Navigator logo

Privacy, Voyeurism and S-Town

Have you listened to S-Town? S-Town is a new podcast from This American Life and Serial. It starts off teasing a potential murder mystery but quickly becomes an exploration of one man’s life and his complicated relationship with the small Alabama town in which he lives. The show is beautiful and literary, steeped in metaphors and southern gothic comparisons, both implied and direct. The man in question, John B. Macklemore himself, is a Faulkner fan and gives Brian Reed — the narrator and journalist behind the series — a copy of A Rose for Emily.

To avoid spoilers, I’ll try and keep this as high-level as possible. However, if you’ve just started the series and you’re worried about it, now is the exit point.

S-Town is not a true crime story, but it is a tragedy. There is a death and details of the deceased are investigated, plumbed, revealed, and eventually exposed. It is a fascinating story about a fascinating person. It’s also an interesting exploration of what we consider private and the narratives we create for ourselves and other people. S-Town is a rumination on loss, grief, memories, and storytelling itself. As Sarah Larson for The New Yorker puts it, ‘it also edges us closer to a discomfiting realm of well-intentioned voyeurism on a scale we haven’t quite experienced before.’ We all participate in voyeuristic exercises on a regular basis, although never quite at this scale or quality.

People scope potential crushes and partners on social media. Dating apps let you link your profiles so that you can show more of yourself, and provide more of a gallery than a snapshot of your life. We peak into each other’s lives all the time, and frequently, it’s to revisit or preserve an old feeling. Breakups, for example, can be that much harder when you still have your ex on Instagram or Snapchat. You see snippets of their life — but of course, not just snippets. The best snippets. Their presence on your feeds can be a constant reminder of a different time, and whether happier or sadder, a time that has passed.

We often think of social media tools as innovations that separate us from the past — we rarely consider the ways in which they help us stay hopelessly tethered. Jenna Wortham’s most recent article for The New York Times Magazine discusses why it is so difficult to tackle online harassment. Examining the origins of the net, its founding principles and the fact that online society reflects the people created it, she ends on a dark note:

‘As I talked to Cohen, another story of the internet began to take shape, one that looked more like a dystopia. It is entirely possible that these men never imagined the internet would free us from our earthly limitations. Instead they strove to create a world like the one we already know — one that never had equality to begin with.’

As Wortham reminds us, we often forget that our actions are not the product of the Internet, but that the Internet is a product of us. With its birth, there was much worrying and hand-wringing over the temporality of information and interactions. But the question of permanence is one that has come to plague us more often, not less, since the web was created. Browsing data, search results, buying history — it all amounts to a permanent collection of behaviour. In our line of business, screenshots afflict companies and individuals alike. Although we’ve all experienced it repeatedly, as a collective we still like to deny the indelibility of the net.

The digital age has awarded a kind of immortality to the everyday citizen that used to be reserved for celebrities, athletes and politicians: people with some sort of name recognition. Now, we can live forever on the Internet through our different social accounts. Facebook can turn your page into a memorial after you die. Instagram doesn’t have an official policy besides how to contact the company about a deceased user, but since they were acquired by Facebook in 2013, they may have a similar policy to Facebook that is not posted online.

There’s a very clear moment in S-Town when you wonder if a line is being crossed. There’s an ethical decision that Reed confronts and explains for the listener — but the entire production builds up to disclose very personal and intimate information. The story was three years in the making, meaning, for one thing, there was much more audio content than what we’re presented with within the framework of seven episodes. It slowly exposes the full picture of the man we’re left with at the end, but not all of that picture was expressly sanctioned by the subject. Personal social media use is selective exposure, but we are in control of what we’re producing. Through the photos and filters we choose, to the articles we share, and the videos we capture, we’re creating our own narrative. It’s us, but our curated selves. Whether we’re Valencia or Clarendon-filtered or trimmed down to an eight-second snap, it’s not raw.

Our terms of privacy, whether it’s through the disappearing messages of snapchat or a public Twitter account, is one that we’re constantly negotiating with a vast number of things: convenience, ignorance, and connection. Generally, we are fine with the trade-off, if what we’re forfeiting is portrayed in a positive light. Voyeurism is fine, until we have to ask ourselves what we get out of it. Tacit compliance is different than express consent, and in terms of our privacy, we seem to have a difficult time drawing a hard line until we feel it has been crossed.

Binging on S-Town leaves you exhausted because you delve deeply into one man’s life, but also into our society’s preoccupations. History and memory are the major themes of S-Town. One of the chief side explorations, threaded throughout, is time. John Macklemore loved sundials and he restored antique clocks. The man and the story seem of a different era, one that existed before the Internet age, which is part of its appeal. John Macklemore reached out to Brian Reed, a reporter, and over a number of months, told him about his life.

Facebook’s ‘memories’ function frequently encourages you to remember, preserve, and celebrate the past. Perhaps it’s because I’m part of the original Facebook generation that has now been using the platform for over a decade, but the shared memories, anniversary reminders, and insistence at nostalgia seems to be coming at me at an alarming rate. You can choose whether you want to keep these things to yourself or share them with your network. John gave Brian a copy of A Rose for Emily to try to help Brian understand the context of his Alabama town, of people who can’t let go of the past, a portrait of decay and stagnation. A Rose for Emily is a story about a private woman, intensely observed by the townspeople, who refused to share the details of her life and died secluded and alone.

Could Patrick Brown be Toronto’s saviour?

Much has been written about the Liberal Government’s refusal to allow the City of Toronto to impose road tolls.

After signalling support, Premier Kathleen Wynne put herself and her party’s electoral future ahead of the needs of Canada’s largest city.

It remains one of the most brutal, politically-calculated moves in recent memory.

But in the process of slamming the door on tolls, have the Liberals opened a window for Patrick Brown to become maybe not the champion, but the saviour of Toronto?

The City of Toronto’s budget is the fourth largest in the country. Toronto represents 10% of Canada’s GDP.

Despite paying lip service to the unique needs of Canada’s biggest city, the current government has done little to give Toronto the funding or autonomy it needs to govern itself effectively.

Just this week, Mayor John Tory came out with a list of demands for the province to fund ahead of the upcoming provincial budget. It includes money for housing, rebuilding the crumbling Gardiner Expressway and the downtown relief line. Now, I’m not suggesting the opposition parties start issuing blank cheques, but a dust-up between the popular mayor of Ontario’s biggest city and the politically unpopular provincial government is an electoral opportunity neither should ignore.

So what if Brown stood up and said: ‘I’m going to be the government that treats Toronto like an adult. No, we’re not going to favour Toronto. But we will fulfil core promises that will make life easier for the people of the city and those across the GTA.’

For example, he could promise to make commuting easier by overhauling Presto, a Metrolinx-imposed system riddled with implementation errors that has angered TTC riders for its inconsistency, and frustrated city officials with increasing costs.

Or he could pledge to upload the Gardiner. The Gardiner is falling apart, in large part because Toronto council kicked the can down the road for so long. Today, the city is faced with the untenable task of rebuilding an entire expressway to the tune of over $3 billion.

Take it over and say you will fix it, freeing up badly-needed cash at City Hall for transit projects, and allowing the PCs to trumpet that they will provide a long-term, sustainable solution to traffic congestion not just for the 416, but also the 905.

The Progressive Conservatives will never, and probably should never, be full-throated urban champions. But you can’t win government without winning at least part of Toronto. And that means demonstrating you understand the needs of the city while balancing the needs of the rest of Ontario.

The city’s residents should also not be written off as a lock for Liberal or NDP votes.

A modern, fiscally-conservative, business-minded candidate and platform will resonate with Toronto residents. The city has demonstrated its support for conservative candidates and fiscal prudence at the municipal level.

Make a few clear, smart commitments to Canada’s largest city. Ease Toronto’s fiscal pressure in a way that will set them up for self-sustainability and success.

In short, solve some of their problems out of the gate, and then leave Toronto to its own devices. In the face of a string of broken promises from the current government, Brown could start to look like Toronto’s best option.

Amanda Galbraith is a principal at Navigator and the former director of communications for Mayor John Tory

From Outlaw to In-law

From Outlaw to In-law

With legalization of recreational consumption looming, cannabis has changed a lot. Along with the changes, Adam Greenblatt has moved from working with dispensaries, to intervening in Supreme Court cannabis cases, to working for corporate cannabis. We talk about how the industry has changed by following Adam’s career.

Featuring:

Adam Greenblatt, Head of Quebec Engagement for Tweed; Rosy Mondin, Executive Director of the Cannabis Trade Alliance of Canada; Hugo Alves, Partner and Corporate Commercial and Climate Change Lawyer at Bennett Jones.

O’Leary wants to drag political discourse into the Dragon’s Den

The businessman and TV star’s outlandish statements are not policy pronouncements; rather they are an attempt to chart a new style of national politics, one based on feelings and confidence rather than thoughtful technocracy.

It is no secret that the economies of the United States and Canada are intertwined and often underperformance by our southern neighbour is a harbinger of a downturn here. The truth is that our political realities very much reflect each others, as well.

Few today remember the disastrous inflation both countries experienced in the 1970s, exacerbated by oil price shocks. After tinkering at the margins for a while, central banks ラ led by Paul Volcker in the United States and John Crow in Canada ラ courageously raised interest rates to bring inflation down.

It was a political gamble; the medicine was harsh. The disinflation resulted in a recession that left huge deficits and high unemployment in both countries, and people protested. Fortunately, the medicine worked; inflation stabilized, and North America ushered in a period of relatively uninterrupted and stable growth.

Economists call this the period the Great Moderation. It was hailed as proof that the conventional wisdoms of capitalist economics worked for everyone. Governments rushed to be seen heeding the advice of sage economists. All over the world, governments expanded trade deals and lowered taxes, as instructed by the all-knowing plutocrats.

The problem was, the consensus did not account for the political realities of the changing economies. While the overall balance sheet showed growing incomes, many working-class North Americans – especially Americans – lost their jobs to outsourcing, leaving communities across rural America struggling to survive.

But amid a political consensus for spreadsheet-based performance indicators, there was little will to directly engage with the underlying malcontent.

The financial crisis of 2008 brought the period of sustained growth to an abrupt end. With the benefit of hindsight, the crisis was the last chance for the old ways and tested methods of the technocratic compact to prove itself.

For many, they failed.

The pace of change experienced by the working class in America had finally come to a head.

The financial crisis marked the end of the technocratic compact and the beginning of what was then the tea party movements, which has metamorphized into a populist phenomenon.

The failure of the technocratic compact to restore middle America’s faith in the promised land during the crisis of 2008 was when the proverbial curtain was finally pulled back on the Wizard of Oz.

After supporting Barack Obama in two presidential elections, America’s working class in the Rust Belt states of the northern U.S. rallied to Donald Trump, the great disrupter.

Trump got to the White House by convincing white working class voters that he understood that their lives were harder than people in Washington realized.

He spoke to them in plain words, sharing their frustration and staking his reputation as a business leader as a marker of success: a leader who created hotels and golf resorts, not just paper and charts. Trump’s wealth and largesse spoke more to Americans about success than did a pile of degrees from elite institutions.

We are starting to see signs of that wave stirring in the leadership race for Canada’s Conservative Party.

Conventional wisdom has it that leadership candidates win with a combination of ideas and hustle. It is no surprise that Conservative leadership candidates who hog the headlines are those who have substantive ideas to point to ラ Maxime Bernier, Kellie Leitch, Michael Chong, Erin O’Toole ラ while those who started out close to the front yet chose to campaign largely on their records as MPs ラ Lisa Raitt or Andrew Scheer ラ are struggling to gain media attention.

This is in keeping with Canadian political history. We have long been a technocratically focused nation. Our prime ministers have been thoughtful and adhered to strict belief systems that have informed the way they governed. Thoughtful governmental policies are established through commissions, painstaking inquiries, and legislation. Public pronouncements are cautious, careful and steady.

And then Kevin O’Leary came along. He has disrupted this steadiness. Policy pronouncements made by O’Leary have been basic at best, and misleading at worst. However, he is currently in the top tier of contenders of the Conservative Party leadership race, and perhaps even a favourite to win.

O’Leary has branded himself as a straight-talking, successful businessman whom English Canadians came to know on CBC’s Dragon’s Den.

He has used his brand to channel dissatisfaction with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Last week, O’Leary proclaimed that the CBC should have to モsing for its supper,ヤ and he has repeated the refrain to make Trudeau’s time as prime minister a モliving hell.ヤ Obviously, these are not policy pronouncements.

Rather they are an attempt to chart a new style of national politics, one based on feelings and confidence rather than thoughtful technocracy.

Though it must be understood that a Canadian leadership election is very different from an American-style primary system, O’Leary looks well-positioned to upset the steady consensus that has governed Canada for much of its recent history.

Into the Dragon’s Den we go.

Jaime Watt is the executive chairman of Navigator Ltd. and a Conservative strategist.