What the world is reading

Referring to how Obama and his team see the killing of bin Laden as a “top administration achievement,” Scott Clement writes,“this refrain will be repeated throughout the forthcoming presidential campaign as a singular success. But do Americans really reward at the ballot box presidents who take down their bogeymen?” Not really. “Less than a month before bin Laden was killed,Obama held a 47 per cent job approval rating in a Washington Post-ABC News poll. Immediately after the raid,it went to 56 per cent. But a month later,it was back at 47 per cent again—and he fell as low as 42 per cent in the next six months amid continuing economic troubles. Simply put,no matter the patriotic fervor,there are other issues that matter much more to voters.”

The New Yorker

Blackberry season

“Five years ago,Research in Motion,maker of the BlackBerry,was one of the most acclaimed technology companies in the world. The BlackBerry dominated the smartphone market and had helped make texting a mainstream practice. Terrifically profitable,the phone became a cultural touchstone in 2006,a Webster’s dictionary made ‘CrackBerry’ its word of the year. These days,it seems more like the SlackBerry. RIM’s market share has plummeted,thanks to the iPhone and the Android devices,” writes James Surowiecki.

So what happened to RIM? Surowiecki says,“The easy explanation for this is like many other companies,RIM got run over by Apple. But the real problem is that the technology world changed,and RIM didn’t. The BlackBerry was designed for businesses. Its true customers weren’t its users but the people who run corporate information-technology departments. Tablets,which many initially thought were just underpowered laptops,soon became common among salesmen and retailers. So,too,with the iPhone and Androids…As a result,the iPhone and Androids now control more than half the corporate mobile market.”

Slate

There are only actors

With the Oscars to be held later this month,David Haglund asks a pertinent question: “Why do we separate the acting categories by gender?” The arguments in its favour are—”Women and men get different sorts of roles,so we should judge them separately. But every year,we judge different kinds of roles against one another. Why? Because they’re all acting! They are all doing the same basic human activity. And women are no worse at this activity than men; unlike,say,basketball,there are no relevant physical disadvantages that come into play. So judge them together!”

“If we threw men and women into the same category,men would get most of the nominations. I’d still be in favour of this change because it would cast a light on the chauvinism of a Hollywood that still does not provide women with enough good,substantive roles. Lastly,we’d only have two acting awards then! So,if we’re determined to keep four awards,divide them up in some other way. By comedy and drama,perhaps,” he writes.