Blogging for Context

IT'S STRANGE reading the coverage of the strike in the major news media. Strange because there is a distinct lack of "reality check" coverage. There seems to be much repeating of Producer fictions like the laughable "writers earn $200 000 on average."

I guess you couldn't expect much from Variety or the Hollywood Reporter on that score. But the longer this thing drags on, the more opportunities there are to draw attention to just how the stranglehold of corporate concentration affects the supposedly "free" media.

The 2005 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation strike was a black eye for Canada's national broadcaster, and one of the worst parts about it -- if you were management -- was seeing the parade of CBC blogs out there, getting the point of view of the raw, unfiltered opinions of the working class out there. CBC was never the savviest broadcaster in the getting out the message department, but they were caught seriously off guard by the raw opinions of their own workers in the Summer of 2005.

The WGA strike has the advantage, of course, of being about writers. The public may not know who they are, but they are the ones who can frame a story. And proceeding from the platform of blogs I've recently added to the Strike section of the sideboard, any reader can skip through the rhetoric and read up in a moment on just why this strike is going on. The more you read, the more you start to understand just how odious the Studios' position here is. I particularly love John Rogers take on it: they've gone tiger.

One of my favorite jokes, just a lovely piece of writing, is Chris Rock's bit about the time one of Siegfried and Roy's tigers mauled Roy.

"Everybody's mad at the tiger. 'That tiger went crazy!' That tiger didn't go crazy ... that tiger went tiger."

This is how I feel about corporations in general, extended to the Studios in particular. There are those who rail at the AMPTP for being profit-maximizing heartless, soul-less bastards as if that were a bad thing. It's not.

A corporation's job is to make money, and if necessary fuck you in the process. Just like a tiger's job is to eat, and if necessary kill you in the process. I'm okay with that. I like capitalism. A lot. I like tigers. A lot. That doesn't mean I trust corporations not to try to screw me and everyone next to me when negotiating. Nor would I trust a tiger not to attack me in the wild. Nor am I personally offended when they try.

All this to say that the Studios have not been negotiating in good faith, nor probably did they ever intend to. Why? They went tiger.

How Did We Get Here?

The negotiations started like this:

Writers: "We want residuals in internet downloads, let's start at a 2.5% for a negotiating point, an increase in our DVD residuals from .3% to a nominally less pathetic .6%, and a bunch of other bullshit that's on the table for negotiating purposes."

Studios: "How about ZERO PERCENT, not only of the new stuff but we also redefine existing residuals so that you won't get any of those, either? Oh yeah, and here are some other rollbacks, all financially punitive and some actually morally objectionable!"

Tiger.

Then, at the last minute, after the Guild yanked a bunch of its proposals off the table, the AMPTP made it plain that they weren't going to budge at all on the one issue driving the entire strike, the internet download issue. That they would, indeed, go tiger over it.

Rogers' full post can be read here. It's not as clean and simple as John August's version, but it is more forward looking.

When you read about strikes of old, the big ones from the early 20th century, you see a pattern emerge. In those early battles, the management's position was so indefensible, the workers' demands so basic, the overreaction to them so out-of-proportion -- that you can only marvel from our safe vantage of history and say, "man, I can't believe how unfair things were before."

Now, no one's dying in the machinery. They're not making Children work. (Well, the Olsen twins, but that turned out...um..never mind) Yes, film and TV is essentially frivolous -- but the basic issue here -- the principle of whether artists will be allowed to share proportionally in the fruits of their intellectual labors -- is a basic precept that will have implications for people who work in "knowledge industries" for years to come. This is the economy we're heading for -- not bricks and mortar, but ingenuity and brainpower.

It's about whether the only guy who gets rewarded for that is the 20 billion dollar a year CEO, or if we're going to let, you know, people buy houses and raise their kids.

I agree with Kay Reindl. I hope pretty soon we stop hearing from the Carlton Cuse's and start hearing from Joe Middleclass, who's barely making it, and who went into writing to save the world from having to suffer another schlepping lawyer.

The thing is, you won't read about him or her in the big papers or corporate media...that much is becoming clear. So seek out those alternative sources. Read the voices from the line. Guys, ramp up that storytelling.

And appreciate those few major media sources that will frame the strike in the proper context, like the Globe & Mail's John Doyle:

Sometimes a reader will contact me and ask if I could spare a few minutes to talk to a son or daughter who wants to be a journalist or writer, create a TV show or write a movie. The parent is always proud but wary of the child's ambition and seeks advice.

Usually, I give what advice I can.

I was thinking about these requests on Monday morning when it became clear that, for a start, you won't have Leno, Letterman and Jon Stewart to entertain you for a while. Maybe you'll miss 'em. Maybe you won't. Perhaps most of you are in bed by late-night, TV talk-show time. But the question is this: Should you care about the strike by the Writers Guild of America?

Yes, you should. It's about a fair deal for writers. It's about knowing that people who toil in the entertainment racket are getting a fair return for their work. It's about dollars and cents and the obligation of everyone to acknowledge the work of people you never see on TV and rarely hear about. It's about the endless battle to ensure a fair deal for those who create what we consume as art and entertainment. It about what worries parents when a child decides to write and create for a living.

According to reports on the negotiating strategies by the Writers Guild, the union's proposed increase in the amount writers would earn from DVD sales would cost the studios and broadcasters about $220-million (U.S.) over the three years of the next contract. Simultaneously, according to accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers, $24.4-billion in revenues was generated by DVD sales and rentals last year and that's just in the United States. Yes, you read that correctly - more than $24-billion.

Then there is the matter of money derived from the Internet, iPods, cellphones and all manner of other devices. You and I are watching TV material online or buying devices that allow us to watch TV here, there and everywhere. There's always an ad that comes with the show. That's revenue for some giant entertainment corporation. The writers just want a fair share of the royalty.

Almost everybody who creates something that is consumed by the public has been through this fight as technology changes the marketplace. Writers of books had to fight for compensation when it became clear that schools, universities and others were simply photocopying them. Musicians and songwriters are still fighting to ensure that the public pays for their creations instead of grabbing it, for free, from the Internet.

Apparently, during last-minute negotiations on Sunday, the Writers Guild was willing to shrink its demands for more money from DVD sales, but unwilling to move on its demand for a bigger share of revenue from the Internet and other platforms.

The Writers Guild is taking a very tough stand, and so it should. If your son or daughter, spouse or any family member was working in the entertainment business, you'd want them compensated fairly, wouldn't you? That's why you should care.

No, you won't be laughing along with Leno, Letterman and Jon Stewart for a while. This strike is no laughing matter.

Oh, one more thing. Let's not think about what impact American Democracy will suffer, now that a bunch of younger voters have lost their primary source of politial info, (which studies show actually keeps them pretty well informed.)

Ah, The Daily Show. What will we do without you?