transmission tower or studio etc. As a result, the web-site can carry on without needing a huge infusion of upfront capital or ongoing payments from corporate advertisers to cover operating expenses. That means the website is not beholden to corporate interests, but instead (assuming absolutely no corporate advertising) lives and dies by cash flow from subscribers. Assuming they don’t libel, they can talk about anything they want without having to worry about angry shareholders punting or a large ad account walking. The Star (check the latest financials, it will take you all of 10 minutes), the Post, The Globe, all get 80% of their revenue from corporate advertisers. So a news website that exists by subscriber donations alone has much more leeway to provide all the news without spin. So on that basis, the technology wins.

The second consideration is whether the technology will be allowed to develop without the potential losers (see above) taking action. One short-term solution is to try to hold onto subscribers by getting them to step from one medium to the other without changing partners. So you have all the newspapers and tv news outlets establishing and promoting websites. But in the long run, subscribers will continue to gradually bleed away because the product offering is inferior. The longer-term solution is to eliminate the low operating expenses currently in place. This is what Network Neutrality, as described in Antonia’s (feeble, my ass) article, is all about. Once the providers can charge different costs to different players the big media houses simply transfer their advertising driven model and carry on as usual. They will keep making money, and the next time you mention about Palestine and Israel, or some other topic that is off the mainstream radar screen, people will look at you like you’re from another planet.

I was fortunate enough to get on-line and up to speed in a relatively short time after September 11, 2001, from mindless consumer-bot to mensch in about 5 years. Others may not have this opportunity if Network Neutrality goes the way it appears to be headed.

So when you say “This will never happen. Ever, never”, you might be right.

Later.

[Allan Sorensen]

The continuing development of the Internet, and it's impact on society is a HUGE subject. All us monkeys could have a great weekend in the Muskokas discussing it at government expense.
Already the U.S. Congress has thought of controlling it, as China has managed to do. So we begin to see the limits of free expression.
Overlooked, has been satellite radio.
It's difficult to describe to you just how significant the difference is between hearing a broadcast where people can speak freely, and one where it's really an illusion that people can say what they think (CBC).
But I cannot foresee traditional media fading away because it's simply not that much fun reading off an LCD screen, let alone maneuvering a laptop in the bathtub.
Check out the hair-brained idea of of The Star offering up a tiny PDF of itself as an electronic afternoon edition. Completely redundant, but takes only minutes to produce using Quark software.
More useful has been the recent addition of original video clips just as the NY Times has been doing.

(hey Rob and AZ, you like funny clips? Try these two:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIvq1NY_YjE&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jj2ucnfoQ0s&NR)

Back to your topic - it still irks me that we are forced to pay for cable channels we don't want just because the government says we must in order to develop a Canadian culture.
Media is so important, and so much fun.
Again I'll say that I would love to see a show where AZ slices and dices everything under the sun that comes at us in the form of what we call Media using all 5 W's and that delightful sarcasm she's so good at. Deadpan news we can get anywhere, bit's insight and humour we really crave.

Has anyone noticed the new HELLO magazine on the landscape?
How long before they run out of Canadian celebrities (how many are there?) and start profiling local crack dealer?
Even now they have Penelope Cruz on the cover - what a boring sell-out topic to feature. There are way more interesting women in Canada.
AZ, for example.

[Allan Sorensen]

Please get back up on your high horse, AZ. I can't keep this blog running all by myself.
Fascinating events have filled each day, and without your voice we're a lot poorer for it. The country needs you.
I'm as serious as can be. I'll even promise to keep quiet if that's what it takes.
There's no one in all of Canada with your mindset. Do you need to be reminded that it's journalists with courage who will save this country? - and that means you. For nearly a decade, your columns in the Star have been the most meaningful to me. They have been so irritating and right on - and important.
Talent like that should be expanded to radio and television - I think your shockingly funny and clever views really elevate the discourse in our community, hell, in our country. (though you wouldn't always know it from a lot of of the comments left here by seemingly dim-witted hillbillies - it such an a downer when you learn what your fellow citizens actually think)
Your ideas are smart, funny and needed.
You give hope.

Are you going to leave us alone with only John Doyle suggesting what we should think?
Get back in print.
Or the terrorists will have won.

[Antonia Z.]

That's very kind Allan but the world will go on without me for a while longer.

[Ivan Prokopchuk]

I was saddened to hear that Madamme Clarkson is not up to snuff healthwise.
Myself the veteran of many a media junket (I still think I have a hangover from Copenhagen), I had a section on "your tax dollars at work" in my famously ignored novel, The Hat People.
The Hat People were all those folks with their lips around the CBC here in once-comfortable commie Canada.
I mean, thanks for the dinner and the Akvavit,folks, but watching a famous news anchor bring up all over the desk clerk and call his soundman "a stupid *&^**ing frog--is tantamoung to high humour.
Mrs. Clarkson had nothing to do with this, of course; it was another junket, long ago.
"Had two women," said the anchorman. Danish girl and a pro.(Ralph!)".

[Reality Check]

I guess we'll have to wait until the leave is over to read quotes from Greg Felton blaming a Zionist plot for what the Pope recently said and for how Muslims are reacting....

[rob]

Reality Check

Do you have a link to the Greg Felton article? All I could find was his website, which had a few decent articles including one on Marcus Gee (one more reason why newspapers pollute the mind).

As for Zionist plots, what about "Choose your Voice", a program being introduced into Grades 6,7, and 8 in Ontario and maybe Quebec. The program addresses anti-Semitism, as well as other "lesser" forms of racism, and was created by the Canadian Jewish Congress.

This is a mistake because while I do think there has been an upsurge in hate incidents against Jewish people in Canada, pro-Zionist (which does not mean pro-Jewish, the opposite actually) groups like CJC are partly responsible for that increase.

Apologists for Israel’s brutal occupation have worked very hard for decades to sell a specific piece of propaganda, namely that "Israel = Jewish therefore Jewish = Israel". So if you criticize Israel you are really criticizing Jews which means you are a Jew-hater.

Today’s kids, the first generation to grow up being subjected to this propaganda, are also more likely to read about Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians on the Internet. So kids are most at risk then to make the false racist link of Jewish = Israeli = Brutal Occupier.

But it is the first part of that equation that is incorrect, not the second. Unfortunately, pro-Zionist groups are working to reinforce the first link and break the second link, which is why the CJC is the last group you would want involved in any anti-racism (all racism, not just Jew-haters). While I have only read the overview of the program, I am sure the CJC worked very hard to get across the message that criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic.

I sent an email about this to the Toronto District School Board, as well as the provincial Education Minister.

If anybody responds to this post please make at least a minimal effort to dispute my reasoning BEFORE you call me a Jew-hater.

[Antonia Z.]

I am away. Know that if this turns into the usual verbal shooting war about you know what.
I am in no mood.
I have sporadic internet access and may not post comments for days, perhaps weeks.

[Groooomba]

Sorry, I can never remember the nickname I was using here. I don't log on enough to provide good continuity, I'm afraid; apologies.

"Apologists for Israel’s brutal occupation have worked very hard for decades to sell a specific piece of propaganda, namely that "Israel = Jewish therefore Jewish = Israel". So if you criticize Israel you are really criticizing Jews which means you are a Jew-hater."

In other words: if not black then white? More grown-up thinking is probably preferable.

Yes, Israel is Jewish, in the same way that Quebec is French-Canadian and Greece is Greek -- there's this nutty nation-state model written into international law.

No, criticizing Israel is not criticizng Jews, any more than criticizing the Greek government is the same as criticizing Greek-Canadians, criticizing the Armenian government the same thing as criticizing Armenian-Canadians, and so forth.

The CJC has never claimed that criticizing Israeli policy is the same as criticizing Jews. It claims that calling the Jewish people a fiction and its self-determination an error that is to be reversed -- in other words, criticizing Israel's existence as illegitimate on racist grounds, as opposed to on legitimate grounds -- is the same as criticizing Jews.

Duh.

[Greg Felton]

Hi Rob:
Better you should contact me directly. Zerb is still on holidays, and debating with Reality Bites is a waste of bandwidth.

Greg

[Tulse]

The Flash piece you noted, "Dance Monkeys Dance", is by Ernie Cline (http://www.ernestcline.com), a spoken word artist from Austin, TX. He has several other spoken word pieces (http://www.ernestcline.com/spokenword/), all primarily involving some aspect of geek life or culture. One of my favourites (although definitely not safe for work) is "Nerd Porn Auteur".