- Published on
A Celebnomics reading of the most valuable neutrality in American culture.
Dolly Parton died on August 25, 2026, at eighty, in Nashville, of cancer. The tributes arrived within the hour, and most of them repeated the same small error. They turned a strategist into a saint.
She read the balance sheet of fame earlier and more clearly than almost anyone who ever stood behind a microphone, and she managed her position like a woman who intended to still be solvent long after the applause moved on. My Economic Value model prices a career as EV = BVS × CM × VLF + LC, and the whole story of Dolly is in where she chose to spend. Most stars burn everything on the front of that equation, the Base Visibility Score and the Cultural Momentum, the noise and the heat. She treated all of that as the easy part and put her real attention on the terms that survive a news cycle, the Value Longevity Factor and the Legacy Control, how long the worth holds and who owns it when the moment passes.
Her refusal to do politics was the clearest line item on that ledger, and people keep calling it apolitical, which does her a quiet disservice. Apolitical suggests she had no positions. She had plenty. What she refused was capture. She turned down the Presidential Medal of Freedom three times, twice from Trump and once from Biden, and she said out loud that accepting it from anyone would read as doing politics. Read that as strategy rather than shyness and it snaps into focus. The instant a celebrity is claimed by one tribe, half the market is priced out. She was protecting her addressable audience the way a smart operator protects a customer base, and that audience ran from Appalachian churches to gay bars in West Hollywood without a single wasted seat. She liked to joke that her father was a Republican and her mother a Democrat, which left her, in her telling, a self-described "hypo-crat." The joke was a moat. In 2023 she put out "World on Fire" and used it to swing at politicians on both sides of the aisle, which is the only safe direction to swing when your whole business depends on nobody feeling excluded. She recorded a duet with Kid Rock on Rockstar and shrugged off the fuss, because working with everyone is the entire point of belonging to no one.
The easy version of her collapses under a second look, and the Dolly underneath is the one worth arguing about. She was not silent so much as selective about when to speak. When it cost her nothing she stayed neutral, and when a stand could travel across the whole market as plain decency rather than partisanship, she took it and took it hard. In 2020 she backed Black Lives Matter in language nobody could soften, asking whether we really think "our little white asses are the only ones that matter." Two years earlier she had quietly stripped the word Dixie off her Stampede attraction once she understood what it carried, and her explanation was pure Dolly: fix the thing when you learn it is a problem, and "don't be a dumbass." She put a million dollars into the Moderna vaccine research at Vanderbilt while half the country was turning the vaccine into a flag to wave. None of that is neutrality. It is a very precise reading of which fights expand a brand and which ones amputate it. Decency scales across a whole market, while faction only ever segments it. She knew the difference in her bones.
That precision is also where the honest reckoning has to sit, because she was not the frictionless folk hero the obituaries need her to be. The Dixie Stampede ran for years as Confederate-tinted dinner theater before she moved a muscle, and she moved only when the culture forced the math. There were feminists in the seventies who found her impossible to file, and critics then and now who read her studied neutrality as a comfortable cowardice, a woman sitting on the largest reserve of goodwill in the country and spending almost none of it on the hardest fights. I do not think that critique is wrong so much as incomplete. She was hoarding that capital on purpose, and the hoard is exactly why her Imagination Library could put hundreds of millions of books into children's hands without a single culture-war boycott ever laying a glove on it. You can call that caution. You can also call it the most disciplined use of celebrity capital in living memory. Both things are true, and I see no reason to pretend the tension resolves.
I am not going to write around the body the way the polite tributes do. I was a child of the eighties. I knew 9 to 5 and I knew Dolly's breasts, and saying otherwise would just be lying. She had, by a wide margin, the most famous bosom in America. That does not belong on a tombstone, but it absolutely cemented an image, and the genius is in who did the cementing. She got to the joke first, every single time. "It costs a lot of money to look this cheap," she said, and she built the entire look off the town tramp she idolized as a girl in Sevierville. She posed for the Playboy cover at thirty-two and floated doing it again at seventy-five. When scientists cloned the first mammal from a mammary cell, they named the sheep Dolly, and she found it funny rather than degrading. Run all of that through the back half of my equation and it is the highest form of Legacy Control I can point to. The single most objectifiable thing about her never once belonged to the men who leered or the writers who snickered. It belonged to her, because she authored what it meant before anyone else got the chance. That is the difference between being branded and doing your own branding.
The purest business decision of her life had nothing to do with her body and everything to do with a copyright. In 1974 Elvis Presley wanted to record "I Will Always Love You," a song she had written the same day as "Jolene." She was thrilled, until Colonel Tom Parker called the night before the session and demanded half the publishing, the way his operation demanded it of everyone. She said no to the King of Rock and Roll and cried all night. "I had to keep that copyright in my pocket," she explained later, and that pocket paid for everything. When Whitney Houston's version anchored The Bodyguard in 1992, that one refusal became one of the great paydays in the history of songwriting. She had started her own publishing company back in 1966 and clawed back her masters by 1999, decades before Taylor Swift made re-recording an act of public vengeance. Dolly never needed the vengeance. She simply never let go of the rope in the first place.
In my book she sits in the chapter on holding value past the peak, next to Cher and Keanu Reeves and Michelle Yeoh, the rare few whose worth kept compounding long after the industry expected the curve to bend down. Her death moves her into stranger territory, the place I reserve for figures whose value multiplies the moment they are gone. For most of them, death does the heavy lifting. It freezes them at their most iconic and deletes the risk of a slow decline, which is why a Diana or a Tupac keeps appreciating on absence alone. Dolly is the exception that clarifies the rule. She did not need death to multiply her, because she had already solved longevity while she was breathing. Look at how she left. A brief illness, a private service, a foundation and a catalog and a theme park all structured to run without her, an estate as tidy as the seams she used to sing about. Compare that to Prince dying without a will, or the years of litigation over Michael Jackson, or the chaos that so often follows the famous out the door. Her exit was the last and cleanest expression of Legacy Control. She authored her afterlife the same way she authored the joke about her chest, which is to say, before anyone else could do it for her.
She died of cancer, which I will not dress up, because there is no beauty to manufacture out of that and she would have hated the attempt. What I will say is this. The most radical thing Dolly Parton ever did was refuse to be owned. Not by a party, not by a manager with a rule about publishing, not by the men who reduced her to a measurement, not by a culture that kept waiting for the rhinestones to finally look sad. She ran the numbers her whole life and the numbers always came back the same. She left owning all of it, right down to the song we will keep singing at each other long after the last of us who remember her on a Friday-night movie is gone too.
- Published on
Tom Cruise never sang a note. Yet for forty years, his films minted the hits.
Hollywood's original playback hero.
Some songs stay with us without our ever realizing they have, and it tends to happen when a song fuses to an image, so that a saxophone becomes a boy sliding across a hardwood floor in his socks and a guitar becomes a fighter jet peeling off a carrier deck into a hard blue morning. You never chose to memorize either of them; they were simply installed.
Trace who keeps doing the installing and you find one man at the center of forty years of it, and he cannot sing a note.
When I scored Tom Cruise for Celebnomics: How Fame Became the Ultimate Currency, I called him a system unto himself, a star whose value cannot be separated from structure, and when I ran him decade by decade through my Economic Value Model, the shape that came back was not a popularity curve but a durability curve. His EV story, I wrote, "is not about popularity. It is about durability, control, and the quiet discipline of staying in motion." What I did not fully account for then was the music itself, one of the quiet machines producing that durability.
Risky Business took a middling Bob Seger single from 1979 and made it permanent, with Cruise miming to "Old Time Rock and Roll" in his underwear until an album cut became a national reflex. Top Gun sent Berlin's "Take My Breath Away" to number one and an Oscar, sat five weeks atop the Billboard 200, and gave Kenny Loggins the "Danger Zone" that still fires the instant an aircraft climbs, while Cocktail, a film nobody defends, went four times platinum behind "Kokomo," the Beach Boys' first number one in twenty-two years.
Then came the resurrections, which are the strangest part, because the song was so often a corpse before he reached it. Rain Man, which he co-led with Dustin Hoffman, opened on "Iko Iko" by the Belle Stars, a London band that had already broken up, and dragged their forgotten cover into the American top twenty. Far and Away asked Enya for a theme, and she cut a new English "Book of Days" over her own Irish-Gaelic original, a version that then replaced the original on nearly every later pressing of her record, so that the movie did not so much borrow her song as overwrite it on her own album. Mission: Impossible took a sixties television theme, handed it to two members of U2, and made Lalo Schifrin's spy riff a global top ten.
The pattern outlived the eighties: Jerry Maguire pulled Springsteen's "Secret Garden" onto the charts two years late, and the version that saturated the radio was a DJ's mix lacing the film's dialogue through the song, a record you could never actually buy in a store. Vanilla Sky let Cameron Crowe, a Rolling Stone writer before he was a director, coax an Oscar-nominated original out of Paul McCartney, and then, when the form was supposed to be dead, Top Gun: Maverick turned OneRepublic's "I Ain't Worried" into one of the most streamed songs of 2022, proof that for four decades a second engine had been running under all of it while almost nobody noticed.
Cruise is not a musician who acts; he has no catalog and plays on none of these records, and yet his films are hit factories, he is the machine, and the songs are always somebody else's. Run down the roster and the strangeness sharpens, because Seger, Loggins, the Beach Boys, a defunct new-wave band, Enya, two members of U2, Springsteen, McCartney, and Lady Gaga all turn up on it, sharing no genre and no era, their only common thread being whose movie they landed in. A hit catalog is supposed to belong to the person who made the hits; his belongs to the person they were made for.
One man can challenge this, and that man is John Travolta, who has Saturday Night Fever, Grease, and Pulp Fiction to stand on, but Travolta sang and danced his and earned those hits with his own body, whereas Cruise mimed and moved through the frame, let another voice do the selling, and watched the hit stick to him anyway. Travolta is a musical star, but Cruise is something else, something with a name...just not an English one.
India named it a lifetime ago, and we never think to hand the word to an American, though what Cruise does is precisely that: playback.
The hero does not sing; a playback singer carries the melody from behind the curtain, credited on the record and invisible on the screen, while the star lip-syncs and lets the song picturize onto his body until face and voice fuse into one memory. Kishore Kumar was the voice and Rajesh Khanna the star, and India fused them without ever feeling cheated, because the fusion was the art form. Cruise runs the same circuit, with Loggins as his playback singer, so that "Danger Zone" belongs to Loggins on the label and to Cruise in the body, and once that jet lifts, the label stops mattering.
He is a Hindi-film hero on the wrong lot, with one difference that flatters him, because Bollywood needs you to believe the star is singing while Cruise never asks for that fiction. Loggins is right there in the credits as plainly another man, and the fusion happens regardless, which leaves Cruise as playback with its one illusion removed. Where the comparison bends is dance, and that bend is the point, since Cruise does not dance and his picturization is the montage instead, the volleyball court, the tarmac, the beach football in Maverick. Hollywood never built the item number, so Simpson and Bruckheimer welded one out of fighter jets and a hook, and it does the identical work.
My Economic Value Model was built to catch exactly this, because a soundtrack is a Value Longevity Factor and a Legacy Control instrument dressed as a pop song. The hit keeps the film alive for decades after the box office closes, which is longevity you can hum, and it lets Cruise curate the memory of his own career one radio-proof hook at a time, which is control. In Celebnomics his EV peaks in the 1990s at 738, craters to 340 in the 2000s when the carefully managed distance broke, rebuilds across the 2010s, and lands in the 2020s at 739, a new high carried by a Legacy Control score of 10, the only 10 on his board, and the decade his Legacy Control finally maxed out is the same decade the hit single came home, on Top Gun: Maverick. About that film I wrote, "This was not nostalgia. It was leverage," and the song was leverage every bit as much, the music serving as one of the tools that built the durability rather than a coat of paint laid over the top of it.
Try to name the woman who did the same and you run into the revealing hole in the theory, because there isn't one: the women who owned the biggest movie-music moments were the singers themselves. Madonna never needed a playback singer because she was one, giving Evita its voice and walking off with the Oscar that song won, then scoring Dick Tracy off her own album while driving Who's That Girl to number one. Whitney Houston did The Bodyguard, whose soundtrack still outsells everything Cruise has touched, and Streisand and Cher did the same, as did Beyoncé in Dreamgirls and Lady Gaga in A Star Is Born. When a woman held the song and the screen at once she almost always sang it herself, so the lane where you are the star and someone else's voice sells the record turns out, tellingly, to be a man's, and Cruise has no female counterpart because the women who might have qualified were too talented to need one.
All of this would be trivia if the form were still alive, and it mostly is not, because the engine that made the single sell the movie and the movie sell the single has been quietly decommissioned everywhere except India, which never made that mistake, keeping the song load-bearing in a way that explains why the Indian soundtrack star never went extinct while the American one nearly did. Cruise is the last Hollywood star who still treats a song the way Bombay always has, as architecture rather than garnish, which makes him the most Bollywood movie star Hollywood ever produced.
And now he is about to walk away from it, because in Daytona this summer he announced Days of Thunder 2 for 2028 with Anne Hathaway riding shotgun, which is him planted squarely in the lane he has always owned, and yet the film arriving first, in October, is Digger, an Alejandro González Iñárritu black comedy in which Cruise plays a billionaire who may have ended the world, a prestige swing at the Oscar that has escaped him for an entire career. Digger will not come with a hit single and is not built to, because it is Cruise reaching, at last, for the one thing the soundtrack could never buy him: the statue.
There is something almost mortal in the timing, because the last playback star has decided he wants the one thing playback can never hand you, which is to be taken seriously.
He may not even need it, and that is the part the Academy cannot compute, because a song is the closest thing culture has to an afterlife and he has spent forty years stockpiling them, so that every wedding DJ on earth has run an unpaid Tom Cruise advertisement since 1983 and will keep running it long after he is a name on a plaque. The films age and the reviews yellow and the box office shrinks to a number in a book, but the songs do not age, because they were never entirely about him and so cannot die with him. He built that immortality out of other people's voices, and that is the trade he is weighing now, whether he knows it or not: the respect he wants set against the permanence he already has, since permanence, as my model keeps insisting, is just the quiet discipline of staying in motion.
I would not bet against the man who worked out how to live forever without ever singing a word.
- Published on
20 Years of Me and the Word
This month it's twenty years since I heard the word.
August 2006. There's no way to mark an anniversary like that without it sounding like something, and I've noticed the shape people expect from it, the gratitude and the little bit of hard-won wisdom and the photograph where you look well, because the story has an approved ending and the approved ending is that you lived.
I did live. The word was cancer, and I'm not being coy about it, and I'm not going to pretend the number is anything other than remarkable, because my doctors have told me plainly that I've outlived every statistic that exists for my disease. Twenty years isn't something I was ever given odds on, it's just something that happened, and I've spent two decades trying to work out what it cost. But this isn't an essay about surviving, it's about what happens when your survival becomes a story and the story stops being yours.
Every few months my phone starts behaving strangely.
It starts with the DMs, four or five strangers in an hour and then more, and they're from everywhere...a woman in Nairobi whose brother has six weeks, a man in Surrey asking for the name of the doctor, someone in Hyderabad who has already booked the flight and just wants to know where to land. They come in faster than I can read them and they all carry the same tone, which isn't curiosity, it's the tone of somebody who has run out of options and been handed one.
By the time a friend forwards me the link I already know what it is, because it's always the same article, it ran in August 2015, and it's the worst thing anyone has ever written about me. I've made peace with almost everything that happened to me but I've never made peace with that piece, and I've stopped pretending that's a character flaw.
I never set out to be written about, I set out to write.
Before any of this I was working in fiction and in scripts, which is to say I spent my twenties inventing people and putting them through things, and if you'd asked me then how I imagined attention arriving I'd have described a byline. Something I made, my name under it, a reader on the other side who never needed to know a single thing about me. That's the deal writers think they're signing, that you get to be the one holding the pen. I never really considered the other way in.
Holy Cancer: How A Cow Saved My Life came out in July 2015, a memoir about two rounds of cancer, the second at stage IV, and about the months in India that followed. The title isn't a metaphor, and the circumstances behind it are ones I've never once claimed could be repeated, and the book is careful about that to the point of being almost annoying, because I knew even then what happens to a story like mine once it leaves the room.
It found its readers quickly, the way books occasionally do when they land at the exact moment a culture is hungry for what's inside them, and within weeks I understood that the attention wasn't landing on the writing at all, it was landing on the body the writing described. Nobody was calling to talk about structure, they were calling because I hadn't died. That's the moment worth marking, and it isn't the success, it's the redirection, because I'd spent years learning to be the author of stories and I'd just become the subject of one.
She was given a copy of the book, which matters, because it means what followed wasn't a failure of access.
The piece was written from the meeting, and it was written to a shape. The book was careful while the article was loud, the book refused to make a claim and the article implied one, and the frame she chose was precisely the one I'd spent two years of writing steering away from, the frame that turns a body into an argument about something other than a body. Comments of mine turned up without the sentences that had surrounded them, which is a technique and not an accident. The newspaper's website went down the day it ran, which is the part people still repeat back to me like it's good news.
I called her, and I wasn't aggressive about it and I wasn't naive enough to expect a correction, I just explained what the framing had done and what the missing context did to my meaning and what it was going to cause. She told me that was her job.
She was right, and that's the sentence I couldn't say out loud for years and it's the reason this is an essay instead of a complaint. She was doing her job, and the job includes the right to decide what the story is, and the subject doesn't have that right and never has had it. I'd simply never been the subject before, so I'd never noticed which side of the table I was sitting on, and I found out in a single afternoon that a byline is authorship and a story about your own life is raw material for somebody else's.
Nobody warns you that a piece like that doesn't end.
It's been eleven years, and the article has no news value and no currency and no relationship to anything happening anywhere, and every few months it detaches from its date and starts moving again through WhatsApp groups, forwarded from someone to someone in countries I've never worked in. I have friends around the world who've received it from strangers without realizing it was about somebody they actually know. It circulates without me and it'll outlive my ability to correct it.
What comes with it is the part I've never fully described. Desperation first, which I understood immediately and have never once resented, and then the follow-up when I couldn't provide what the article implied I could provide, which is anger, and the insistence that I owed them a phone call or a name or a protocol. And then, from a small number of people, wishes that it would come back, explicit ones, death threats from people who were themselves dying or whose mothers were, which is a category of correspondence I wouldn't wish on anybody and have never known how to file.
I tried for years to meet it. I answered, I made introductions I had no business making, I gave people hours I didn't have, because the alternative was ignoring a message from someone with six weeks and I couldn't do that and also be a person I recognized. It was never enough and it was never going to be, because the thing they were reaching for didn't exist. Somebody sold them a cure and it wasn't me...I wrote an entire book explaining why what happened to me couldn't be handed to anybody else, and none of that survived the translation into a headline.
Then there's the other correspondence, the kind that arrives on letterhead.
Industry titans, entertainment names you'd recognize, chief executives, and it's their wife or their father or their business partner and could I find twenty minutes. I found the twenty minutes and then the hour after it and then the follow-up calls, because a frightened person is a frightened person no matter what they're worth. I was running a nonprofit through all of this and not one of them ever wrote it a check, and it's taken me a long time to sit with that, because these are people whose entire professional lives are organized around the principle that time has a price. They knew exactly what my hours were worth, they just didn't file what I was doing under work.
What they did file under work was the other thing. The blue tick arrived, the influencer label attached itself, and with it came an entirely different inbox...wellness brands, spas, resorts, would I come and stay, would I be seen there, would I say something about it afterward. Medical groups wanting a keynote. More than one proposition to put my name on a hospital or a clinic or a line of products.
I want to be exact about the arithmetic here because it's critical. The people who wanted my expertise took it for free, and the people who wanted my image paid for it, and paid well, in the currency of things you can photograph. I've never once been compensated for the thing I'm actually qualified to do, and I've been compensated repeatedly in massages.
The other cost of a few minutes of fame is that you can't put them down.
People see you the way they decided to see you and they decided fast, and what they don't see is anything on either side of that decision, not the career before it and the writing and the scripts and the years of craft that produced a book good enough to be misread on that scale, and not the capacity after it either, the work I could be doing now, the ideas I've spent a decade building. You become a fixed point, and people aren't being cruel about it, they're being efficient, because a person is easier to handle as one thing.
At first I didn't fight it. I wrote for The Speaking Tree and for HuffPost and the work sat comfortably inside the same narrative because that's honestly where I was, and then the bylines started to widen...fashion, travel, luxury, music, film, hotels, rooms I had no business being in and got very good at being in, across continents, under my own name, for years. None of it moved the label an inch, and I was still the cancer guy, filing a piece about a hotel.
Some of that is structural and I own it, because I haven't had a job in twenty years, not one, no tenure and no department and no colleagues I've sat beside since we were all young, none of the slow institutional scaffolding that gives a person an identity sturdy enough to argue with a headline. Working for myself was never a lifestyle choice, it was a medical one, it's the only shape of work my body has ever been able to hold, and it was the right call and I'd make it again...and it also, quietly, kept me tethered to the word for two decades, because I never got to build anything else large enough to stand in front of it. Which is why coming back to academic work has been harder than the academic work. The ideas are fine, the ideas were always fine, what I don't have is the twenty years of institutional biography that lets people take the ideas seriously without checking on me first.
And in the years since, an entire industry has made money out of being that one thing on my behalf. Healers, retreats, supplement companies, practitioners, some of them using the book and more of them using the article, because the article already made the claim they needed. They sell the protocol and the product and the replication, which is the precise thing my book spends its entire length refusing to sell. My story generates revenue, almost none of it mine, and the people earning it are under no obligation to be accurate because accuracy was never the asset. The asset is a man who didn't die, and a version of why.
I built a framework for measuring the economic value of fame and it has four terms, Base Visibility Score, Cultural Momentum, Value Longevity Factor and Legacy Control. People ask me about the first three, they ask about the math, and in all this time nobody has ever asked why the fourth one is in there.
Legacy Control is in the model because I lost mine in August 2015 and never got it back, and it's a separate variable because it behaves differently from the others, since visibility can be earned and momentum can be manufactured and longevity can be estimated, and control is the only one that can be taken off you in a single afternoon by a professional doing her job correctly.
Value Longevity Factor is in there because I can watch an eleven-year-old article generate measurable activity in real time and I know it's happening before I ever see the link, because the messages arrive first, which isn't a theory about persistence, it's a notification pattern. And Base Visibility Score is in there because visibility isn't a compliment, it's a quantity, and other people can spend it.
Every entity I've ever scored, every athlete and studio and franchise and brand, I've scored from the position of somebody who was once, briefly and unwillingly, a small unit of the same currency. I'm not analyzing fame from the outside, I was handed a low-grade dose of it and watched what it did to how I was seen and valued and paid, and then spent years building the instrument I wish somebody had shown me first.
Run the model on me and it isn't flattering. Base Visibility is low and always was, Cultural Momentum is real but narrow and spikes on a schedule I don't set, Value Longevity is genuinely strong which is the cruelest of the four findings because the thing with staying power isn't the book, and Legacy Control is close to nothing, and I didn't lose it slowly, I handed a stranger a copy of my life and she chose the story.
And here's where I've arrived on that, twenty years in. Whatever else I turn out to be, I know a meaningful share of my legacy is going to be Cow Man, not the framework and not the criticism and not the bylines, the cow, and I stopped fighting that a while ago and I'm genuinely okay with it, because there are far worse things to be remembered as and at least that one is true.
None of which is a complaint about journalism, it's a description of a transaction I entered without understanding the terms, and it's the same transaction almost everyone I've ever scored entered too. The difference is that most of them had representation.
But here's the thing about that article, and about the book, and about every version of me that circulates without my involvement...they all end in 2015.
When you write a book about recovery, readers assume the recovery is the last chapter, because that's what a last chapter is for, and the people forwarding that link are forwarding a man who got better. They're not wrong about him, he existed, he just hasn't been the current version for a very long time.
My body has never stopped being the central negotiation of my life, and long-term survival isn't the back half of the same story, it's an entirely different discipline, and almost nothing gets written about it because it has no shape. There's no arc, nobody beats anything, you just keep going and the terms keep changing, and the further out you get the fewer people there are ahead of you on the road. There's a lot happening with me right now. The care that existed twenty years ago, the urgency and the team and the protocol, all of that thins out as the years pass, and nobody is following a plan for me because there's no plan to follow.
I've outlived every statistic that exists for my disease, which sounds like a triumph until you understand what it actually means, which is that the statistics stop where I kept going, and there's no map past the edge of the data, and I've been walking around out there for years.
And I can't really say any of that out loud, which is the last turn of the knife, because the moment I raise it I watch people's faces do the thing... cancer again... and it isn't, and somehow the fact that it isn't makes it harder to talk about, because there's no word that makes people sit up the way that one does. There are things as serious as cancer and as frightening as cancer that don't come with a ribbon or a month or a fundraising walk, they come with a shrug. So mostly I don't raise it, and the silence gets read as being fine, and being fine gets forwarded to a stranger in Nairobi as evidence.
The article will circulate again, probably before the year is out, and I'll know before anybody sends it to me because the messages always arrive ahead of the link and eleven years has taught me what the first four look like. Somebody's brother, somebody's mother, six weeks to live.
I still answer when I can, especially when drafted directly by a patient, not because I have anything to give them but because there's a real person on the other end and the least I can do is be a real person back. That's all I ever had, it was never a cure, and I never once said it was.
Twenty years since the word, eleven since the article, and the man in that piece has been out of date for over a decade and he'll keep being forwarded long after I've stopped being able to correct him. Only one of those stories did I get to write myself...and this is the other one.
- Published on
Me, Madonna and the kids who finally went outside
They could have named themselves anything at all, and what they chose to keep was the insult. They printed it, wore it as a mask, and walked it into the capital, because a cockroach is the organism that survives what kills everything else, and I don't believe for a second that was lost on any of them.
Anshuka Ruth Das spent two days getting ready, and when she left Gurugram early on a Monday morning she hid the placards inside a paper bag. She is eighteen, and she and her friends were headed for Jantar Mantar in the middle of Delhi, and when a reporter asked her why she had come she said she was there for the kids who died.
The test at the center of all this is the one that decides who gets into India's public medical colleges. Two million young people sit it every year for a fixed number of seats, and this year the papers leaked and the whole apparatus turned out to have been rotten before any of them opened a booklet. Twelve students have taken their own lives since. The ones still standing, who had spent months preparing, who had eaten and slept and dreamt inside that preparation, were told to come back and sit it again, as though a year of a person's life were a file you restore from backup.
The state answered the way states answer, with metro stations closed and roads barricaded and the internet throttled, and then with batons and tear gas and protesters dragged into vans, some of them pushing their heads out through the windows so the cameras could see their faces bleeding. A twenty-six-year-old management graduate from Bihar named Mohammad Anis said the gas took his breath away for a moment and his arm was hurt in the crush, and then said that staying quiet in the face of injustice is precisely how injustice continues. Sonam Wangchuk, fifty-nine, went twenty days into a hunger strike before police carried him out of the protest site and into a hospital.
Then, on a Saturday in late July, the education minister resigned. The core demands were met, the nationwide protests were called off, and a government not remotely in the habit of conceding conceded in a matter of weeks to something that had started as a joke about vermin.
I have spent the better part of two decades writing about attention and how it converts into value, so I want to be precise about what happened there, because it is not quite what the coverage is calling it. This was not the internet winning, given that the internet had been furious about that examination system for years and had changed exactly nothing. What changed is that a generation raised to believe posting is participation went and stood in a street and let itself be hit, and everything that followed, followed from the bodies.
I watched all of it from a room in New York, on a phone, refreshing.
Now hold that up against the thing people my age and older cannot stop saying about people that age, which is that they're soft, that they don't want to work, that somewhere between the last recession and the front-facing camera something went out of them, some appetite for hardship that we supposedly had and they supposedly lack.
Twelve of them are dead because they worked too hard for a test that had already been sold.
The accusation was never really about work, it was about the performance of work. My generation and the one above it built an entire moral system on visible exhaustion, on the sixty-hour week worn like a decoration, on answering email at midnight so that somebody would see the timestamp, and we mistook the theater for the labor so completely that we can no longer tell them apart. So when a twenty-four-year-old declines to perform the theater, what we hear is a refusal to work.
They will suffer, they are suffering, and they are simply no longer willing to do it for a rigged exam, or for a software job that evaporated in a quarterly restructuring, or for a ladder whose bottom three rungs were automated while they were still in school. What Delhi demonstrated, for anyone my age who cared to look, was a generation fighting for the right to compete inside a system that actually functions, which is not the absence of a work ethic but the most demanding version of one I have seen in years, and it cost twelve lives before it produced a resignation.
Which is where this gets strange, because I need to tell you about a dance floor.
The same summer those kids were being tear-gassed over the right to a fair examination, a sixty-seven-year-old woman released a song called "School."
It opens with her talking instead of singing, and what she says, roughly, is that the only thing she likes more than sharing what she knows is being taught something she doesn't. She is sixty-seven years old, four decades into being the most photographed, most litigated, most exhaustively documented woman in popular music, and she begins a song called "School" by asking to be a student.
I'm nearly twenty years younger and I haven't read a truer sentence all year.
The song is not about pedagogy, because school is in session, in her hands, is a line about sexual instruction, and the track runs on her own memories of the New York club years that made her. Its pivotal move is a refusal, because she declines the maternal role the culture reserves for women her age and claims the role of lover instead, and she does it in a single line that makes the substitution sound obvious rather than defiant. Which is, when you sit with it, the argument of everything that follows in this essay, made by somebody nineteen years ahead of me and on the other side of the gender line.
She has spent this summer doing something nobody her age is supposed to be able to do, which is fill rooms with people who were not alive for any of it. Confessions II landed in July with Stuart Price back at the board, and before that she had turned up at Coachella beside Sabrina Carpenter, four decades between them, first on the same stage and then on the same credit. Meanwhile there is a Madonna night every Friday at a club in Hollywood and it sells out. It isn't a nostalgia night, and it isn't an eighties night where she gets filed between Wham! and Cyndi Lauper, it's a Madonna night, four decades of one catalogue, and the room is full of people in their twenties.
They are not nostalgic and they cannot be, because nostalgia requires having been there and none of them were. What they're responding to is the only genuinely scarce commodity left, which is duration. Forty years of visible change, all of it on the record, every era time-stamped, including the ones that failed. You can follow the entire arc and watch a person move through time.
That is not what the culture currently supplies, which is an infinite quantity of surface with nothing underneath it, a feed that refreshes and forgets, artists with eighteen months of catalogue and a marketing plan. Set against that, a forty-year discography isn't old, it's deep, and it is the difference between a puddle and a well, and a generation that has been drowning in puddles its entire life has gone looking for a well.
And the people who cannot stand this are the ones who built her.
I wrote an essay a while back called The Dead Get Nostalgia, and the argument was that death cleans the record. We forgive the dead everything, because they can no longer complicate the story we've settled on, and so Michael and Prince and George and Whitney are fixed now, finished, safe to love. Madonna's actual crime, the one nobody will say out loud, is that she is still here, still changing, still refusing to hold the pose we assigned her in 1990.
I want to extend that now, because a year of watching this play out has shown me the part I missed.
The generation that made her has spent thirty years surgically deleting its own timeline. The same people who bought Like a Prayer, who lost their minds over the Sex book, who built a global institution around a woman whose entire method was transformation, decided somewhere around their fortieth birthdays that transformation had become a crime, and so they froze, and filled and lifted and tightened and resurfaced until they arrived at a face that is smooth and ageless and completely unreadable, and from behind that face they now scrutinize hers and pronounce it grotesque.
It isn't hypocrisy, or not only, it's projection with a scalpel. They are punishing in her the passage of time they paid a great deal of money to conceal in themselves, and in the process they destroyed the exact thing the young are now hunting for. They preserved the surface and deleted the story, and there is nothing left to read on those faces, no arc, no evidence, no record of having been anywhere at all. They optimized themselves into illegibility and then wondered why nobody under thirty finds them interesting.
The dead get nostalgia. The living get scrutiny. The smoothed get skipped.
Which brings me to the part of this I have been circling for months without knowing how to say it, because there is no version that doesn't risk sounding like a man congratulating himself.
I am forty-eight, and somewhere in the last two or three years, without any change in my circumstances that I can identify, I started getting approached by people in their twenties and early thirties, men and women both. Not politely and not ambiguously, but propositioned, flirted with, pursued with a directness I did not encounter once at twenty-five and would have given a great deal for. It isn't occasional, it is the current condition of my life, and I have found it disorienting enough to spend real time trying to understand it rather than simply enjoying it.
Let me put the obvious objections on the table first, because they're mine too. I am in young rooms, I have taught, I move through the entertainment world, I live out of a suitcase by choice and spend my days in art houses and cafes and small shops in cities where I know nobody, which are precisely the places young people are. I also have no mortgage and no children, which means I hold a quantity of free time and free attention that most men my age simply do not, and a man with two teenagers and a job he cannot walk away from has considerably less room to be interesting than I have. Some of this is circumstance and I'm not going to pretend otherwise.
Except that it doesn't finish the job, because there are unattached men my age in every one of those rooms who are more accomplished, better connected and considerably better funded, and this is not happening to them. So here is what I have landed on.
I'm still curious.
That sounds like nothing, and I have come to think it is close to everything, because it turns out to be the one thing almost nobody keeps. I want to be accurate here, because what I said about Madonna's generation does not describe the men I actually know. Nobody has had himself sanded down, they are tired, and they are carrying money and ageing parents and children and bodies that have started sending them notices, and worrying about what they will leave behind and about how little of their own time belongs to them at all. Nothing was surgically removed from those men, it was spent.
I'm not going to pretend I got here by being well, either. I look healthy, and I am one wrong medication away from carrying fifteen extra kilos and one dip in immunity away from a month of constant pain. My health is a yo-yo and I stopped hiding the string a long time ago. I wear the scars, I talk about the bad stretches, and in none of it have I ever found a reason to stop wanting things.
That's the part that reads, and it isn't the mileage on my face, which I promise you nobody is examining, but the fact that I am still interested. I still ask questions I could comfortably pretend to know the answers to. I have arrived at the age where a man is expected to convert his experience into wisdom and begin dispensing it, and I have no appetite whatsoever for the job. I don't share the wisdom of why. I still embrace the why nots.
Twenty-somethings clock that immediately, because it is their own default condition and they almost never see it in someone my age. It isn't that I remind them of being young, it's that I haven't yet done the thing adults do, which is to decide that the questions are closed. They have no shortage of polish and no shortage of surfaces, and what they're short of is evidence that a person can get this far and still be glad to be here.
And here is where the arithmetic stops being flattering, because I know exactly where the curiosity came from and it was not character. I was told twice that I might not get a long horizon, and a man without a long horizon cannot defer anything, so I stopped deferring. Everything my peers postponed until the mortgage cleared or the children grew, I took immediately, because I had been given excellent reasons not to wait. The appetite that reads as vitality is a side effect of having been made to understand that there might not be a later.
I wouldn't undo it, and I want to be clear about that, because the second life is the only one I would choose. But I'd be lying if I said the arithmetic sits easily, and there is something genuinely bleak in discovering that the most attractive thing about you was installed by the worst thing that ever happened to you.
Something else is shifting too, and I don't think my generation has noticed. The labels we used to police this with are losing their grip, because daddy and cougar were only ever containment devices, ways of taking desire that crossed an age line and filing it under comedy or pathology so that nobody had to sit with it. You were permitted to want, but only from inside the category, and the category arrived with a laugh track. The people approaching me don't reach for those words and don't appear to need them, so the attraction comes unlabeled, which means it comes as attraction, and I had genuinely forgotten that was available.
Which is, in the end, what those kids in Delhi were saying, in a register that costs a great deal more.
They had a screen, they had the internet's entire arsenal of outrage, they had been deploying it for years, and it had produced nothing but engagement. So they got up and walked into a street and let themselves be hit, because at some point a generation worked out that the digital version of a life is not a life but a rendering, and a rendering cannot be tear-gassed, which means it also cannot win.
The dance floor is the same instinct with better lighting, and so is who they want to sleep with. Every one of these is a body deciding to be somewhere, insisting on being real inside a culture that has quietly made it optional.
The generation that made her kept the face and lost the appetite, and still cannot work out why the young walked past.
So what have they taught me. I'm still working that out and I expect I always will be, which I suspect is the entire point of a woman with forty years of catalogue opening a song by asking somebody to tell her something she doesn't already know. You don't graduate, staying enrolled is the whole thing.
But there is one piece I can name, which is that I had quietly decided I was done, not dramatically, not in any way I would have admitted out loud, but somewhere in the years of scans and second opinions and learning to plan my life in six-month increments I filed love under things that had happened to a previous version of me. It wasn't grief, it was administration. I took everything else immediately and quietly wrote that one off.
And then people started looking at me with curiosity in their faces, not pity and not politeness and not the careful warmth that gets reserved for the formerly ill, but curiosity and depth and wanting. It's flattering and I won't pretend otherwise, but the flattery isn't what got me. What got me is that it reopened a question I had closed, and I hadn't understood until it swung back open how much it had cost me to shut it.
School is in session, and I'm the one taking notes.
Perhaps, maybe, I could be your lover, lover, lover, lover.
- Published on
Why I watched the World Cup on Telemundo even though I don't speak Spanish.
Seven services, seven islands, and no ferry running between them.
I don't speak Spanish. I understand maybe a third of it on a generous day, enough to follow a match if the announcer's voice climbs and the ball is somewhere near the net. For most of this summer that was the arrangement I made with myself. I didn't have Fox One. I did have Telemundo. So I watched the biggest sporting event on the planet in a language I only partly understand, because the alternative was signing up for one more thing, entering one more card number, inventing one more password, and adding one more line to a monthly bill.
At the time I assumed I was being cheap, or stubborn, or some familiar combination of the two. Then the ratings came in. Nearly 24 million Americans watched the final on Telemundo and Peacock, an all-time Spanish-language record that broke the record set two weeks earlier by Mexico versus England. Fox drew 39 million in English. Together, 62.8 million people, the most-watched soccer telecast in American history. I don't for a second believe all 24 million of those Spanish-language viewers chose Spanish out of heritage or preference. Some meaningful slice of them were doing exactly what I was doing, which is routing around a paywall using whatever they already had.
That is the whole story of television in 2026, compressed into a single broadcast. The workaround has become the market.
What it actually costs now
Deloitte's twentieth annual Digital Media Trends survey puts the average American household at $69 a month across four streaming services, flat year over year. That number is technically accurate and functionally misleading, because it measures what people have settled for while the menu keeps climbing. Price the menu instead. Netflix, the Disney+ and Hulu bundle, Prime Video, HBO Max, Paramount+, Peacock, Apple TV. Cheapest tier of each, ads included, roughly $74 a month. Take the ads out and it's about $111. That's $1,332 a year to watch television, and it buys you no live sports, no news, and not one local channel.
Want those? YouTube TV is $82.99, up from $34.99 when it launched in 2017. Hulu + Live TV is $89.99. Fubo starts around $74. Stack a live service on top of a couple of on-demand subscriptions and you have comfortably passed what cable plus premium ever cost, for a product with no unified guide, no single bill, and no institutional memory.
The individual prices tell the story better than the totals. Netflix's Premium tier hit $26.99 in March. The ad-supported entry point went to $8.99 in the same round. HBO Max runs $10.99 with ads and $22.99 for the top tier. Peacock's ad-supported Premium is $10.99, which is more than Netflix's ad tier. Disney+ launched at $6.99 in 2019. eMarketer, citing analysis from The Verge, pegs the average cost of an ad-free plan rising from about $9 in 2020 to $16 now, a 78% climb in five years. Antenna found prices up more than 20% since 2023 across both ad and ad-free tiers. Meanwhile 61% of consumers told Deloitte they'd cancel their favorite service over a $5 increase, 73% said they're frustrated by the hikes, and 41% churned out of something in the previous six months. Everyone in that market is one bad month away from walking.
The HBO problem
Here's the irony nobody at these companies wants to say out loud. Every one of these services was built in the image of HBO. Premium, subscription-funded, no commercials, the thing you paid extra for precisely so you wouldn't be interrupted. "It's not TV. It's HBO." That was the entire promise, and underneath it sat a promise about respect for your attention.
The model has now inverted so completely that ads are the default and silence is the upcharge. You pay a company to make content, then you pay that same company a second time to avoid being sold to while you watch it. Amazon rebranded its ad-free tier as Prime Video Ultra in March and raised the ad-removal premium from $2.99 to $4.99. Deloitte found 68% of streaming subscribers now sit on ad-supported tiers, up from 46% in 2024, and eMarketer projects more than four in five will have at least one ad plan this year. Streamers prefer this, and they're not shy about why. Ad tiers generate more revenue per user than ad-free ones do. Music got here first, and the same two-tier structure has run in streaming audio for well over a decade with no sign of unwinding. The ad tier is the profitable option wearing the costume of the budget option.
And HBO itself? Paramount Skydance is acquiring Warner Bros. Discovery for $31 a share, about $111 billion including debt. The DOJ cleared it in June. Paramount has said it intends to merge Paramount+ and HBO Max into a single service. Disney is folding Hulu into Disney+. The company that invented the premium ad-free subscription is being absorbed into the company it once made obsolete, and the great unbundling is quietly rebundling itself, at 2026 prices.
The airline model, minus the part that worked
The closest analog to all of this sits in the airline industry, and the parallel holds exactly until the moment it breaks, which is the moment that matters.
IdeaWorksCompany projects global airline ancillary revenue at a record $157 billion for 2025, up from $67.4 billion in 2016. Fees now make up 15.7% of total airline revenue against 9.1% a decade ago. Frontier crossed 60%, meaning most of its money comes from things that used to be included. Everything got stripped out and sold back to you separately. Seat, bag, meal, boarding order, legroom. Choice, they called it.
Here's the number that changes the argument. Adjusted for inflation, the average one-way global fare plus extras fell from about $310 in 2016 to roughly $188 in 2025. A 40% decline in what it actually costs to fly. The unbundling was brutal and undignified and it genuinely made air travel cheaper.
Streaming took the same playbook and skipped that page. It unbundled cable, stripped out the guide, the channel surf, the DVR, the syndication window and the single bill, then charged more than the bundle it replaced. Airlines delivered a worse experience for less money. Streaming delivered a worse experience for more. If you're going to nickel and dime people, the deal has to be that the base price comes down. Otherwise you have issued a rate increase with extra steps and called it choice.
Running it through the EV Model
This is where Celebnomics gets useful, because the formula explains the trap these companies built for themselves.
EV = BVS × CM × VLF + LC. Base Visibility Score times Cultural Momentum times Value Longevity Factor, plus Legacy Control.
Notice the architecture. Three of those terms multiply. One adds. Legacy Control functions as a bonus while the other three function as levers, and streaming has spent a decade optimizing the bonus and gutting the levers.
Legacy Control has never been higher. These companies own their libraries outright, decide what gets seen, control every metric that reaches the public, and can vanish a title from existence without a press release. Netflix stopped reporting quarterly subscriber numbers in 2025. On July 16 it went further, announcing that its "What We Watched" engagement report will drop from twice a year to once a year starting in 2027, with the stated goal of keeping investor focus on revenue and operating profit. Total command of the narrative. Maximum LC.
Now look at what it cost them. Base Visibility Score is capped by a paywall, and a paywall is a hard ceiling on how many human beings can lay eyes on a thing. Cable's BVS was enormous, and quality had nothing to do with it. Roughly 88% of American households had cable at the 2010 peak, and you scrolled past everything on your way to something else. Pew had that figure down to 36% by mid-2025. Cultural Momentum needs simultaneity and shared access, and fragmentation is the specific enemy of both. Value Longevity Factor is where the damage runs deepest, and I'll come back to it.
Then look at YouTube, which runs the inverse configuration. Effectively infinite BVS because it's free. Enormous CM because clips travel and the algorithm surfaces things at scale. Strong VLF because nothing gets delisted and a good video earns for years. And almost zero Legacy Control for the person who made it, because Google owns the pipe and one policy change can erase a livelihood.
YouTube's EV is still higher. It has been the number one media distributor in Nielsen's rankings for going on a year and a half, at 13.4% of all US television viewing in April, above Disney at 10.3% and Netflix at 7.8%. Alphabet disclosed YouTube's full-year 2025 revenue for the first time in February: more than $60 billion across ads and subscriptions, against Netflix's $45.18 billion.
The multiplicative terms dominate. They always have. You cannot control your way out of a visibility problem, because zero times anything remains zero, and every extra dollar of subscription price shaves the first term in the equation. The industry bet that owning everything mattered more than being seen, and the math never supported that bet.
What we lost was the second life
Here's the part that actually keeps me up, and it's where the question of whether we ruined programming gets answered.
I keep seeing the claim that we're drowning in content. For YouTube and short form, yes, obviously. For professional scripted television, no. Ampere Analysis counted 633 US scripted series released in 2021 and again in 2022. By 2023 it was 481. Ampere also found the average gap between seasons of a scripted original nearly doubled, from 12 months in 2020 to 21 months in 2025. Fewer shows. Longer waits. Higher prices. And in the first quarter of this year, 54% of US respondents said they'd cancel a subscription they weren't using enough.
Volume was never the real loss. The loss is the afterlife. Syndication was the greatest value-longevity engine ever built, and it's gone. Seinfeld became Seinfeld in reruns, at 6pm, in markets that never watched it live on a Thursday. The Golden Girls, Law & Order, Friends, Family Matters, Star Trek. The canon of American television was assembled almost entirely in the second window. Shows found their audience years after the people who made them had moved on, and some found it only after cancellation. The rerun was a resurrection mechanism.
Streaming has no such mechanism, and it has something worse, which is no browsing floor at all. Subscribe to one service and the inventory of the other six may as well not exist. No preview, no channel you flip past at 11pm, no poster in a hallway. Every service is its own island now. You can see water from every shore and not a single other island, there is no ferry, and nobody has a commercial reason to build one. Kenny and Dolly at least had each other out there. We're all marooned separately, paying rent on our own patch of sand, convinced the archipelago is smaller than it is. Cable was full of garbage, and the saving grace was that you knew the garbage was there, and every so often you stopped on something that turned out to be a show. That accident of exposure did enormous cultural work nobody bothered to price, and now nobody can price it, because the companies who would have to measure it have stopped publishing the numbers.
I've had a second life. I know what it's worth to get one. We built a distribution system that gives a show exactly one shot, in one window, behind one wall, and then quietly deletes the evidence.
Can you blame the voters?
Look at the 2026 Emmy nominations. The Pitt took 25. Hacks took 24. Widow's Bay 19, Pluribus 18, Beef 16, DTF St. Louis 13. Six shows, 115 nominations, in a year when fewer scripted series were made than at any point in half a decade.
And the two most-discussed shows of the season sat outside the conversation entirely. Heated Rivalry wasn't eligible, because it lacked a US production partner. Dutton Ranch was out on a separate technicality. Meanwhile SubwayTakes, a YouTube show shot on a train, picked up a nomination while Hot Ones was snubbed. The Television Academy is now nominating YouTube while disqualifying the year's biggest cultural phenomenon on a paperwork question.
No, I can't blame the voters. Voters are viewers. They're subject to the same paywalls, the same fatigue, the same $111-a-month arithmetic as everyone else. They watched twelve shows and nominated twelve shows. Call it what it is, which is a visibility ceiling doing precisely what a visibility ceiling does. Cap BVS across an entire industry and the awards become a mirror of whatever leaked through the walls.
The word we stopped meaning
"Programming" describes a job nobody has anymore. Somebody used to sit in a room and decide what followed what, and when, and against what, and that decision built habits, and habits built audiences, and audiences built shows that lasted decades. It was paternalistic and often terrible and it also worked.
We replaced it with a search bar and an algorithm that recommends what you already watched. Then we put seven of those behind seven separate checkouts and raised the price every nine months. The pitch was choice. What arrived was seven checkouts, and the distance between those two things is where a whole generation of television will quietly die unseen.
The industry read 24 million Spanish-language viewers as a ratings record rather than as what it actually was, which was a mass demonstration of how far people will travel to avoid one more subscription. The audience is speaking in the only language these companies claim to understand, which is money, and specifically the refusal to spend it. Whether anyone at the top is still listening is a separate question, and the fact that they've stopped publishing the data suggests they'd rather not know.
The only thing that was ever scarce
Money was never the real price, and the industry admitted it in writing. When Netflix stopped reporting subscriber counts in 2025, it said the metric that mattered going forward was engagement, meaning time spent, because time spent was the best available read on whether people were happy. Sit with that, because it's an unusually candid sentence for a public company. They stopped counting customers and started counting hours. This July they refined it further, noting that "not all hours are equal" and that quality and variety matter alongside quantity, which means they are now grading the texture of our attention on top of the volume of it. Deloitte puts the average consumer at six hours a day with media and entertainment. Six hours. A quarter of every day, billed at $69 a month, which works out to a rate so low it ought to embarrass all of us.
So when I watched most of a World Cup in a language I understand a third of, I want to be precise about the nature of the transaction. It started as arithmetic. I didn't have Fox, I didn't want one more subscription, and Telemundo was already sitting there. I caught a third of the commentary and 100% of the match, and the missing two-thirds seemed like they'd cost me nothing I'd have paid to keep.
Except that framing collapsed on me over the month, and here's the part I didn't see coming. The Spanish-language broadcast was better. Better by a distance, and as a matter of craft rather than taste. More animated, more emotionally committed, more willing to treat a group-stage match on a Tuesday like it was worth someone's afternoon. Andrés Cantor was calling his tenth World Cup for Telemundo. In the round of 16 he screamed through Messi's equalizer against Egypt so hard that crowd noise bled into his own headset and drowned him out, a call that briefly cost him his voice. I went around a paywall to save twenty dollars and walked into a better product, week after week, and that is precisely the mechanism I've spent this entire essay mourning. The accident of exposure. The thing you weren't looking for turning out to be the thing you wanted.
And then the final came, and I blew it. I watched at a friend's place, on Fox, in English, because that's where I was and that's what was on. Ferran Torres scored the only goal of the match, and on Telemundo, Cantor held it for 48 seconds. Forty-eight seconds, on the biggest stage in sports, at 63 years old, watching his own Argentina lose. By the next morning that call had escaped its language entirely, with English-language outlets telling their own readers to go back and rewatch the goal with the Telemundo audio, an extraordinary thing for a rights competitor to put in print. I'd spent a month finding my way to the better version, and for the one match that mattered most I ended up on the default anyway, through nothing more sinister than which couch I was sitting on. That is the whole disease in a single night. The better version survives, you can know for a fact that it's there, and the system still lands you somewhere else. Cost is what makes people leave. Content determines whether they come back. Nobody selling a $27 tier seems to have noticed those are two entirely separate problems.
Here's what should actually frighten this business, and churn has nothing to do with it. Churn is reversible, and Deloitte counts 22% of cancelers returning to the same service within six months. The permanent threat is quieter, and it's the person who cancels, waits, and discovers they didn't miss it. You cannot win that one back with a promotional month, because price had nothing to do with their leaving. They left, the hole closed over, and nothing in the culture reached far enough past the paywall to tell them otherwise.
I spend less on television than I did five years ago and I watch roughly the same amount of what I actually care about. What I stopped buying was the anxiety of keeping up, and I'd argue that anxiety was always the product, the one line item in the bundle nobody thought to itemize. What I got instead was a month of afternoons watching football in a language I don't speak, understanding a third of it, and enjoying every minute more than I would have in English. A paywall handed me that by accident, and then a friend's couch took the best of it back. Somewhere in the distance between those two things sits the entire indictment.
Sources
- Nielsen, The Gauge and Media Distributor Gauge, April 2026 (via TheWrap, mediabrief)
- Deloitte, Digital Media Trends, 20th annual edition, March 2026
- Tom's Guide, "What streaming costs in 2026," updated March 30, 2026
- Deadline, streaming subscription price and ad tier tracker, April 2026
- eMarketer, ad-supported vs. ad-free streaming viewers, 2026; ad-free pricing analysis
- Axios and The Hollywood Reporter, 2026 World Cup final ratings, July 21, 2026
- NPR, "Andrés Cantor's voice has defined the World Cup for generations of soccer fans," July 11, 2026
- Awful Announcing and Yahoo Sports, Fox and Telemundo final-goal call comparisons, July 19, 2026
- Netflix Q2 2026 shareholder letter, July 16, 2026
- Variety, "Netflix to Stop Releasing Viewership Data Every 6 Months," July 2026
- IdeaWorksCompany, 2025 global ancillary revenue estimate, November 2025
- Ampere Analysis, US scripted output and inter-season gap data, 2024 and 2026
- Variety and Deadline, 2026 Emmy nominations, July 8, 2026
- Alphabet Q4 2025 earnings release, February 4, 2026
- Pew Research Center, pay TV subscription data, July 2025
- Paramount Skydance / Warner Bros. Discovery merger filings and DOJ statement, June 2026
- Published on
How FIFA Made My Summer Work
I watched this World Cup from Mexico City, from New York twice, and from Los Angeles. I stood inside Estadio Azteca for the opening whistle. I was back in New York by way of a friend's living room for the final match where Spain defeated Argentina 1-0. In between: a country nearly setting a world record before its own tournament even started, a Nordic nation commandeering a subway car, a four-time champion packing up in June, and a host city that made me question whether Americans outside a stadium footprint actually noticed a World Cup was happening at all. Madonna, twenty-six years ago, sang that "music makes the people come together". This summer, a football tournament made a serious run at the same claim.
I should say up front that I have never been this guy. I've built a career on music and fame and the machinery underneath both, and if you'd told me at the start of the year that I'd spend my summer chasing a football tournament across a continent I'm about to leave, I'd have laughed and gone back to whatever essay I was arguing with. But I'm way into my second life, and one of the things that second life taught me is that you go where the aliveness is. This summer, it was here.
Mexico City: Fever Pitch Football
It started before it started. Days before the opening match, Mexico City tried to break the record for the largest human wave ever attempted on Paseo de la Reforma, timed to the fortieth anniversary of the wave's own debut in Mexico's stadiums during the 1986 World Cup. I wasn't there for a match yet but I was there for a country rehearsing joy in the street, thousands of people moving as one body just to prove they still could. That's when I understood what I'd actually flown into - this wasn't a nation hosting a tournament, they were reclaiming a memory.
The opening match itself, Mexico 2, South Africa 0 at the Azteca, ended up almost secondary to what surrounded it. Every block near the stadium had turned into a market for the same green jersey, the authentic Adidas version running close to two hundred dollars, the replica a half and sometimes a quarter of that, and for a country where those numbers represent real weeks of wages for a lot of people, the math simply doesn't work. So the street corrected it the way the street always does, with vendors selling bootleg kits stitched close enough to pass from a distance, laid out on folding tables that stretched entire sidewalks. I photographed every table I passed and bought from none of them, because that contradiction, a nation's own pride sold back to it at a markup most of the nation can't afford, is Celebnomics in its rawest form, and I've written that same sentence a dozen different ways about a dozen different celebrities without once thinking it would fit a football kit just as well.
CDMX was fever pitch from the moment I landed, with Reforma dressed for the tournament and every corner store beating every billboard to the memo. This is a city that has hosted this thing more times than any other on earth, doing it a record third time, and still treating it like the first.
NYC: Foreign Wave Of Friendliness
New York took the baton, and it took it loudly. Norway had already turned a soccer send-off into a subway performance by the time I landed. The "Viking row," arms pulling back in unison like a ship that wasn't there, moved out of the stadium and into Times Square, up escalators, into actual subway cars, days ahead of their group match against Senegal at MetLife. I stood in a car full of strangers, not one of them from Oslo, who joined in because refusing felt more embarrassing than rowing an invisible boat for thirty seconds. That kind of thing doesn't happen at a Super Bowl. New York got recruited, though it hardly took convincing, not with the Knicks having just ended fifty-three years of waiting and two million people already primed to lose their minds along Broadway.
Not every story in that stretch ended as well. I went to German House expecting the long, grinding run four-time champions are supposed to have, especially after they opened the tournament by putting seven goals on Curaçao, and instead I watched them go out in the round of 32 on penalties to Paraguay, Germany's first ever World Cup shootout loss. The room went from loud to silent in the time it takes a ball to sail over a crossbar. I know that silence from other rooms in my life, the kind where nobody wants to be the first one to speak because speaking makes it real, and I'll admit it landed harder than a group-stage exit has any business landing on a man who isn't German and had no stake in it. Watching a giant lose early and up close hits differently than reading about it the next morning. You feel the temperature of a room change in real time, and there's nothing else quite like it.
Somewhere in those New York weeks I also turned into an accidental geography teacher, or maybe the student. I lost count of the conversations that started with someone confidently confusing Cabo Verde, the tiny island nation making its first ever World Cup appearance, with Cabo, the vacation spot a few hours south of the US border. Meanwhile the opposite education was happening in real time, with fans arriving from every corner of the map discovering ranch dressing, marveling at how much food arrives on one diner plate, and quietly revising whatever version of America they'd packed in their suitcase. I heard some variation of "I thought you'd all be different" more times than I can count, and for the first time I also heard bartenders and waiters getting quizzed about tipping and living wages by visitors who couldn't work out why the math lands the way it does here, the questions asked with astonishment and answered with mild embarrassment.
A World Cup doesn't fix geopolitics. But it will put a Norwegian, a Cape Verdean, and a kid from Ohio in the same fan zone singing the same chant, and for a month, that's its own kind of diplomacy, one that no summit table has managed in years. New York was foreignness landing on friendly ground, a city that lets you in and lets you be loud about it, where the waves this time weren't records at all but people.
Los Angeles: Stadium Perfection, City Dullness
Then Los Angeles, for the stretch that should have felt like the crescendo and instead felt like a secret being kept from the city hosting it.
Inside SoFi, everything worked. Spain grinding past Belgium 2-1 in the quarterfinal, the kind of ugly, correct win that doesn't make highlight reels but wins tournaments, in a stadium that is a piece of engineering FIFA could not have designed better if they'd asked, with the sight lines and the sound and the movement all purring along like the whole apparatus had been waiting years for exactly this.
Outside SoFi? You'd almost never know a World Cup was happening in the city at all. A block off the stadium footprint and the tournament vanished, no bunting on Sunset, no flags off balconies in Los Feliz, none of those fan zones you stumbled into by accident the way you did in Mexico City or midtown Manhattan. LA had the least energy of any host city I set foot in this summer, and it wasn't close. It's the geography, mostly, because the city is too spread out for a single-thread cultural moment to hold together, and the entertainment complex here is so used to being the show that it doesn't quite know how to be the audience.
I stayed in LA through the semifinal doubleheader, watching Spain shut out France 2-0 and then Argentina claw past England 2-1 the next day. Neither match was actually played anywhere near LA by then, Spain and France were in Arlington and Argentina and England in Atlanta, but I stayed because I had friends there who understood what I was after, and a couple of them had lived it more thoroughly than I had. They'd flown to a handful of host cities across this tournament, following matches, and they'd also gone to Qatar in 2022. To a person, they preferred Qatar, and it had nothing to do with the football being better because it wasn't. Qatar was one city, one footprint, one energy, where you could attend three matches in a week without needing three connecting flights and a rental car, where the stadiums were closer and cleaner and easier to move between, and where the vibe stayed concentrated the way a tournament vibe is supposed to. This one, they said, kept asking them to chase it. And LA, of the three cities I'd been in, was the one that made you feel that chase the most, because even standing inside the host city itself, the tournament wasn't quite there.
That's the honest version, and it isn't a flattering one: the stadiums this summer were perfect, and the countries that hosted them were, more often than they'd like to admit, distracted.
New York, Again: The Ending
I flew back to New York with just enough time to see how it ended, and I watched the final at a friend's place where the room was mostly leaning Spain but a few hardcore Argentina fans held the other half honest. That mix mattered, because you don't fully feel a 1-0 result unless there are people in the room who lost it too.
And it ended almost exactly where I'd started tracking it from a distance. Messi, 39, playing what's almost certainly his last World Cup match, against a Spanish side built around Lamine Yamal, a kid he once posed with as an infant nearly two decades ago. Football doesn't often hand you a symmetry that clean. Argentina went down to ten men late, Emiliano Martínez set a World Cup final save record with ten stops and it still wasn't enough, and Ferran Torres scored in the 106th minute off a Nico Williams assist to win Spain its second World Cup exactly the way it won its first, one goal in extra time from a team that finished the whole tournament unbeaten. Messi sat on the grass for a long moment before anyone came to get him up, and I don't think a single person left in that stadium, Spanish or Argentine, wanted to look away from it.
Before Torres scored, before the trophy came out, before extra time was even something anyone was thinking about, Tom Cruise stood at center field and opened the final with a speech about a game that "turns strangers into friends." Madonna followed him, hours later, with the first halftime show in a World Cup final's history. Neither one was there to be honored for what they'd already done, because Cruise is promoting a fall film called Digger that he's been trailer-dropping straight through the tournament, and Madonna is deep in the Confessions II rollout. Two active campaigns, on the same field, on the biggest stage of the summer. And here's the coincidence I still can't shake, that these are the exact two living figures whose careers first got me noticing that fame had begun to behave less like a byproduct of the work and more like the economy itself, the pair who quietly jump-started what I'd eventually build Celebnomics around more than two decades before I ever gave it a name. That both of them landed on this particular field, on this particular night, still building and still selling and still shifting the culture around them, is the kind of full-circle moment a younger version of me would have watched and missed entirely. This version had to sit down with it.
Madonna, in her set, told a packed stadium and however many hundred million watching around the world that music has always found a way to pull strangers into the same rhythm. She wasn't wrong. She just had no idea a football tournament had already spent five weeks proving her point on a bigger stage than the one she was standing on.
A Norwegian rowing chant took over a subway car that owed it nothing, a Mexican street vendor sold a country's pride back to itself at a discount rate, a German fanbase grieved together in a room in Manhattan, a kid from Ohio learned where Cape Verde is, and a living room in New York held both a Spanish celebration and an Argentine mourning without either side needing to leave. None of that required a single goal to matter, though plenty of goals happened anyway.
I've spent two decades watching fame and attention move through culture and calling it Celebnomics, and this tournament is the first time I watched an entire event become worth more than any single person inside it, more than Messi or Yamal or any marketing budget FIFA could have engineered on its own. Whether the next host country manages to hold that energy in one place the way Qatar did, or whether it scatters again the way this one did across three enormous nations, will be the tournament's real test.
I'm leaving for Asia soon, so this was my last American summer for a while (I think), and I didn't plan for it to be this one. I thought I was flying to three cities to focus on my work, and I ended up writing about a tournament instead, consistently, because the tournament turned out to hold everything I write about anyway, the fame and the money and the spectacle and that same machinery humming underneath all of it. What I got was the closing argument on a whole continent, delivered by a game I don't even follow, in front of strangers who kept turning out not to be strangers at all. Full time. Spain 1, Argentina 0. I'll take it.
- Published on
Confessions II is a stellar dance record with healing threaded through its spine.
It is also the case I have spent twenty-five years trying to make.
What moved me is where the attention went. When a legacy artist releases something new, the culture usually treats it as an excuse to revisit the old work. The single becomes a doorway back to the hits. Here the reverse happened. The conversation is about these songs, this record, right now. Not "Hung Up." Not "Vogue." The new material earned its own oxygen, and that almost never happens for an artist this deep into a career. Relevance was supposed to be behind her. Instead she reached out and took it back.
And she earned it, because the album is genuinely excellent. The production is immaculate, the atmosphere total, and you can hear the hours she and Stuart Price poured into every transition. Her vocals are supple and the vocal treatments are used with intention rather than as a mask. This is not a legend phoning in a victory lap. It is two obsessives who cared about getting it right, and as a piece of dance music it belongs in the same room as the album it answers to.
What I did not expect was the soul underneath the strobe. For all its dancefloor sheen, Confessions II is a spiritual record, and for once the spirituality steps off Madonna's usual Catholic altar. This is not guilt and iconography. This is a woman taking stock of a life. She buried her brother Christopher and her stepmother in the same year, and you can feel both losses in the record's back half. "Fragile" is an elegy for the brother she reconciled with as he was dying, written, she has said, the night of their last hard phone call. "The Test," her first duet with her daughter Lourdes, plays like a reckoning between a mother and the child who learned to survive her. That word matters here. For years the internet has crowned Madonna "Mother" as a wink. On this album she claims the word for real, the grief of it, the matriarchy of it, the accounting of it. I keep asking who else at the top of mainstream pop is scoring their own book of life this honestly, and I keep coming up empty. I do not want to play the ranking game. But it is fair to say no one has done more for the dance floor, and no one has been more willing to hand us the ledger of a life while still asking us to move.
I know that instinct in my body. I am living my second life, and I have learned that music is not an escape from the dark. It is how you carry it. Madonna has called songwriting "medicine for my soul." I would not put it any differently.
The album even loops back to the literal beginning. "Danceteria," its giddiest peak, is named for the downtown club where a broke girl from Michigan hauled a cassette demo of "Everybody" and talked her way toward a life. She spends the song naming the friends who were in the room before the world knew hers. An artist at the summit, reaching all the way back to the basement where she started. If you have read my work, you already know why that one detail made me sit up.
Because it brings me to the confession under my confession. I have been building a framework for how fame actually works for more than two decades, long enough that I now call it Celebnomics, and Madonna was the case that made the whole thing cohere. She was never a subject I dropped into the model. She was the reason the model took the shape it did. In my book I open her chapter plainly:
Madonna is the most deliberate self-author in modern celebrity culture. From the beginning, her value has come not from stability, but from controlled instability.
— Celebnomics (2026)
I wrote that before this album existed. Confessions II is simply the latest evidence.
The spine of my model is a single equation, the Economic Value (EV) Model, built from four forces: a Base Visibility Score, Cultural Momentum, a Value Longevity Factor, and Legacy Control. Run most careers through it and you get a rise and a fall, a clean arc with a beginning and an end. Madonna's refuses to behave that way. The book maps her decade by decade, from the meteor of the 1980s to the ageism of the 2010s, and the pattern never resolves into a line. It resolves into a loop. As I put it in the closing pages:
Celebrity does not move cleanly upward or downward. It loops.
— Celebnomics (2026)
The first Confessions on a Dance Floor already sits in that book as her 2000s restoration, the moment the loop swung back up. Confessions II is the loop closing again, in real time, twenty years later, while I watch the thesis prove itself on a Friday release. A number one across five decades is not nostalgia. It is value recalibrated rather than resisted, protected rather than sentimentalized, which is exactly what the model predicts of the rare artist who keeps authorship of her own story.
So no, this is not a comeback, and I would gently retire the word where she is concerned. A comeback assumes she left. What Confessions II documents is someone who never stopped shaping, only kept looping, grieving and dancing in the same breath because at a certain point you understand those are not opposites. I have spent a good part of one lifetime, and now a chunk of my second, reading Madonna as the clearest proof I have of how fame actually behaves. This week she filed a new chapter, set it to a beat, and dared the world to sit still. The world could not. Neither, if I am honest, could I.
- Published on
How GLP-1 broke music's most reliable story.
The voice in the dark
Press play on Land of the Living and for the first eleven seconds you are somewhere very late at night. A piano plays alone, working through something too sad to dance to, and a woman's voice comes in low and worn. There is a mirror, and it is cracked. There is a bottle, and it is empty. There is a pen that does not know where to begin. You can hear the years on her, and you can hear what she has survived. By the time she reaches the chorus you have already built her in your mind, and she is unmistakable. She is older, she is Black, and she is heavy in the way that reads as lived-in, as Sunday morning, as a woman who earned every ounce of that ache the long way. She is Gloria Gaynor with the lights down, a Martha Wash you feel in your chest before you feel it in your feet.
Then the beat drops. House piano, four on the floor, 1996 in full bloom, and now you are certain. This is a diva, a survivor turning her pain into a dancefloor, which is the oldest and holiest trick the music ever had.
Kristine W was a white woman in her thirties, a former Las Vegas showgirl, and blonde.
I used to play that song for my students with their eyes closed, and I would ask them to write down who they were hearing, including the race, the age, and the body behind the voice. They were always sure, and they were always wrong, and the wrongness was the entire lesson. Your ear does not hear a person, it builds one. It takes a timbre and a genre and a little ache, and it constructs a whole human being and a whole life, then hands all of it to you with total confidence. People Magazine heard that same intro and wrote that even at her gloomiest, you could tell things would get better. They heard a survivor too, the way everybody did, and she was a twenty-something who was only just getting started.
The gap was the merchandise
Pop music has lived in that gap for as long as there has been pop music, in the space between the voice you imagine and the body that is actually making it. It is where the whole enterprise does its most interesting work, and occasionally its most dishonest. Bobby Caldwell sang soul so deep that Black radio played him for years before anyone circulated a photo of the white guy from Long Island who recorded it. Dusty Springfield, a white woman from London, made Memphis weep. Teena Marie was so convincingly herself that Motown declined to put her face on her first album, the better to let listeners assume. The gap was never an accident. It was the merchandise, and the mismatch was the thing being sold.
For women, the body has always been the most contested part of that transaction. The question was never how they sounded, but how they looked while sounding that way, and how that look was allowed to change.
A woman's weight, in pop, was never just a fact about her health. It was a story she could be made to perform whether she wanted to or not. There was the Adele who arrived sounding like heartbreak in a cardigan, and there was the Adele who walked a carpet a few years later and detonated the internet, and the culture consumed both with equal appetite, because the appetite was never really for the body. It was for the journey, for the struggle and the relapse and the triumph and the tearful confession on a daytime couch. Oprah ran that loop in public for thirty years and turned every swing of it into a magazine cover. Aretha did it more privately. Christina shape-shifted album to album and collected headlines for each silhouette. Karen Carpenter did not survive hers, and the culture still found a way to make her thinness a story it could tell.
The mystery that did the selling
What held all of it together was a mystery, because nobody could ever see how it happened. The how stayed murky enough to sell things, whether that thing was discipline, a program, or a powder. The fantasy underneath was that the body was a moral document, and that if yours was not behaving, you simply had not wanted it badly enough.
I know that fantasy from the inside. I have swung sixty kilos in both directions across two rounds of cancer, and I was the heaviest I had ever been while I was dying, bloated with steroids and inflammation, which is how I learned that a room trusts a thin body over a sick one even when the fat one is the one that is dying. Weight beat expertise, and it beat the truth sitting right in front of them. I am not writing this from above. I am writing it from somewhere in the middle of the same lie.
The struggle was the product, and the not-knowing was the point.
What the needle actually broke
The drug everyone is whispering about did not make anyone thinner than starvation already could. What it did was answer the question. The whole shimmering economy of the transformation ran on suspense, on a how that you could project onto, and now the how is an open secret with a clinical name. People still say Ozempic the way they once said Kleenex, but the truth is a whole class of these drugs, a GLP-1 injection that mostly comes down to a prescription and a pharmacy. The mystery is gone, and a body with no mystery left tells no story at all, the same way Kristine W stops being a survivor the instant you see the photograph.
You cannot sell the climb when everyone can see the elevator.
Watch what that did to the two women who built their whole names on the opposite promise.
Meghan Trainor was nineteen when she taught a generation of girls to sing that every inch of them was fine exactly as it was. All About That Bass was a thesis with a hook, and the hook did real good in real bedrooms. Then came two pregnancies, gestational diabetes, the Mounjaro she has been open about, sixty pounds, and a face the comments decided they no longer recognized. She put out a song this year called Still Don't Care, and she told anyone who would listen that she had never felt stronger. The culture genuinely did not know where to put her, because the anthem girl got healthy and the anthem curdled into a liability. There was no story to tell about her body anymore. There was just a body, a woman who liked it, and a public that had lost its script.
Lizzo is the one who saw the machine clearly enough to write it down. She had been the body-positivity movement made flesh, a Black woman daring a cruel room to look at her and call it beauty. Then she lost the weight, insisted on calling it a release rather than a loss, and got hunted by the very movement she had given wings to. On her Substack she said the thing out loud, which was that body positivity lifted her and then became big business, and that the moment a thing is for everyone it stops being for the people who built it. She pointed at the plus-size models who do not get booked now, and at the extended sizes disappearing off the racks. She named the era plainly and refused to apologize for moving through it, writing that there is nothing wrong with living in a bigger body and nothing wrong with a woman deciding to change it. The movement had no answer, because the movement had already been bought.
Neither the truth nor the lie pays now
Here is the part that should unsettle anyone who loved this music. The illusion used to pay in both directions. You could hide the surgery and the shot and sell the green smoothie and the willpower, or you could perform the struggle in full view and sell the relatability and build a kingdom on the promise that you are already enough. Both versions needed you not to see the machinery. Honesty was a product, the careful absence of it was a different product, and the same woman could be run through both and billed for the privilege twice.
Now neither one works. Tell the truth and the story dies of its own simplicity. Hide it and a phone camera and a comment thread will out you before the single drops. Kelly Clarkson said it as flatly as it can be said. She was prediabetic, her doctor chased her for two years, and the medication she landed on is not the one everyone assumes, which is the whole point now that there is more than one. The confession landed with a shrug, because the confession is the weather now. The truth buys nothing, the lie buys nothing, and the story is simply over.
What is left to hear
This sends me back to that classroom, and to a row of teenagers with their eyes shut, absolutely certain they were hearing a woman in her fifties who had been to hell and chosen to dance her way out. They were not wrong to feel it, because that is what the music was built to do. The voice reached into them and built a person, and the person it built was more true, in a way, than the blonde from Las Vegas ever could have been on a poster. For a hundred years pop ran on exactly that alchemy, with the body you imagine carrying more meaning than the body that is really there. The weight-loss story was the same spell, scaled up and sold back to women as a mirror, on the promise that if you looked hard enough you would fix what you saw.
The needle did not shrink women. It broke the spell. It took the last great mystery the industry had about the female body and gave the ending away for free, and a mystery with the ending given away is just a fact, and facts do not sell records.
I keep landing on the same question, and it is a question about listening rather than about weight. When the body stops telling a story, what is left to hear?
I think it is the thing my students always had and never trusted, which is the voice itself. The blonde kid from Vegas could make a room full of strangers believe she had lived three lives, because something in how she sang it was true even when everything they pictured was false. That was never about her size, and it was never even about her face. It was the sound, doing what only sound can do.
When the body stops telling a story, the story is the part that empties out, and the voice is the part that does not. Close your eyes and it still works. That is the part no drug can touch.
One last thing, before you go.
In 1990, a 24 year old white lady from Manchester with a boyish crop walked onto the stage of the Apollo, the most unforgiving room in American music, and sang a song called "All Around the World." It had just hit number one on the R&B chart. By the second chorus the entire room was on its feet, chanting "Go Lisa!" Nobody in that crowd had to see her to know what they were hearing. Close your eyes and you will know it too.
- Published on
An essay on who is really in charge of your healing
I have gone looking for healing in a lot of places. Some were expensive, the kind where the price is meant to reassure you. Some were the opposite, no money in the room at all, just a claim that they could cure what medicine could not. Both kinds tried to heal me. I left most of them feeling infected. Not sick in the body, but sick with the thing they had quietly put in me, the belief that I was not the one in charge of my own life, that someone else knew better, that the cure was theirs to give and mine only to receive.
That is the virus. It does not announce itself, it works by subtraction. You arrive as a person with a body you have lived in for decades, a person who knows things, and somewhere between the welcome tea and the consultation you are gently relieved of that authority. You stop being the driver. You become the passenger in your own healing, told to surrender, to release, to trust the process, and the process belongs to them. The most expensive thing they take from you is not in the invoice. It is the quiet conviction that you were managing fine before you walked in.
I should tell you who I do trust, because it explains everything. I have entrusted my recovery to cows. I mean that plainly, and anyone who has read me knows I am not being cute. I trust a cow more than I trust most wellness advisors, because the cow is not running a margin on me. It is not upselling the next package. It heals by being exactly what it is, and it asks for nothing back but care. I built my own roadmap out of the medical and the ancient and the animal and the absurd, a combination only I could have assembled because only I was living in this body. Had I shut my eyes and my ears and simply followed, surrendered the way they all tell you to surrender, I do not think I would have found what I needed. I would have found what they were selling, which is not the same thing.
Now look at the scale of what is being sold, because the numbers are not small and they are not slowing. The global wellness economy reached a new peak of $6.8 trillion in 2024, having doubled in size since 2013. To place that, it is now almost four times bigger than the pharmaceutical industry. It is forecast to approach $10 trillion by 2029. A machine that large does not run on healing. It runs on appetite, and appetite has to be fed, which is why there is always another summit, another forum, another founder on a stage in good lighting telling a room of believers that the future is prevention and the future has a price. The hype is not a side effect of the industry. The hype is the supply chain.
None of this began with the influencers. It began with the famous. When I think about how Eastern practice crossed into the Western mainstream, I do not think first of a guru. I think of Madonna. In 1998 she put a Sanskrit shloka on a pop record, "Shanti/Ashtangi" on Ray of Light, the invocation traditionally chanted to open an Ashtanga practice, adapted from Shankaracharya. She mispronounced it badly enough that the BBC arranged Sanskrit lessons for her, and it did not matter. A generation took up yoga and Kabbalah partly because she made them visible and desirable. I do not say that to mock her. She is one of the most studied cases in my own work on how fame moves culture, and this is exactly what fame does. Borrowed authority, passed hand to hand. It is the oldest version of the trick, and the most honest one, because at least she was clearly an artist and not pretending to be your doctor.
And it has a luxury tax, the same way organic did, the same way the word artisanal did. Wellness-focused homes at the middle and upper end of the market command a price premium of 10 to 25 percent, and in some markets the premium runs as high as 30 percent. Here is the part nobody at the forum mentions. That premium does not stay quarantined at the top. The same analysis finds that 31 percent of global markets face a limited supply of certified wellness-grade materials, raising construction lead times by 12 to 18 percent. Read that again. The supply of the actual stuff is finite. The experts are finite. The genuine therapies are finite. So when the luxury tier corners them and bids them up, the bare-bones place feels it too, and the cost climbs for everyone, including the people who came to wellness precisely because they could not afford medicine. The word that was supposed to democratize health is quietly pricing it back out of reach.
Watch how the luxury tier justifies the markup, because the justification is never expertise. It is money and fame. The treatment is validated by a Silicon Valley round, by a founder who swears by it, by a celebrity whose face is on the wall. The rate is high because the names attached are high, and you are meant to read the names as proof. They are not proof. A venture check is not a clinical outcome. An endorsement is not a credential. Strip the names away and ask what is actually known in that room, by whom, to what standard, and the silence can be deafening. The marble was the argument. There was no other one.
And this is not a wellness problem. It is the whole marketplace now. The same trick that sells you a treatment sells you a destination, a diet, a workout, a watch, a way of life. We are being instructed by people who have no idea what they are talking about, and we believe them for one of two reasons. Either they look and sound the part, the right voice, the right body, the right calm, or they come holding the credential of someone we already trust, a brand, a celebrity, a platform that vouched for them so we would not have to check. That is the entire engine of the expert economy. The authority is passed hand to hand until it is so far from anyone who actually knows anything that no one can trace it back. The fitness coach who has never read a study. The diet guru whose only qualification is the body you are meant to envy. The wellness mogul whose monk years did not quite happen the way the brand says, whose certification school once listed university affiliations the universities had never heard of, and whose audience kept buying anyway because the story was good and the calm was convincing. The Guardian reported all of it, Rolling Stone India covered it, and the empire barely flinched. The travel curator selling you a version of a place they spent two nights in. They are not lying exactly. They believe themselves, which is worse, because conviction is the most contagious thing they are selling.
And almost none of it has aftercare. This is the part that gives the game away. You go, you are treated, you feel lighter for a few days, and then you are returned to your life with nothing for the morning the lightness wears off. No follow-up, no plan, no one accountable for whether you are actually better in a month. It is a bandaid sold as a cure. Maybe a bandaid is all most people want. Maybe the few good days are the entire product and everyone involved knows it. Fine. Then market it as what it is. Call it wellness today. Stop selling me tomorrow, and next year, and a transformed life, when what you actually offer expires by the weekend.
I want to be honest about my own complicity in how this works, because I learned it from the other side of the desk. I ran an NGO once. I wanted to give people something harder than a service. I wanted to hand them their own power back, to teach them to advocate for themselves, and I watched that organization die because that is not what people came to buy. They wanted tangible deliverables. They wanted a thing in a bag, a result they could hold, not a conversation about becoming more capable of saving themselves. The business of helping people punishes you for trying to make them independent. The wellness industry learned that lesson long before I did and built its entire model on it. Dependence is the recurring revenue. Empowerment does not scale.
So I am not romantic, and I am not naive, and I am also not done. Here is the part that will surprise the people who think this is only an attack. I hope I still get asked. I hope I am invited back, the expensive places and the bare ones both, because there is genuinely something to learn in many of them, something to practice, sometimes something to simply enjoy. I am not closing that door. I will walk through it again gladly. What I will never do again is walk through it convinced that any of it is for my good first.
First is always the business. That is not cynicism, it is just the order of operations, and pretending otherwise is the actual infection.
Because here is what I carry into every one of those rooms now, the antibody, the thing the virus cannot take. Everything I learned in the medical world to advocate for myself, I bring into the alternative one without exception. I ask what you can measure. I ask who is accountable. I ask what happens after I leave. I stay in the driver's seat in the salt room exactly as I do in the oncology ward, because a body that has been fought over twice does not hand the wheel to anyone, no matter how good the tea is or how soft the voice. The healing was never something they were going to do to me. At most it was something I might do with them, if they were honest about which of us was actually in charge.
I survived the virus the only way you survive any of them. I stopped letting it convince me I was helpless. Then I got up, and I drove myself home.
- Published on
What the NY Knicks Teach Us About 60 Minutes
I had been thinking about this series for a different reason, and the ending only sharpened it. The question the Finals kept asking was the oldest one in sports. Can a team defeat a star? San Antonio arrived built around Victor Wembanyama, seven feet four inches of singular talent, a player whose mere presence rewrites what a defense can attempt. In the closeout game he posted nineteen points, fourteen rebounds, and five blocks, the kind of line that wins most nights. His team lost anyway. The Knicks arrived with no such figure at the center of their universe. They arrived with a system, a rotation, a group that could survive a brutal shooting night because the value was never staked on one shot or one man. The genius filled the box score. The machine won the war.
The longer I sat with it, the more I realized I was no longer thinking about basketball at all. I was thinking about 60 Minutes.
The Inversion That Made It LastTo understand why a basketball series illuminates the most consequential reinvention in American television news, you have to understand what made 60 Minutes structurally unusual in the first place. The newsmagazine genre was, almost without exception, a star vehicle. 20/20 was Barbara Walters, her name and her interviews the engine of the whole enterprise. The format ran on the gravitational pull of a face, a voice, a personality the audience tuned in to see. Take the star away and the show became a building with no tenant.
60 Minutes inverted that logic, and the inversion is the entire reason it endured. Mike Wallace, Morley Safer, Ed Bradley, Lesley Stahl were not minor figures the show happened to employ. They were stars larger than most networks could claim, and the show still did not belong to any of them. It belonged to the ticking stopwatch. It belonged to the format. Correspondents arrived, built reputations, grew old, retired, and died, and the stopwatch kept ticking through all of it. This is the rarest thing in the economy of fame, an institution that subordinated its talent to its franchise so completely that the franchise outlived every individual who ever served it. In the language of the EV Model, the framework for measuring Economic Value that I have spent two decades building, the Economic Value of 60 Minutes was never anchored to Base Visibility Score, the raw wattage of a famous name. It was anchored to Value Longevity Factor and Legacy Control, the two variables that determine not how bright a thing burns but how long it keeps burning after the fuel that lit it is gone.
There is a category error buried in how we think about these shows, and it comes from where they sit on the org chart. Network morning programs and a daytime franchise like ABC's The View are housed within their news divisions, which encourages the belief that they share a single survival logic, that the cast is interchangeable and the franchise persists through any recasting. For those programs the belief is true, because the personalities were always the product. Recasting is their native state. The View has cycled through its chairs many times over and never once been overhauled, because the chairs are the point. 60 Minutes endured for the opposite reason. Its successions were graceful and gradual, a correspondent stepping back, an exclusive talent stepping in, never a reinvention, because the stories were always the most important thing on the screen. A show whose value lives in its reporting does not need to be torn down when a famous face departs. The departure is absorbed and the stopwatch keeps ticking. This is the distinction that makes the present moment read as a rupture rather than a routine succession. The recast-and-continue playbook works on shows built to be recast. Applied to the one program whose strength was that it never lived or died by its cast, it is the right tool aimed at the wrong machine.
That distinction explains the strangest fact about the current moment. By the spring of 2026, 60 Minutes was not failing. It was the highest-rated and most prestigious program in a CBS News division that otherwise trailed its rivals at ABC and NBC. The crown jewel was the team-built show, the one with no star at its center. The franchise that refused star logic was the one that had aged the best. This is the Knicks beating the Spurs, except played out across fifty-eight seasons rather than a single series.
The Overhaul of a Winning Thing
What happened next is the part that makes this a puzzle rather than a familiar story of decline and rescue. In October 2025, Paramount's new ownership installed Bari Weiss as editor-in-chief of CBS News, having acquired her publication, The Free Press. By late May of 2026 she had moved on 60 Minutes directly, replacing executive producer Tanya Simon, a thirty-year veteran of the program, with Nick Bilton, a technology journalist and documentarian drawn from outside the broadcast-news world entirely. Veteran correspondents Sharyn Alfonsi and Cecilia Vega departed. A masthead was planned, a more streamlined hierarchy, a tighter set of standards across the division.
Read that sequence again with the basketball frame in mind. This is not a turnaround. Turnarounds happen to losing teams. This is the rebuilding of a winning institution using the opposite of the logic that made it win. The leadership change imports the star era into the one show that had successfully resisted it. A known name brought in to run the franchise. New personalities, new commentators, a structure organized around identifiable figures rather than the anonymous durability of the stopwatch. The question my framework forces is not whether the new leadership is talented, which it is, nor whether the show needed evolution, which is a separate and defensible argument. The question is stranger than that. Can star logic save a franchise whose entire value was that it never needed a star?
Politics as a Variable, Not a Verdict
Any honest analysis of this moment has to address the political dimension, and here I want to be precise about how, because the precision is the point. I do not write to take a side. I write to measure. In the EV Model, political lean is not a moral category. It is a variable, an input that moves the numbers the way any other perception of an entity moves them. Treated this way, the politics of the 60 Minutes story becomes data rather than opinion, and the data is clarifying.
The show had become a contested object. A lawsuit from a sitting president over the editing of a 2024 interview ended in a sixteen-million-dollar settlement paid by the parent company. A segment was pulled amid disputes over whether on-the-record government statements had been fairly represented. New leadership arrived with an explicit mandate to address a perception, held by a meaningful share of the country, that the program leaned in one direction. Whatever one believes about the merits, the mechanism is what matters. A perceived lean had begun to function as a tax on the show's Base Visibility Score and its Cultural Momentum, narrowing the audience willing to grant it trust and therefore narrowing its reach. Ownership made a financial judgment, not merely an ideological one, that the lean had become a liability on the balance sheet of attention. The EV Model does not care which way a thing leans. It cares what that lean costs, or earns, in the currency of who is willing to watch.
This is why political orientation deserves formal standing as a measurable input rather than quarantine as something separate from the economics of fame. The lean of an entity, real or perceived, shapes every other variable. It expands or contracts the visible audience. It accelerates or dampens momentum. It strengthens or erodes the longevity of trust. To leave it outside the equation because naming it makes us uncomfortable is to leave a major force unmeasured precisely where it does its work.
What the Knicks Know
Here the basketball delivers its final and least comfortable lesson, and it is more subtle than the easy version of my own argument. Let me be honest about what happened on Saturday, because anyone who watched the game saw it. Jalen Brunson scored forty-five points. That is not a faceless performance. That is a star carrying his team, and it would be dishonest to pretend the Knicks won without one. But look at what surrounded those forty-five points. The rest of the roster shot miserably. Karl-Anthony Towns, an All-Star, scored two points on seven attempts. The team as a whole could not buy a basket. And they won anyway, on the road, because Josh Hart pulled down eleven rebounds, because Mitchell Robinson and the bigs controlled the glass, because OG Anunoby harassed the perimeter into steals, because the structure kept producing value on a night the shots would not fall.
That is the distinction that matters, and it is not stars versus no stars. A real team is not a roster that lacks brilliance. It is a structure that can win when its star is carrying and the others are cold, and survive the reverse just as well. The Knicks had that. San Antonio did not. Wembanyama gave them everything a single body can give, nineteen and fourteen and five blocks, and it was not enough, because greatness concentrated in one player is fragile in a way distributed value is not. Foul him, tire him, force him into nineteen shots for nineteen points, and there is no second engine. A team has more than one engine. You cannot foul out a system.
60 Minutes was built like that championship roster. Its durability came from distribution, from the fact that no single departure could collapse it, that it could absorb the loss of a giant the way the Knicks absorbed an ice-cold night from everyone not named Brunson. The danger in the current reinvention is not that the new leadership lacks ability. The danger is that rebuilding the show around stars, around names and personalities and a recognizable masthead, quietly converts a team back into a collection of stars, and a collection of stars is the fragile thing the program spent fifty-eight years refusing to become. The stopwatch was the Knicks. The reinvention risks turning it into the Spurs, dazzling, formidable, and dependent on a brilliance that the right defense can take away.
The Knicks just proved the point on the biggest stage the sport has. They were not the team with the best player on the floor. They were the team that did not need to be. They won the title shooting thirty-six percent because a championship structure does not collapse when the shots stop falling, and a structure built on a single source of brilliance eventually meets a night, or a defense, that takes the brilliance away. New York spent fifty-three years waiting to learn that lesson again. The institution that wants to survive its own reinvention would do well to study how they did it.
Can it rise again? The phrasing was always wrong, and the basketball just proved why. The show was never down. It was winning on the strength of the least glamorous virtue in the attention economy, the patient, faceless durability that outlasts every individual who passes through it. The real question is whether you can keep that virtue while dismantling the structure that produced it. I do not know the answer. No one does yet, and anyone claiming certainty is selling something. But I know which way I would bet, and I learned it watching a team with no superstar at its center refuse to lose to one. The most talented figure on the floor can still come up short, not because greatness is an illusion, but because greatness alone was never the whole equation. The formula has always had four terms. EV = BVS × CM × VLF + LC. The stars supply the first two. The team supplies the rest. And it is the rest, in basketball and in journalism alike, that decides what is still standing when the brilliance fades.
Consider the arithmetic one last time. New York waited fifty-three years to win again. 60 Minutes has been on the air for fifty-eight, longer than the entire drought it just watched end, and it got there without a single reinvention. The show is older than the wait. That is the durability now on the table. You do not casually rebuild a thing that has outlasted a half-century of someone else's heartbreak, and the people doing the rebuilding would do well to remember what it cost the Knicks to learn the lesson the show already knew.
Knicks photo: Jean-Baptiste Bellet, cropped and adapted, CC BY 2.0. 60 Minutes logo: © CBS / Paramount Global, used for editorial commentary.
- Published on
Madonna and Michael Jackson are still everywhere.
Which version depends on who you ask.
So I leaned in and asked what he thought of the early releases from her upcoming Confessions II.
“She needs to disappear,” he said.
I asked why.
“The new songs. They’re terrible.”
I pushed. What specifically? The production? The lyrics? The collaborators?
He paused. “Her face. What has she done to herself. Why is she behaving like this?”
And there it was. He wasn’t critiquing the music. He was revoking permission. The same permission his generation gave her forty years ago to be transgressive, sexual, confrontational, and weird. He just didn’t realize the expiration date was his to set.
This conversation stayed with me for days. My friend was not saying something unusual, he basically represented every Gen X and older millennial I know who once worshipped Madonna and now can’t stand to look at her. I literally went to Madonna concerts with some of them, female friends who now just cringe when I mention her name. This was in stark contrast to when I started talking to younger people about the same artist where things got interesting.
They didn’t flinch.
Not at the plastic surgery. Not at the sexuality. Not at the age-gap relationships or the provocative Instagram posts or the refusal to dress, behave, or exist the way a 67-year-old woman is supposed to. They found her music, liked it or didn’t, and moved on without the moral crisis.
At first I thought this was just generational apathy. Then I realized it was something far more structural.
This is a generation that grew up with FaceTune and filters. They edit their own faces before posting a selfie — smooth the skin, adjust the jawline, enlarge the eyes. Their mothers get Botox. Their fathers use Rogaine. Lip filler is a lunch break errand, not a secret. Ozempic went from a diabetes medication to a dinner party confession to a cultural shrug in under three years. Cosmetic modification isn’t scandalous to people who participate in it daily, digitally and sometimes physically, before they turn twenty-five.
So when they encounter Madonna’s face, the face that launched a thousand think pieces about women aging disgracefully, they don’t see a cautionary tale. They see someone who did permanently what they do with an app every morning. The scandal, to them, is that there was ever a scandal at all.
Consider what happened in June 2023. Madonna was rushed to the ICU with a serious bacterial infection. She was unconscious for four days, on a ventilator, and later developed sepsis. She has since described having a vision of her late mother asking her to come with her, to the other side, and saying no. She could barely walk to her own backyard for weeks afterward. She nearly died. And the public response from a significant portion of her original fanbase was to assume it was plastic surgery gone wrong. Another Joan Rivers. They’d already decided who Madonna was, a woman pathologically obsessed with her own appearance and they couldn’t process even a near-death medical emergency outside that frame. The face had become the only story they were willing to tell about her, even when the real story was that she almost didn’t survive.
The same generational divide runs through sexuality. Madonna dating younger men was tabloid fuel for decades. The word “cougar” was deployed like a diagnosis, something between a personality flaw and a public health warning. But we’re living in a post-cougar era now, and we’ve been living in it for longer than most people admit. Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher happened. Kris Jenner and Corey Gamble — a man roughly the same age as her daughters happened. Priyanka Chopra and Nick Jonas happened. These relationships were tabloid noise for five minutes and then became…fine. Younger audiences watched these couples exist in public, on their screens, in their feeds, and the age-gap panic just quietly dissolved. Madonna’s sexuality at 67 isn’t transgressive to a generation that already processed this and moved on.
Demi Moore won a Golden Globe last year for The Substance, a horror film about a woman literally consumed by society’s demand that she stay young. The cultural conversation about what we do to aging women has already happened in cinema and the verdict was that the demand for disappearance is the horror. Not the aging itself.
And then, just weeks ago, the thing the film warned about happened to Moore herself. She walked the Cannes red carpet as a competition juror, and the conversation immediately shifted from her work to her body. “Skeletal.” “Too skinny.” Ozempic speculation. Eating disorder accusations from strangers who’d never met her. The New York Post praised her “toned arms” and was attacked for glorifying thinness. A woman who had just made one of the most acclaimed performances of the decade about the violence of body scrutiny got body-scrutinized at the festival celebrating her for making it. The culture watched The Substance, agreed it was brilliant, gave her every award…and then did to her exactly what the film said they would.
My friend at the rooftop was essentially arguing for the plot of that film without realizing he was the villain in it.
In 2016, Madonna accepted the Woman of the Year award at Billboard’s Women in Music and said something that I think about constantly. She said the most controversial thing she had ever done was to stick around. Michael is gone, she said. Tupac is gone. Prince is gone. Whitney is gone. Amy Winehouse is gone. David Bowie is gone. But she’s still standing. And earlier in that same speech she named the unwritten rule: “Do not age. Because to age is a sin. You will be criticized and vilified and definitely not played on the radio.”
She was describing something she’d already lived through. But she was also predicting what was coming.
And there’s a deeper irony in the names she listed. Michael, Tupac, Prince, Whitney, Amy, Bowie — every one of them has been liberated by death. The younger they went, the cleaner the legacy became. Nobody thinks about George Michael and that Beverly Hills bathroom anymore. They just make Careless Whisper videos on TikTok. Nobody dwells on Prince changing his name to a symbol and warring with his label for a decade. They just karaoke to Purple Rain. Nobody remembers “Crack is Whack” Whitney. They just dance along to “I Wanna Dance With Somebody.” Death purified the record. It froze these artists at the music and erased the mess. But Madonna, who survived and literally came back from the edge of death in a hospital bed and said no to the other side, she gets no such grace. She’s still here, still aging, still performing, still making choices that her original audience has to witness in real time. The dead get nostalgia. The living get scrutiny. What Madonna said in that speech
was far more powerful than perhaps even she knew.
What’s worth noting is who introduced her that night. Anderson Cooper took the stage and thanked Madonna for giving him faith during his years as a gay teenager. A closeted kid watching this woman be fearlessly, aggressively herself and thinking: maybe I can survive this too. That’s not fandom. That’s something closer to salvation. And it’s the same thing my friend was trying to describe at the rooftop. A kid who hadn’t come to terms with his sexuality found safety in a woman who seemed free in ways he wasn’t yet.
The generation that needed Madonna most is now the one asking her to leave.
But there’s another layer to this that I think gets missed in the discourse around aging and plastic surgery and sexuality. It’s about how we consumed celebrity in the first place.
My generation didn’t grow up with social media. We didn’t get to hear artists speak in their own voice every day, unfiltered, direct to camera. We got People magazine. We got the National Enquirer. We got Entertainment Tonight. We saw our icons through a lens and an interpretive mirror. Editors decided which quotes to pull, photographers chose which angles to publish, and tabloid writers constructed narratives that sold copies. The celebrity we fell in love with was always, to some degree, a manufactured version. And we internalized those manufactured versions as truth.
We are the generation that watched Oprah wheel out a wagon full of fat on national television to demonstrate her weight loss. We also watched her weight change again, and again, and again — her diets revealed, her lifestyle assessed, her body treated as public property every single time we stood at the grocery store checkout counter or bought a pack of gum at the bodega. The covers of People and Us Weekly told us what to think about her, and we mostly did. We didn’t have Oprah’s Instagram to hear her side. We had the tabloid’s side. And we thought that was the whole story.
The same thing happened with Madonna and Michael Jackson and every major figure of that era. We built our understanding of them through intermediaries — through journalists and photographers and talk show hosts who had their own agendas, their own lenses, their own reasons for framing the story the way they did. And then social media arrived and suddenly we could hear these artists in their own words, in real time, without the filter. But by then, many of us had already decided who they were. The tabloid version had calcified into conviction.
Younger audiences never had that problem. They met Madonna on TikTok, not on the cover of the Enquirer. They found Michael Jackson on Spotify, not in a courtroom sketch on the evening news. Their first impression wasn’t mediated by a magazine editor’s agenda. It was just the music. Just the performance. Just the art.
And nowhere is that generational split more visible than with Michael Jackson himself. His skin color changed in front of the world over the course of two decades. He went from the brown-skinned kid singing “ABC” to something the public couldn’t categorize, and the response was merciless. He was mocked on late-night television, pathologized in tabloids, turned into a punchline that wrote itself. The vitiligo diagnosis was treated as an excuse rather than an explanation. His eccentricity — the masks, the single glove, Neverland, the whispering voice — was reframed as evidence of something sinister rather than the behavior of a man who’d been famous since he was five and never learned how to be ordinary.
Younger audiences don’t carry any of that weight. They find his music on streaming platforms the same way they find anyone else’s. They watch the performances on YouTube and see a dancer who could do things nobody else has done since. Michael Jackson to them is the catalog, not the tabloid. And when they encounter the controversy — the allegations, the trial, the documentary that reignited everything in 2019, they process it with a sophistication that their parents’ generation never had access to. Not because they take it less seriously, but because they’ve grown up in a culture that has genuinely grappled with the complexity of separating art from artist. They’ve had that conversation about Kanye, about J.K. Rowling, about every problematic figure who built something people still love. They have frameworks for this. The older generation had only the binary of worship or rejection, and the whiplash between the two is partly why they’re so exhausted now.
This is the contradiction at the heart of legacy culture right now. The generation that built these icons — that gave them their visibility, that made them household names, that bought the albums and the concert tickets and the merchandise is increasingly the generation most uncomfortable with what those icons became. They want Madonna to age gracefully, which really means invisibly. They want Michael to have been normal, which really means uncomplicated. They want the version they remember, frozen in the cultural amber of 1984 or 1990 or whenever their fandom peaked. And when the artist refuses to be that version or can’t be, because time and life and the body don’t cooperate with nostalgia, the discomfort becomes judgment. The judgment becomes dismissal. The dismissal becomes “she needs to disappear.”
There’s a word for this that nobody wants to use: prudishness. The generation that celebrated Madonna for being sexually liberated can’t handle her being sexually active at 67. The generation that moonwalked in their living rooms can’t reconcile the man they danced with and the man they read about. They made the freaks and when the freaks refused to stop being freaky, they walked away.
But someone kept the lights on during those years of abandonment.
Someone kept streaming. Someone kept dancing. Someone kept the cultural temperature warm enough for a new generation to eventually walk in and discover these artists without the baggage.
It was the communities that mainstream culture spent decades dismissing. Gay fans who saw in Madonna a liberation theology that had nothing to do with the Vatican’s version — the same community Anderson Cooper was speaking for when he introduced her at Billboard. Black audiences who understood Michael’s genius without needing him to be uncomplicated first. The cultural “freaks”, people who lived outside the norms that the mainstream was now trying to retroactively enforce on the very artists who once helped them feel less alone.
These communities didn’t preserve Madonna and Michael out of nostalgia. They preserved them because the art spoke to something real about their own experience of being judged, being modified, being told they were wrong for existing in the body and the identity they actually had. When the mainstream generation moved on, these audiences didn’t. And their loyalty is the reason a 20-year-old today can find “Hung Up” on a playlist and hear it fresh, without the cultural trial that once came attached.
Yesterday, Madonna showed up in Times Square for a surprise pop-up concert sponsored by Grindr. She opened with new tracks from Confessions II, turned the LED screens to the Pride flag, flashed images of the 1969 Stonewall riots above the stage, and shouted “C’mon, gays! Happy Pride!” to a crowd that materialized out of rush hour foot traffic. No arena. No ticket sales. Just the Queen of Pop emerging from behind an LED wall on a Thursday evening for the community that never left her. While her original fanbase debates her face on Reddit threads, she’s performing for the audience that kept the lights on.
The corporate world, predictably, has noticed the resurgence and wants to monetize every angle.
Netflix’s Michael Jackson: The Verdict dropped this week, a three-part docuseries revisiting the 2005 trial through courtroom eyewitnesses, jurors, accusers, and defenders. This arrives while Antoine Fuqua’s Michael biopic is still in theaters, having earned over $846 million worldwide and now closing in on Bohemian Rhapsody’s $911 million record to become the highest-grossing music biopic of all time. Madonna’s Confessions II is weeks away, due July 3. The industry sees the heat and wants to harvest it from every direction, the celebration and the controversy, the music and the courtroom, the art and the allegation.
But here’s what the content strategists may not fully understand. A three-part docuseries about a trial that ended in acquittal twenty-one years ago is not going to change the way people feel about Michael Jackson. Not the younger fans who discovered him through the music. Not the older fans who already made their peace or didn’t decades ago. The legacy is grandfathered in.
The music was embedded in global culture so deeply and so early that no amount of re-litigation can extract it. “Thriller” preceded the trial by twenty-three years. “Billie Jean” preceded the allegations by a decade. The cultural infrastructure was built before the controversy arrived. And infrastructure, once built, doesn’t demolish easily. Try tearing down a cathedral because you have questions about the architect.
The biopic itself is proof. The film deliberately avoided the allegations entirely — its third act was restructured after a settlement clause prevented dramatizing the accuser, and the story ends with the Bad tour in 1988. It’s a celebration, not a reckoning. And audiences showed up in numbers that rival superhero franchises. They weren’t there for complexity. They were there because the music, the dancing, and the memory of what Michael Jackson meant to the culture is stronger than any further attempts to complicate it.
I keep thinking about my friend at the rooftop. His discomfort wasn’t really about Madonna’s face or Michael’s legacy. It was about the fact that the culture moved without his permission. He wanted the artists he loved to remain the artists he remembered. And when they didn’t, when Madonna got surgery and kept performing, when Michael’s story got messier and the world kept listening anyway, he felt something he couldn’t name. Not betrayal exactly but more like the loss of control over a narrative he thought he owned because he’d been there from the beginning.
But he never owned it. The generation that builds an icon doesn’t get to decide when the icon expires. That’s not how legacy works. The music outlasts the discomfort. The catalog outlives the controversy. And the communities that were never invited to the mainstream table in the first place — the ones who loved these artists through the years when loving them was unfashionable or complicated or inconvenient — they’re the reason there’s still a table at all.
Madonna doesn’t need to disappear. My friend’s discomfort does. The music hasn’t changed. The face has. And the fact that he can’t separate the two says everything about his generation and absolutely nothing about hers.
- Published on
What mega-events reveal about cultural gravity, global visibility, and the concentration of attention
That distinction matters.
The Olympics may be broader but The World Cup may be deeper.
The Olympics spreads the world's focus across dozens of sports, hundreds of medal stories, and a vast institutional ideal. The World Cup compresses attention into one sport, one bracket, and a much tighter emotional arc. That concentration gives it a kind of cultural gravity very few events can match. The 2026 World Cup, which opens on 11 June 2026, will be the first men's tournament with 48 teams, 104 matches, and three host countries: the United States, Mexico, and Canada. I'm already feeling the pull. In the coming weeks, I'm traveling to Mexico City and Los Angeles for writing work, and I can barely coordinate basic plans in either city. Prices have skyrocketed. Availability has vanished. The tournament hasn't kicked off yet and it's already reshaping daily life across borders. I live in New York. My work takes me to Los Angeles and Mexico City. Without trying, I've ended up living between three World Cup host cities - and even someone who follows the game more casually than most can feel the event tightening its grip.
That expansion increases the scale of participation while preserving the most important thing about the event: narrative unity.
Every few years, the Olympics gets described as the biggest event in global sport. On paper, that sounds reasonable. It includes more athletes, more countries, more disciplines, and a deeper institutional history. Paris 2024 brought together more than 200 National Olympic Committees and more than 10,000 athletes, all under one global banner. But the question is not only how many people show up or how many viewers arrive across the whole event. The better question is what kind of attention the event produces once they do.
The Olympics distributes attention by design, the World Cup concentrates it.
An Olympic viewer can move from swimming to gymnastics to basketball to athletics without ever following a single narrative line from beginning to end. That variety is part of its brilliance. But it also fragments the audience's emotional investment. The World Cup's architecture is simpler. Group stages establish possibility. Knockout rounds create pressure and elimination sharpens emotion. By the time the final arrives, the world is not simply watching the same event. It is following the same story and that kind of narrative concentration is extraordinarily rare.
The Super Bowl offers a different model of power. Its domestic dominance is extraordinary - one of the few events in the United States that still behaves like a genuine national ritual, drawing mass live viewership and turning advertising itself into spectacle. But the Super Bowl's intensity is largely national, even when its branding is global. It commands one country overwhelmingly. The World Cup commands multiple countries simultaneously.
The IPL complicates the picture in another direction. It is not a single-night climax but a season-long machine of loyalty, celebrity, and commercial momentum. It commands a huge Indian audience, increasingly substantial digital viewership, and a rights economy that now sits among the most powerful in world sport. But the IPL stretches attention over time. The World Cup compresses it. One accumulates weekly ritual. The other creates a shared global crescendo.
Eurovision is perhaps the most surprising comparison, because it is not a sports event at all. Yet it behaves like one in the attention economy. It converts national identity into live spectacle, compresses many countries into one event, and generates ritual, controversy, fandom, and voting drama all at once. Its reach is extraordinary. But even Eurovision disperses identification across performance, politics, camp, and song. The World Cup is simpler and therefore, in some ways, more powerful. It asks the world to care about one thing at a time.
The World Cup also turns players into global shorthand in a way few events can match. A single tournament can reshape how an athlete is perceived not only within sport, but across culture entirely. This is something I've spent years thinking about - it's at the core of what I call Celebnomics, the study of how fame operates as both cultural and economic capital. The World Cup functions as perhaps the most powerful Cultural Momentum multiplier in sport. It doesn't simply increase visibility. It transforms what that visibility means. Lionel Messi's victory in 2022 didn't add a line to his resume. It completed a narrative that had been building for nearly two decades, converting athletic brilliance into something closer to cultural reverence. His value didn't shift because more people learned his name. It shifted because the tournament gave the world a reason to feel something about him that statistics alone never could. Kylian Mbappé's performance in the same final didn't need a trophy to achieve something similar. A hat trick in a World Cup final at 23 writes itself into the kind of story that sustains fame long after the match ends.
The Olympics produces heroes too. But its attention is more fragmented. One athlete dominates a week, another a single evening, another a national news cycle. The World Cup sustains fewer protagonists and gives them more oxygen. It doesn't simply create stars, it magnifies them inside a narrative structure the entire world can follow.
But it's not only players. The World Cup infiltrates culture in ways that have nothing to do with what happens on the pitch. Its songs become global anthems - not background music for highlight reels, but genuine cultural events that cross every border the sport itself does. I learned this in the most unlikely way. In 2014, I was at a remote beach in Kerala, about as far from a football stadium as you can get. Shakira's "La La La" - the heartbeat of that summer's tournament in Brazil - was playing from a small speaker near a chai stall. When I stopped a group of kids to ask if they knew it, they didn't just know it. They started singing "Waka Waka" too - the song from South Africa 2010, a tournament played four years earlier on a different continent. These weren't football fans. They were kids who had absorbed the World Cup through music, almost by osmosis. That's cultural penetration that most global brands would spend billions trying to replicate.
The Olympics used to do this. Whitney Houston's "One Moment in Time" carried the emotional weight of Seoul 1988 so completely that it crossed well beyond sport - I used it as my campaign song in a sixth-grade mock election, running as Michael Dukakis, which tells you everything about both my musical taste and my political instincts at eleven. Gloria Estefan's "Reach" did something similar for Atlanta 1996. These were songs that lived well beyond the closing ceremony, well beyond the athletes they were meant to celebrate. But ask yourself: when was the last time an Olympic anthem entered the global conversation the way a World Cup song routinely does? The World Cup still produces them. The Olympics doesn't. Even in music, the pattern holds. Concentration wins.
This is why comparisons based only on total reach can be misleading. The bigger question is not which event has the most viewers, the most athletes, the most participating nations, or the widest official footprint. The more revealing question is which event most effectively turns global interest into shared, simultaneous attention - and then converts that attention into something people carry with them.
The Olympics may remain the broadest stage in sport. But the World Cup - from a beach in Kerala to a sold-out hotel in Mexico City - is the one that holds the world most tightly. Not because it reaches more people but because when it peaks, it reaches them all at once.