Canadian TV Plug-a-Palooza

ALREADY FEELING THE ravages of the looks-like-it-won't-end-anytime-soon WGA strike? (By the way, when you read that link, keep in mind that it's kabuki theatre -- all week the word was that the AMPTP would engineer a "walk out" and try to paint the writers as unreasonable. Let's see if the cheap tactic works. But man, they really don't care about you viewers at all, yo.)

If you're in Canada, you've got a couple of choices this weekend. I haven't written about Heartland on this blog yet, but I have it on good authority that this weekend's episode is a good way in if you have yet to see this family drama about a horse ranch in Alberta. Horses, cute girls & guys, Cowboys.Ish. CBC, Sunday, 7pm.

But you should set your VCR or PVR and timeshift, because that's also when Episode 8 of Da Kink in My Hair airs on Global, Sunday, 7:30 p.m.

In the coming days, hopefully I'll have some words on the pilot of hockey and sex soaper MVP (coming in January to CBC) and the Little Mosque Christmas/New Year's Specials (airing this week.)

So there it is. Have a good weekend.

Don't Speak...Don't.........Speak...

AFTER MAKING their debut on DHD, the Speechless campaign of SAG actors supporting the WGA -- is now up at its new home, speechlesswithoutwriters.com

The 20th Video Features Woody Allen.

1) Open Cage 2) Let Feral Hen Out 3) Poke Feral Hen

SO AWHILE back we had the Great Fanfic Contretemps. Poke the tag at the end of the post for the full sordid deal.

And then, lo, the waters receded. A dove appeared with an olive branch in its mouth. Or something. Whatever. I never liked that passage of the Bible. One day I'm going to fix it and then post it on alt.religion.kingjamesbiblesucks or something.

Anyway. Prodigious Radio Enthusiast and Onetime student o' mine Dan Misener got in touch with me about a nifty CBC Radio Show he's working on called SPARK.

From CBC.ca:

Spark is your guide to the Next Big Thing. On-air and online, join Nora Young for a surprising and irreverent look at tech, trends, and fresh ideas.



Sounds like a show I used to work on back in the day at Citytv called mediatelevision. You know, when WIRED was cool. Man, I'm old.

Anyway, apparently Dan wants me to be stoned to death in the virtual public square, because he got in touch with me asking me to comment on this article:

JK ROWLING has given the go-ahead to copycat writers posting "fan fiction" sequels to Harry Potter on the internet.

The author will not take legal action against American George Lippert, 37, who wrote a sequel to the wizard's adventures on his website.

Rowling's decision is expected to cause a surge in the number of unauthorised tales by fans.

Her lawyers confirmed the author would be happy for spin-offs to be published online, provided it was made clear she was not involved and the publications were not sold.

She also requested that the follow-ups do not contain any racism or pornography.

So this morning I did a quick (eight minute) interview with host Nora Young. I gather from the CBC website:

Denis will be on the December 12/15 episode of Spark, along with G. Norman Lippert, author of fanfic Harry Potter sequel James Potter and the Hall of Elders' Crossing.

But in that wonderful spirit of the internet kind of way, if you go to the Spark page right now, you can listen to the interview in its entirety. The eagle-eyed among you may even note a slight softening of my previous fairly Calvinist Fanfic stance.

(Though I still think if you're good enough to write a "good" fanfic, you're good enough to sweat a bit and write a story of your own. Lot more rewarding in the long run -- and I aint talking shekels. But that's neither here nor there.)

Oh God, they're not going to see the nuance, are they? Attack hens! Two o'clock!

Tell Mom I went down swinging.

One Step Forward, Two Steps Playback

SO IT WAS back in January that I observed and commented positively about the launch of Playback Daily, the daily email newsletter from the organ that tries to fill a Variety-sized hole in Canada's broadcast industry.

Before the launch of the daily, Playback had been frequently dire. The joke was that its greatest use was if you happened to be coming back from a sabbatical, because by the time something appeared in the bi-weekly journal, it was really old news.

I was a subscriber for a while -- paid -- but the other thing that was frustrating about Playback is that it seemed like I was the only guy I knew who was paying for it. To boost circulation, they handed out a lot of free subscriptions. I didn't feel quite like paying 70 bucks a year or so, as a person, for something that companies and individuals were getting for free.

Add to that fact that there wasn't really a lot of journalism published at Playback... articles about companies frequently only talked to the people in the companies themselves, articles about shows focused on one person -- the whole thing seemed to be built around special issues where everybody would buy ads congratulating this guy and that guy for 20 great years of doing the thing.

You know, the thing.

Right. You still see elements of this in the coverage -- you'd think that maybe Playback could have broken or hinted at a huge story like Gary Howsam getting busted and its effect on Peace Arch -- they are the industry paper, after all...

...but on the whole, Playback has spent 2007 getting sharper and more timely, widening the scope of the areas of the business it covers, featuring better writing and even injecting a bit of sass into the proceedings now and again. If the Playback Daily had existed in 2005, I might not have even been moved to start this blog. The main reason I did it was because nobody was writing about the industry I saw with my own eyes. Playback, finally, has started to try and fill that gap.

And now it's all gone to hell.

If you go to Playback's website today, this is what you'll see:


Oh joy. Oh bliss. I'll save you the click:

"Following extensive consultation with industry stakeholders [ah, the phrase that instills confidence in any Canadian MediaMonkey's heart] it's time to take it to the next level."

The "next level," in this case, is going to cost you $9.95 a month. That's a Hundred Bucks a year. And if you read the fine print, that's the "introductory price." You know what that means.

Besides all the stories (which are now behind a paid firewall) they promise a big database -- which they describe as "a giant leap forward for the industry."

Well okay. I can see that. There's just one problem. When you go to the page, and se those fabulous database links, what do you see right above them?

That's right, kids. A big 'ol beta sign. Now, maybe I'm rusty, here, but one of the big rules I thought I understood about software based thingamabobs was that you don't ask people to pay for your betatesting.

This grand database may indeed be nifty. And maybe it's even worth paying for. But by putting a beta right up there, what you're saying is, "It's not ready yet." And "We expect you to pay for this sight unseen."

Well, maybe if it's one line item in the research library at the CBC, or somebody's paying at a big company, that's something. But though Playback Daily has raised my sense of the publication's value -- it has not raised it to the tune of ten bucks a month.

You have to wonder who, exactly, were the stakeholders that were consulted here? I'm pretty sure it wasn't program producers or creatives, the ones who fight tooth and nail for every scrap of publicity imaginable in this country, and who now will find one of those articles sequestered behind the pay wall where only the people who probably already are up on what's going on are gonna read it. Madness.

Canadian business is so behind, and so bad at this. How is it possible that Variety has finally realized that the answer is driving traffic to your site with free articles, but Playback hasn't? Why are we following the failed monetizing strategy of two years ago? Variety abandoned putting all articles behind paywalls some time ago. The New York Times abandoned TimesSelect a couple of months ago. That's right guys, if the New York Times can't make this model work, what makes you think...

Gahhh! It's all so moddle-headed it's hard to believe. The Globe and Playback and the Post -- Canada, once again, let's be two years behind the times, at all times.

So I guess that's it. I'll go back to thumbing through Playback on those occasional times I find myself in a waiting room looking for a meeting. And Dead Things will get its media news from elsewhere.

If any of you are foolhardy to pony up 10 clams a month, let me know how that goes for you. And if anybody from Playback wants to weigh in on how I'm actually way off base here, how this is actually a "supremely actuated, stakeholder centred drive for excellence," well, anonymous comments are on. Have at it below.

One funny irony: that letter above, from Playback's publisher, Peter Vamos. Vamos, in spanish, of course, means, "We go."

And so we do.

And That's What Christmas Is All About, Charlie Brown.

THANKS TO ALL who weighed in on the Christmas special discussion below. I had great fun on Q today. The podcast should probably be available sometime on Wednesday here.

And good on ya to Christopher Bird, Torontoist TV critic, for being a good foil in his first time out. For his further thoughts on the whole rigamarole, be sure to click here.

Now if you'll excuse me, Paul Lynde awaits...but first...

Hey, cool. Looks like Jump The Shark took note of last weekend's Evel Knievel post. Yes, folks. We hear at Dead Things Labs are not above a little logrolling. But the real mystery question is ... who the %@^# is Richard Severo?

Wow. Dissed by Jump the Shark.

Does that mean they've jumped the shark, or is it me?

Can't be me.

No way.

Ah, Shit.

WHY DO THE rest of us bother when there's Warren Ellis?

Golicked!

YOURS TRULY gets the full Jill Golick pilot treatment as she breaks down Episode One of Across The River to Motor City.

As with the true events surrounding the JFK assassination, the viewer is left with the feeling that they aren’t getting all the details. We don’t have an ideal point of view on the scenes and sequences. We have a sense we’re being left out of something, information is being held back. The story telling invokes a paranoia in you as you watch it, which is pretty clever considering that the death of JFK probably gave birth to mass paranoia. It also propels us forward, keeps us questioning and wanting more story.

There’s lots more to come. Two episodes have aired and we are far from understanding what happened to Katie.

By the way, Ms Golick also got an honest to goodness, full bore comment on her blog from...Mad Men's Matthew Weiner.

Can I get a heywriterboy squee?

MmmmaadMennnSqquuUUUEEEE!

Ah. Much better.

Wherein Our Hero Either Tells a Shaggy Dog Story or Points Out How The Leash Comes For You Next.

I'VE ALWAYS BEEN a little bit leery of the image of the striking WGA writers as representative of anything other than...striking writers. The whole war metaphor, it skeeves me out. But now here we are in week five, and there's a little something in the back of my brain that's starting to worry, not just about my industry or entertainment. I find myself buying in to the idea that maybe, just maybe, something way bigger is going on here.

I'll be the first to point out that writing is not like other work, and writers are not like other workers. It would be pretty cheeky for us to talk to an autoworker who's been replaced by a robot, or all the people out there seeing themselves squeezed out for economies of scale or globalization.

On the other hand, the atypical thing about this business is that the raw materials are intangible, and that it's people who come up with them. In a sense, we are both the materials that make the product, and the worker who crafts it. That's enough to take the issues of four cents for this or 2.5 percent that into higgledy-piggeldy land.

The one thing we can agree on? People love TeeVee. They bond with beloved TeeVee characters like nothing else. A movie franchise character is a love affair consummated in trysts every few years. And sometimes, because it's such an event, you can't even hear or really see them over all the whomping and thudding.

But there's Dr. House, misanthroping his way into your living room, each week. Every seven days, you get to check in with Kate and Sawyer, or root for Betty, or see what the women on Wisteria Lane are wearing. Whatever you're going through in your life, you know that Jim, Pam and Michael (okay, maybe not Michael) are on parallel tracks. And that's comforting. No wonder we're all fixing to miss it so much.

It's gratifying when I read that a great portion of the public does see that there is basic unfairness at work here, and that the writers do have great support. And you try to keep in mind that there's some number out there that will solve this whole thing, and then we can all get back to enjoying those ficitonal people in our homes.

But.

There are some extraordinary things happening around the margins. The first is that I'm not sure that I quite knew that there were only six companies that were behind this now. That's a lot of consolidation.

The second is, like everybody, I was kind of pulled in and duped a bit by the advance word of progress last week, which turned to disappointment when it became clear that there wasn't really anything new being offered.

And then you start to see things like this, and this. And you wonder, maybe the dark scenarios are really all right:

In his book Confessions of a Union Buster, Martin Jay Levitt details the techniques he learned in his many years attacking unions. A key element is the demoralization of the union members during any industrial action against the company. Taking away people's hopes, their aspirations for a quick resolution to any labor dispute – that was Levitt's job. "If you can, make the union fight drag on long enough, workers...lose faith, lose interest, lose hope." According to Robert Muehlenkamp, an SEIU Local 1199 organizer at Harper Grace hospital in the 70's, where Levitt was hired to consult management:

"Union busters wield great power through a program of terror and manipulation – people don't, can't possibly know what's going on and who's telling the truth.... The first time this happens to regular people, they're terrified."

And terror is the goal. The union buster hopes to control employees by employing terror.

This is, of course, precisely the situation we find ourselves in today. We are the example that is being used to intimidate the other unions. The studios want the actors, the directors, the Teamsters, IATSE, all to look at our struggle and see us lose. See us fractured and divided. With the hope that they will be frightened by what they see, and accept whatever deal the studios offer.

The idea is also to make us appear demoralized, then divided. To the public, and to ourselves. Diminish the pickets (LA Times: the "relentless picketing" which was one element in bringing the AMPTP back to the table); split off core groups (oh no! Carlton Cuse has gone back to work! The Showrunners are all abandoning us!); fragment the internal leadership (the Captain's meeting Friday, although generally cordial, did show signs of strain as one writer, concerned for his laid-off production team asked "What do I tell them?" to be admonished by another member that "We are on strike!"); and create a sense that our strike is useless.

The most powerful tactic in strike-breaking is propagandistic. The union (and particularly the leadership) is portrayed as power-hungry, control-seeking, strike-happy, aloof. Leadership is described as detached from the membership and inaccessible to their demands (Patric responded to over 500 e-mails over the Thanksgiving break.) The strike is described as rudderless and futile, with declining numbers on the picket lines. The creation of a Strike Rules committee is described as fascistic. The companies are portrayed as avuncular and concerned: "We're just trying to get everyone back to work."

Divide and conquer. Divide and conquer. That's the union buster's strategy.

The fact that Americans have been so down on unionism for a while now has always been something that bothered me. If you study anything about the history of labor, you quickly come to realize that there's not a single gain that came out of "management's desire to have a great relationship with its employees." Maybe in small business, where that manager is the guy in the cubicle or down the workbench from you...but we're down to six companies here -- we're down to six, or two, or one company in a lot of industries these days. And management never gives anything up willingly.

If you believe that there's an element of organized, methodical union busting to this, then that's one thing. At the same time, there's the propaganda that went out at the beginning portraying writers on the line as pampered and rich.

For the sake of the argument, let's say that's true. Okay, not true. But let's say that writers are better off than a lot of people in America.

They also make a product that most people love. That makes people's lives easier and more enjoyable.

They do it in an industry where they rub arms with stars, and in our star obsessed universe, that patina of glamor goes a long way.

And yet...the six media companies behind the AMPTP are willing to screw around and union bust these people. Because they've decided that's how they can make the most money now and in the future. It's not about fair. It's not about right. It's just business.

I'm not the first person to say this, but I will be the next:

If they're willing to burn and break the group of people who make good money, who make the product that people write obsessive fan websites about, who hang out with stars, people who have the power to get their side of the story out in articulate and clever and funny YouTube videos and message campaigns featuring the most recognized faces on earth -- if they crush THOSE people, how do you think workers in industries with NO glamour -- in Raleigh or Portsmouth, or Muncie or Ocala or El Paso or Savannah or Calgary or Red Deer or Tacoma or Scottsdale or Santa Fe are going to do when they go for a contract?

There is an industry -- marshalling the power of the internet and research and all these 21st century tools, whose job it essentially is to browbeat and defeat workers and prevent unionism -- the force that made the rise of the middle class in the 20th century possible. They've been very good at it. Unionism is at a low in America now. And many Americans have a very low opinion of unionism -- lower than it's been for years.

I know there are legitimate beefs with the union movement, and that there are horror stories out there where the union becomes an impediment to a worker. But I also know that in my experience, I've had friends that were getting screwed over who only got justice because there was a union rep helping them; and I know that my own union, the WGC, has helped me out on more than one occasion where I was having a problem.

The difference is that the big corporations ALWAYS act in their own interest. The union busting industry, and a lot of the election results over the last little while, prove that people are more malleable. You can goad them into going against their best interests.

In order to do that in this current strike, they have to demoralize, shake loose, and divide and conquer. Hasn't happened thus far. But it still might.

The middle class -- and working writers mostly count themselves in that bunch -- is disappearing. Fast. It's getting squeezed down, and down, while a smaller number of CEO's concentrate wealth at levels that make them untouchable.

This has been going on for a while now. And oh yeah, those six companies that control all your entertainment also control your news. Is it any wonder that the news that comes out about Labor, generally, isn't good?

What if this strike isn't about something trivial? What if the greatest stake to you isn't the loss of those beloved weekly visits by characters you've grown to think of as almost part of the family?

For a relatively small number of workers, this strike gets alot of coverage because it's about, and in the entertainment world. And if you want to criticise me or other people for taking notice now that it's about us, and that there's an element of solipsism to this, then fine, yes, guilty. That doesn't change the facts. It doesn't change the fact that underlying this sucker are issues of labor, intellectual property, the new economy, and compensation for work, that actually will shape the next few decades.

From Enron on down, we've seen over the last few years what happens when corporate and people's interests collide. Here's a hint: People don't win.

If they'll do this to the high profile guys, what will they do to you?

What if you had a dog in this hunt?

Because I'm starting to think that you might.

Fa-la-la-la-Q

I'LL BE ON CBC Radio's Q today talking about my embarrassing attachment to Yuletide specials.

When You Lose The Kitties and The Puppies...

IT'S JUST...over.



What, oh what, will Cute With Chris do? What about Cute With Chris?

This strike's just piling on the victims.

(Video originally posted on United Hollywood, From WGA Member and Colbert Report Writer Frank Lesser)

The Itch Reality Don't Scratch

THE NEW YORK TIMES this weekend published a thoughtful essay by Allesandra Stanley called The Classless Utopia of Reality TV. An excerpt:

Yet the more reality shows mimic fictional series in tone, look and format, the easier it is to see where they differ: class consciousness. Sitcoms and dramatic series drum up tension by assaulting social barriers. Most reality shows take them for granted and leave them untouched.

It is a distinction that will become even more obvious as reality shows multiply, partly in response to the strike of the Writers Guild. Scripted series deliver the image of the society we would like to be: racially integrated, classless, well intentioned. Reality shows are more honest, but they also breed a kind of country dysmorphic disorder: half the nation is blond, beautiful and driving sports cars through Beverly Hills, while the other half is blond, sleazily oversexed and prone to hair-pulling and name-calling.

Now I admit, reality tv has been on my mind a bit lately. But the wonderful thing about Stanley's piece is that though its main point is that social class and the conflict between them is largely absent from the genre, she makes several very provocative side points about the differences between dramatic scripted programming and reality, especially in light of the new "constructed reality" programs which are basically set up to look like dramas.

Scripted television favors myth. “Ugly Betty,” on ABC, puts a poor, plain girl (America Ferrera) from Queens deep inside the offices of a top fashion magazine and draws its humor from the class struggle between Betty and her snooty, conniving colleagues.

“The Hills” puts Lauren, an alumna of “Laguna Beach,” inside the real-life West Coast office of Teen Vogue, and draws its humor from the sleek, vacuous congruity of that world. Everybody fits in. Lauren’s tasks consist mostly of attending red-carpet premieres.

A recurring joke of the show is how the leaders of Hollywood’s young and pampered set feel oppressed by their careers. Lauren’s former friend Heidi, who works for an event planner, returns home in a white, bare-shouldered top, her blond hair impeccably blown out, and is greeted by her fiancé, Spencer. “How was your day, sweetheart?” he asks somewhat sardonically. “Long,” she replies wearily. “Tiring.”

“The OC” built its story line on the cultural collision between its underclass hero, Ryan (Benjamin McKenzie), a teenage runaway, and the affluent and gorgeous denizens of Orange County, Calif. “Gossip Girl” pits a middle-class teenager, the son of a former rock singer, against the snobbish scions of Park Avenue and the Hamptons.

“Laguna Beach” never bothered with such contrivance.

Reality shows are dramas lived out on beta-blockers; microproblems stretch over more episodes than any network drama would allow, no crimes are solved, no lives are saved, and the characters speak most eloquently when silent. Most of all they focus on mating, not social mobility.

The full article's well worth the wait. If anything, it explains well why these shows hold teenagers in such thrall nowadays. No wonder. Obsessed with mating, not concerned with any of the more adult problems, compromises, or obstacles life presents -- these shows are like Purina Teen Chow.

Interesting stuff.

Canadian TV: At Least It Won't Slay You

VINAY MENON in the Toronto Star today has an interesting take on the recent spate of stories about people in the USA getting all stabby while they watch the TeeVee.

On Thursday, a 66-year-old Seattle woman was knifed in the abdomen as she watched TV with a neighbour. According to a story in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the two "started arguing after the victim changed the channel to a religious program."

Weird. Weirder still: the dispute happened around 8:15 a.m., a time when television is overrun with cartoons, infomercials and staid morning shows. Who knew TV could trigger such antisocial aggression in the non-prime-time hours?

Maybe programs such as The Early Show should start running disclaimers: "Warning. Some viewers may find the following so spellbinding that changing the channel could result in a murderous fury."

As Seattle police spokesperson Renee Witt told the paper: "I don't know what they were originally watching. But it must have been something really good."

The attack occurred three days after an eerily similar incident in Phoenix, Ariz. Last Monday, a 13-year-old boy was seriously injured when he was stabbed (also in the abdomen) in a dispute (also over what to watch on television).

The attacker? His 12-year-old brother.

He even thinks we could tease this out, and spin it as a potential new slogan for Canadian TeeVee.

Why don't Canadians inflict physical harm on one another over a petty issue like watching TV? Do we have more perspective? Are we simply a kinder, gentler nation? Or could this national shortage of TV rage somehow be related to Canadian TV itself?

Think about it. Corner Gas (CTV, 8:30 tonight) has a loyal following. But even the most devoted Dog River groupie would not resort to homicide if he or she was suddenly deprived of Brent Butt.

Dragons' Den (CBC, 8 tonight) is airing its season finale. It's a great show, no question. But you know what? No Canadian would brandish an assault weapon if a friend or family member casually changed the channel to, say, Chuck (NBC, Citytv, 8 tonight).

I'm starting to really appreciate Canadian television. I mean, just knowing that I can walk into any bar in this city to watch The National with Peter Mansbridge and leave without bleeding to death is profoundly comforting.

The industry should really use this in its marketing campaigns: "Watch Canadian TV and nobody gets hurt."

Could have legs, whaddya think? Even the programming tends to follow this rule: the Trailer Park Boys let off guns all the time, but nobody dies.

I mean, take any Desperate Housewife -- any one of them -- but I'm looking at you, Marcia "I blew up Melrose Place" Cross -- and come on -- those gals could snap and go postal at any moment. And that Ugly Betty? Tick. Tick. Tick.

Maybe Americans are just picking up on their zeitgeist.

I like Vinay's idea. Certainly better than anything Jim Shaw's come up with. What do y'all think?