by Brad Balfour

To read this article in Deutsch, Francaise, Italiano, Portuguese, Espanol, Korean, Japanese, Chinese and Russian, copy and paste the complete URL("http://www.g21.net/nystate5.htm") and enter it in the box after you click through.

New York, NEW YORK, USA - In these dog days of summer, it's a good time to think of recreational frivolities such as baseball. Of course, baseball does not let us forget it - even by drawing attention to the recent union-owner conflict. Hearing both sides bitch about money is like listening to two Enron executives battle over golden parachute particulars. At the end of the day, however, it's still a conflict of owners holding all the cards and workers consolidating to fight for rights.

Is it just a matter of greed vs. greed? They couldn't have picked a worse season to dispute over millions while the rest of us are trying to rethink corporate America, survive the stock market or just survive.

Maybe we need to re-evaluate our entire system and what drives it. When articles are written about these battles, I hope they take a much deeper look at the economic structure of America and the class conflicts in place. Too often, we lose sight of the fact that this is a class conflict because of the number of digits at issue.

A closer look begs the question of whether power should be held in the hands of the few while the rest of us scramble. Should there be only one or two dominant teams and all the rest mediocre, thus losing show value? At a time when the economy is in such rocky shape, we don't need for something like baseball to be so shaken up that people can't even turn to it for relief.

During previous strikes, the fans were unsympathetic to the already overpaid players, regarding them as spoiled whiners. But now people are less quick to castigate the players who, after all, come from the same common, often struggling backgrounds, while the owners are viewed as more remote, an abstraction much like the hollow bottom-line men who populate the Enrons and WorldComs.

We have seen that the owners are willing to throw away up to a million dollars rather than restrain themselves from violating the baseball commissioner's rule against speaking out on labor matters while negotiations are still going on. New York Times columnist Murray Chass noted that in a memo to agents, union executive director Donald Fehr cited Texas Rangers owner Tom Hicks's less-than-helpful comments (to the Dallas Morning News) as "evidence that what the owners really want with their proposal for a luxury tax on payrolls is a payroll cap, pure and simple."

If the issue were less about money and more about control, there might be a different attitude -- a definite rally of support behind the players by the public -- but these owners do not want to generate any player sympathy. Even if one reduces the figures at issue by several zeroes, it's still an interesting argument for once: to tax or not to tax.

However, the conflict is not about owners operating as frugal CEOs responsible to their shareholders. Their business is driven as much by ego and emotion, and their emotions seem to be running this conflict: The owners are not about to cede power.

Down the line, what message is this showdown sending to young players? Already, as the controversy with the Harlem Little League team shows, the sports police want to curb kids' natural rejoicing. What, the only acceptable way to handle success is by receiving millions of dollars? So what if these 12-year-olds mimic their heroes, from Babe Ruth to Sammy Sosa?

Is the real fear that in a few years they'll become contract holdouts after the big bucks when not lollygagging it to first base?

New York Times sports columnist Mike Freeman observed, "The idea that [a little hot-dogging] is some self-destructive thing that ruins sportsmanship is absolutely ridiculous, as if a little dance while running the base paths will lead to young kids' becoming Enron executives."

Maybe all the profits from baseball should go into a fund to, say, build up inner-city sports programs and education rather than line the pockets of theowners and players alike, but that might be looking too closely, and second-guessing the media's corporate call.

With the anniversary of 9/11 little more than a month away, Bruce Springsteen released "The Rising," on July 30, his first album in 18 years with a re-formed E Street Band that now includes violinist Soozie Tyrell. With many of the songs here his personal, heartfelt response to the tragedy that occurred on that dark day, this is no coincidence. Springsteen drew on his roots and brought the band together to add vigor to this batch of new tunes that he hoped had the potential to make an impact.

As a result, there was a media blitz celebrating the album's release and Springsteen's return to the touring circuit. All the morning talk shows jumped on this release to jockey for time from New Jersey's favorite son. NBC's "Today" show won the prize -- and took it all the way to Asbury Park, where they set up shop, nailing down the Boss to perform a free mini-concert in Convention Hall while news stories dealt with Asbury Park's downward spiral.

Co-anchor Katie Couric seemed out of her depth when she tried to position herself as a Bruce fan; at least when Matt Lauer rode around town with him, the talking head seemed able to achieve some kind of genuine rapport. The televised proceedings surrounding the concert reduced the Boss to just another celebrity of the moment. What was a momentous musical resurgence felt like just another event among many along the sensationalist celebrity track -- made all the more ironic by Springsteen's much-vaunted association with the common man.

At the same time, shows such as "Entertainment Tonight," "Access Hollywood," "Extra" and "Inside Edition" all jumped onto the bandwagon, constructing brief, insignificant stories to meet the buzz of the moment.

While "The Rising" offers serious, thoughtful, deeply felt commentary, these television programs offered nothing but hyperbole -- shallow retakes and false enthusiasm. The music was being pumped with the same breathy hullabaloo as they would a new single by the latest teen sensation. Ironically, it was ABC News dinosaur Ted Koppel (ABC tried to mothball Koppel and replace him with Dave Letterman because the executives thought Koppel outmoded) who conducted an interview worthy of Springsteen, set on Bruce's Monmouth County farm and broadcast over two evenings, on "Nighline" and "UpClose." It was an even-handed dialogue, one intelligent person speaking to another.

Throughout Springsteen's history, various personalities and politicians -- especially those with countervailing views, such as Ronald Reagan -- have tried to glom on to his seemingly pro-American stance. But this hardscrabble rocker has written anthems not in celebration of America but as critiques. His 1975 breakthrough song, "Born to Run," extolled an escape from the dreariness of New Jersey working-class life. And in his anthemic "Born in the U.S.A.," he shout-sings about an America that is not what it should be.

It is interesting that he has resurrected the full-band version of the song for the current tour, reminding the audience that there's a message behind the music. To reinforce that, he once again includes "American Skin (41 Shots)" on the set list; "The Rising" might be about American heroes, many in uniform, but that doesn't mean this country is perfect.

If anyone seems to best reflect a post-9/11 attitude, one that shies away from shallow stardom and fatuous hype in a massive reach for box-office breakouts, it is Springsteen. Yet he's become a sales phenomenon again, selling 529,000 "Rising" CDs in its first week in release; it is number 1 in11 countries around the world.

It's no wonder his publicity and marketing people have been carefully positioning him for this relaunch to have maximum impact. The first four Mondays in July, a new song was released on AOL as streaming content. Very few media outlets received CDs for review. It was just announced that he will be the musical guest on the season opener of "Saturday Night Live," scheduled for Oct. 5. This is a carefully conceived and controlled media campaign that seems to have worked with flying colors, and not necessarily in waves of red, white and blue.

But it would be great if they could go beyond that and do something really unconventional. It would be terrific to see Bruce throw an interview to some local journalist because of his unique position, or lead a town-hall meeting where he could share a dialogue with communities. Some have suggested he's such a media figure that he could run for offfice, but that is an option that only diminishes him as an artist. (Why is it that when women become famous, they get offers to take their clothes off, while when men become famous they are approached to run for public office?)

Springsteen has always had a connection with the genuine American hero -- the iconoclast, the dissident -- and has always been committed, in his personal life and the life of his music, to the underclass of America, the disenfranchised. The mass media will keep on hyping nonheroic, flash-in-the-pan superstars as usual. Bruce became a celebrity as a result of the quality of his work; the new album and tour, even with its seeming embrace of celebrity for its own sake, has put the words and magic of Bruce Springsteen back into perspective.

We are desperate for something real; Bruce is so authentic that the mass media can't reduce him to pop-idol-of-the-week status, no matter how much they try.

THE PREVIOUS NEW YORK STATE | THE NEXT NEW YORK STATE |