This is not about how we were treated but rather something much larger: How a confluence of government policy and corporate strategy is literally poisoning the TV business.
It started in 1995 when the Federal Communications Commission abolished its long-standing "finsyn" rules (that's financial interest and syndication, for those unfamiliar with the term), allowing networks for the first time to own the programs they broadcast. Before that, under classic antitrust definitions, the networks had been confined to the role of broadcaster, paying a license fee to production companies for the right to broadcast programs just two times. The production companies owned all subsequent rights. In the mid-1990s there were 40 independent production companies making television shows. If a particular network didn't like a show -- as famously happened with "The Cosby Show" many years ago -- the production company could take it to another network.
But not after 1995. The abolition of the old rules set in motion an ineluctable process, one that has negatively affected every creative person I know in television. Today there are zero independent production companies making scripted television. They were all forced out of business by the networks' insistence -- following the FCC's fin-syn ruling -- on owning part or all of every program they broadcast.
The most profound change resulting from that ruling is the way networks go about the business of creating programming. Networks today exert a level of creative control unprecedented in the history of the medium. The stories my friends tell me would make me laugh if the situation weren't so self-defeating. Network executives routinely tell producers to change the color of the walls on sets; routinely decide on the proper wardrobe for actors; routinely have "tone" meetings with directors on upcoming pilots; routinely give notes on every page of a script. (When we did "thirtysomething" in the late '80s, we never received network notes.) And by the way, they have every right to do these things. As owners, they have a responsibility to satisfy themselves that their product is competitive and successful.
The problem, of course, is that these executives often have little background or qualification for making creative decisions. They are guided by market research and -- they want to believe -- a learned intuition about what the public wants. This season's new shows have been a good indicator of how successful that strategy is: Even before the current writer's strike, virtually every new show was struggling.
I actually wanted to go and quote more here but in going back over the article I had a hard time figuring out what to leave out. Herskovitz touches on a lot of interesting points: how the abolition of the "Fairness Doctrine" in 1985 killed TV news and left Americans less informed (and I think added to the generally poisonous state of American political discourse today,) why creator's rights actually do benefit people as a whole, and how the six media conglomerates are overreaching on the internet. It's very readable.
The impetus for the article is this. The new Zwick/Herskovitz series, Quarterlife, is going to MySpace and its own place on the net. That's what's interesting about this strike too. If the big congloms alienate all their talent, there may just come a time down the road where the talent does an end run against them. The coverage points to the unasailable position of the studios and nets -- how they can laugh off a shutdown of the season. Don't be so sure. That ivory tower is built on some pretty shifty mud.
13 comments:
I saw that article, and it seems like the tip of the iceberg. It's what a lot of people like Jim Henshaw, I think, have been talking about for a while in the Canadian context - if the networks don't treat you right, pony up your own money and sweat, and the Internet is your world.
Someone recently made a comment to me that we can't allow writers to be treated as wage slaves - well, I want the writers to get a piece of the profits because it seems fair, but boo hoo, welcome to capitalism. The people with the money to start the enterprise take the profit, because they believe that's their reward for taking the financial risk. Don't expect average Joe and Jill to cry for you, because for every job I have, like most people who are "wage slaves," I sign a contract that says everything I produce belongs to the company for them to reuse for all time for no additional compensation, and that's the choice I make to work in my field. That doesn't mean TV and movie writers don't deserve what they're asking for, but it means there's a limit to how much you can expect me to care when you start crying poor.
The power the networks have is scary, but as this article shows, there is an alternative if you can be a producer yourself - there's a medium that's ripe for your content.
"Today there are zero independent production companies making scripted television. They were all forced out of business by the networks' insistence -- following the FCC's fin-syn ruling -- on owning part or all of every program they broadcast."
'shiver'
Once Shaftsbury and Blueprint get bought up by someone, how many truly independent prod companies (you know, like with slates) will be left in Canada?
Nice one McGrath...I too, like Diane, saw the article as well as had saved earlier stories on 'Quarterlife', but just didn't have the wherewithall to put them all together.
But the "everybody's a wage slave" argument so I can't have too much sympathy for writers thing has a flaw in it, too.
Do you like your tv?
It's not getting made right now. Why not?
Because of the strike.
Now I think as in all strikes the natural response of most of the people is, well, I kind of hate both sides. That I get.
But at a certain point you need to relate what you love to how you get that love.
Do you have a favorite author? That's great. If they don't make money for each book they sell, they don't write those books. You lose what you love.
It doesn't matter that you make a salary and don't get paid for every piece of work you do because we're not talking about that. We're talking about how do you get what you love?
I think its entirely understandable and appropriate that the public have a limited understanding of how the artists who give them the thing they love make their money. But at the end of the day, do you feel warmer towards the people who brought you joy with HOUSE? or the people who run the big corporation that wants to pay those people as little as they possibly can - and in this case, pay nothing in a whole new medium where they're already making revenue?
If you love the thing, you owe a little of your time to listen to the case of the people who bring it to you. I think that's a reasonable position. If you don't, well, then I guess your mileage varies.
Reality and capitalism is one thing, but if writers and other people don't stand up for what their "market value," then they'll keep losing and losing and losing even more until their "market value" is horrible. That's part of the capitalism equation, the supply-side, and it's important not to forget it.
As to quality of TV, honestly I've been enjoying much more of it lately. Then again, that might be because I didn't start appreciating it until 2000, and that started a lot with Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which has the FOX brand attached to it. . .. That argument has some grounding in theory (and probably reality), but my experience feels otherwise.
I tried holding myself back on adding this bit, but I just feel too strong on this one.
In my opinion, taking away the right to negotiate terms of employment or complacently giving up hope on negotiating those terms opens one door to fascism, in my opinion. It just gives up one more element of free will to our corporate overlords.
Then again, I can also be a melodramatic idealist.
If you want to go one step further, this strike against the big media conglomerates is really an important step for society in general. The handful of media corporations that own the majority of American media own a huge share of the wealth in general. The writers, as people now in the public eye because of the work they do, have power regular "wage slaves" don't. Going against the media conglomerates is something that needs to be done. Regular joes lack the power, but because T.V. as a whole has become so important to society as a whole, it will only be so long before the American public rebel against not having new films or television show episodes to consume. The networks can only wait so long before they're hit too hard in the pocketbook. It works this way:
writers on strike = networks unable to air new episodes of shows = society rebeling against the networks by turning to alternate entertainment = networks losing lots of money - networks giving more power or rights to writers = one big corporate segment getting taken down a peg
I don't want to get philosophical or anything about it, but you talk about wage slaves and just accepting that corporations have the right to exploit their workers. Recall what the first strikes in North American history were about--by giving in to corporate America, you're taking us a few steps backwards.
we ain't just writing Matewan, we are Matewan
diane -- re: the employee analogy
I've seen this analogy a lot lately -- it's usually about engineers or programmers, and how, when they work for a big company, they have no further rights to the products they create or the code they write.
The problem with the analogy is, scriptwriters aren't employees. We're contractors. If a prodco wants to make me a fulltime employee, and give me all the benefits they extend to their employees, then maybe I'd consider it. But as it is, I'm like a private engineer who invents something, and then negotiates with a company over the final patent rights. I'm not a wage slave. I'm an independent entrepreneur.
As for feeling sorry for writers "crying poor," I don't really get this. Writers are demanding a better deal -- as is our right within a free enterprise system. How exactly should we proceed? What pressure do we have, other than withholding our labour? We're saying "No, we don't agree to that contract." And when we explain why we're fighting, how does this become "crying poor?"
nice one, Adam.
there is a key contradiction here that makes this something of a complicated issue and even I, as a writer, have a hard time deciding who is right.
"I'm a contractor" -- "I'm an independent entreprenuer"
which is counter balanced with -- I am a member of a Guild/Union
which is complicated by the reality that --
I am an independent contractor in a guild with a bunch of people who are competing with me on a daily basis for contracts.
I think the hard thing is that both Diane and Adam have valid points and the only way that one can honour them is to realize the hard truth.
and I think that is this -- "not all writers are created equal. And not all jobs writers are asked to do are of equal value".
For instance -- if I approach a producer or network with an idea for a show or series (or if they approach me with same) I expect, demand, negotiate a deal for myself that will include some of the benefits the WGA is asking for. sometimes I succeed and sometimes I am rebuked -- in each case I make the decision with what I can live with -- obviously I am harder to placate if I came up with the concept that the other way around but still I do work to get something meaningful in the "back end" instead of something painful in the back end.
to make this happen you have to assume some risk -- whether that risk is wage deferrment, extra time and non paid writing (gasp!) -- and for that you deserve as much as you can get over both the short and the long term (especially if the show was your idea or you're showrunning the thing and rewriting till your eyes bleed).
I guess I just have a hard time attaching similar value to a freelance script on a TV show. Usually you get a decent chunk of change -- write two produced "one hours" a year and you've basically blown a teacher with ten years experience out of the water -- and, really, it's only taken a couple months (if you're slow) and it is a bit a stretch to call episode 71 of "forever knight" intellectual property.
honestly, I don't want the greedhead bastards to win and I basically think writers are just about the best people in the bizz, but we are not a monolithic block of people with equal skill sets
and that is why I don't think there is a universal solution to this.
blueglow
great points. no analogy is perfect, and can often confuse the matter.
To complicate it further, the WGC isn't like most other trade unions, where membership is mandatory -- there isn't a requirement to join (as far as I know, a writer can work on IPA signatory shows and just keep getting union permits, without ever joining for good).
I guess I see the WGC primarily as a contract negotiator -- what they do is give my agent a baseline to go from, and that means I don't have to refight basic issues every time I get a new job.
I'm not sure I see the dif between the two kinds of shows one can get residuals from, though. Sure, my heart belongs to my originally created pieces -- but if a piece of shit I wrote is out there still making money, why shouldn't I get a taste of that?
This is a super discussion which informes me greatly on the nuances of a complex situation. Everyone make points that make me nod, and that make me shake my head.
I do have favourite authors, and they too are changing the way they distribute/promote their work, sometimes with, and sometimes without the 'blessing' of their publishers. More and more you can find complete novels available for your free of charge reading pleasure at author websites. (and at Publisher's sites too) In this situation it is the opposite to what the TV industry is doing--the writers are more in charge of how they distribute their work. Unfortunately, scriptwriters are not are not likely to find much of an audience for the raw words they put to paper. (Although it might be interesing to see what would happen if they started writing scripts (fresh new ones not current shows) and put them online...)
and it is a bit a stretch to call episode 71 of "forever knight" intellectual property.
My gut rebels at this statement. (But my gut ain't exactly a reasonable, logical part of my body. If it were it would keep me from over eating and help me lose weight)
Episode 71 is still the story it is because of the writer who wrote it. Yes he's building on an established set of knowns and expectations and characters and themes, but how that all comes together to create episode 71 is unique to the writer who writes it. Books in the Dune series (and others) continue to be written though Frank Hebert/their original author is gone... the authors aren't working for nothing because the original works - the original 'intellectual property'- belonged to Frank. I imagine they have a financial arrangement that compensates the Herbert's for granting permission to continue writing about Frank's universe but that doesn't negate their work in the universe of Dune being their own 'intellectual property'. At least it doesn't to me. Why shouldn't the episode 71 writer have his creation be his intellectual property? It is the commodity he offers in exchange for compensation how is it not his...at least until he is compensated for it. And in the same way an author gets a royalty for the books he writes- whether in his universe or that of another-whenever one is sold, even though through an intermediarly, a scriptwriter should, too.
AND BTW -- before I forget. Does this strike involve the folks who write the content for game shows like Jeopardy and such where writers come up with game content?
Point of information about the Dune franchise: Frank Herbert's son, Brian Herbert, has been co-author with Kevin Anderson for the post-Frank Herbert Dune books. I'm sure that helps cut down on negotiations that have to occur for the latest additions to the series.
But onward with the philosophical and technical discussion of the strike. . ..
Post a Comment