Hit The Ground At JFK...

WALK TO THE BAGGAGE carousel. A News Network is playing. I never saw which one. Might be one of those specialized feeds they do for airports. Anyway, it took about 5-7 minutes for my bag to come around. And the entire time -- the whole time I stood there -- there was one report on the TV.

It was about a stretch of I-35 in Minnesota. Seems some idiot was reading Isaiah, Chapter 35, and there's a verse that mentions some sort of Highway of Hope. And so there's a report that states -- for NEARLY EIGHT MINUTES -- "Could the prophets have anticipated Interstate 35?" They had people praying by the road, and Pat Robertson talking about it, and they made mention of the fact that that Bridge collapse was "near I35" because I guess there's a battle for the soul of the fucking road or something...

...I had been in the United States for a minute and a half, and this is the shit that's on. For nearly eight minutes.

A bit of context. In 1993, when I was a story producer, I once did a story where we explained the entire concept of THE INTERNET in four minutes.

The show was long.

So I cut it.

To Three. And that's when assholes were still calling it the Information Superhighway.

But the %#@^& Jesus Road? Eight Minutes.

Guess I better go see if I can blow off some steam around St. Mark's Place. A nice walk should do it. Golly, I sure hope there are no fornicators out tonight!

Linkslutting fa-la-la-la

WELL I'M FOR the plane right now, but I wanted to generously point you to two great reprints on Will's blog. After all the excitement of late, a little good old fashioned TV Production craft is just the mint we need.

So, then, the world of the coloured revision,

And the 80 % solution...

(A further note: Comment Moderation is on, because I've been getting a lot of charming stuff that I've had to delete lately about a certain show starring Muslims on the CBC -- and my monitoring will be spotty. This will continue only through the holidays. Be safe.)

A Working Writer

THERE'S A NEW LINK in the strike sideboard here. A Working Writer.com is where you can go to hear some short stories from working writers. Contrary to the AMPTP propaganda, these are not rich and spoiled types. Most of their names, you don't know, and probaly never will. All they are asking for is something fair -- an equitable piece of a very big pie.



Eight of the largest media conglomerates in the world walked away from the table in an orchestrated piece of theatre almost two weeks ago. They don't care about the Christmas or the crews. They care about dividing. And just like the writers who gave up their residuals so that future writers would have them, and just like the writers who struck so that they could get health coverage at a time when it was already standard in many American companies, the WGA knows from past experience that nothing will be gained unless they stand firm.


I'm going off for Christmas, lucky to have just finished a job. Lucky to not have to walk a picket line. But my thoughts will be for all those writers, and crew who are struggling through a Christmas not knowing what the future will bring.

Go to A Working Writer, and hear some of their voices. Not the voices of organizers or spinners or activists or PR flacks. Listen to the voices of the people who bring you the entertainment you love.

Then read a bit like this about how the other side continues to lie about the issues.

If I was writing this into a script, I'd be a little worried cause the bad guys seemed so...cliche bad. Unreasonably, irredeemably bad. You'd almost be tempted to invent a horrible backstory just to give some....reason.

Or maybe in the end, it really is just greed.

John Harkness -- a Big Loss To Canadian Film

THE THING I always appreciated most about John Harkness is that his name fit. Whatever the mysterious word "Harkness" meant -- is it one that you are drawn to hearken to, perhaps? Or more like Hark the film angels sing? I don't know. But it seemed like "Harkness" was a quality. And he had it in spades.

John Harkness wrote film reviews that made me laugh out loud, and some that made me toss Toronto's free alt-weekly, NOW, across the room in disgust or frustration.

Back in University days, I experimented a few times writing film reviews for the paper -- and I remember seeing him at the screenings. He was a figure of fascination. People would whisper about him.

He had a breadth and depth of knowledge and opinion that never made for a dull read. He was, in many ways, one of the last of his type. He could defend shit movies -- but the guy was not fluffy. As our culture continues to slouch toward Gethsemane, it's cruel to find that voice gone.

Michael Hollet eulogizes a great Toronto critic here. A short excerpt (the full column is really worth reading.)

He spoke as he wrote, with humour and intelligence, often trying out lines on unsuspecting fellow staffers who could be spellbound – or headlocked – listening to him, his wiseass conversational cracks refined and repeated in copy in the next day’s paper.

John’s favourite muscle was his brain, and while he could at times appear oblivious to outward appearances, his intellect was as fresh-pressed and natty as the fine Italian suits he began wearing later in life, after he became fabulously wealthy through a dot-com windfall.

But he was always what late Globe and Mail film critic Jay Scott called a “heavy metal film writer.” Often clad in threadbare film-company giveaway T-shirts with hints of yesterday’s lunch on them, he almost defied you to dismiss him, but his wit and knowledge, not just of film but of almost everything, made him impossible to ignore.

He had an astounding knowledge of pop culture, could explain the intricacies of poker or a curve ball pitch, yet also had a deep understanding of classic literature, the visual arts and the joys of watching things “blow up real good” on the screen. John’s work has appeared in every edition of NOW since we started in September 1981, and he never missed a deadline.

The Ghost of Media Christmas Parties Past

WE'RE JUST ABOUT ready to pull the plug here in Sticksville, pre-XMas, anyway. (You know the whole XMas thing? It's not crass like I thought it was. Apparently it's not 'X' in the sense of X at all -- it's Greek for "C" or something -- in the days of typesetting, they wanted one character to represent Christ. So, X.

I learned that from Bob Dylan today. Thank you, Bob, and your XM Theme Time Radio Hour.)

Anyhow, day after tomorrow I decamp to New York then Florida, but before I do -- I should shine a light on another good media biz blog I've been enjoying for a while.

Book of Don has been around. My favorite part of his blog is that he juxtaposes his copious early career journal entries with his thoughts today. That's perspective. Man, where was this kind of thing when I was thinking of getting into this ridiculous business?

Anyway, today Don posts about horrible Media Christmas parties. An excerpt:

It's that time of year again when Exec Producers describe newsrooms as "family", when unit managers drink too much cheap white wine and bore the crap out of everyone by driveling on and on about accounting software upgrades ... when freelancers scarf all the shrimps at the buffet table... and Shooters try to bed anyone they can.

Yep, it's Christmas party time. And TV parties are without doubt the worst.

Why ?

Because we spend WAY too much time crammed into dark little rooms with each other trying not to scream "YOUR STUPID IDEA IS GOING TO GET ME FIRED"...and now we're going to set all that repressed hostility aside and trade man-hugs ?

Right.

Not without copious amounts of Bushmills, we're not.

As you may have guessed I've seen my share of Good Will Gatherings. So, in the spirit of the season here are a few chestnuts-roasting type memories.


-- Christmas 1978. Calgary Sun party. Calgary.

Legendary columnist Fred Kennedy is about to retire so the publisher has a mock front page made with stories about Fred's career. The gift is blown up to 3 x 4 and we're all asked to sign it. Late in the evening someone scrawls in black marker..."I never liked you, you fat fuck. Ho Ho HACK !!".


-- Christmas 1980. SCTV party. Edmonton.

Too much Ouzo. Too much Rick Moranis. Too much Catherine O'Hara. Steal milk truck. Lose shirt. Wake up in bath tub

You can get the full post here. And hey -- you. Yeah, you, at the party. Hands off the P.A. Jesus!

Be an F.C.C. Grinch

ONE OF THE peculiar things about living in the City of Toronto is that we probably are better served by media than most places in the country. That's because we have four daily newspapers -- a rightish tab called The Sun (which rose from the death of a newspaper called The Telegram in the early 70's -- today it's owned by a company called Quebecor.) The Toronto Star is a left leaning broadsheet, and the overall circulation leader. Then there's The National Post -- which was started by right wing jailbird tycoon Conrad Black, and is now owned by Canwest. Finally, there's the good grey Globe & Mail -- which people elsewhere in the country call (sometimes rightly) "Toronto's National Newspaper."

Then there's the two alternative weeklies eye and NOW. They're big lefty, mostly.

The competition for stories, and the different focuses and political stripes of the various papers help make for a lively debate. This debate, though, is ultimately couched in the larger context of media consolidation. Two of the papers are owned by the same companies that own Canada's two private television networks.

If the current WGA strike and the last ten years have taught us anything, it's that the whole fooferal surrounding vertical integration of media is a lot of hooey. No one talks about 'synergies' anymore -- and nobody even tries to pretend it's better for us folks.

What it is better for, is the bottom line of rapacious corporate media behemoths. The same kind, loving, reasonable corporations who are currently trying to break the WGA and offer them nothing for new media.

When you reduce the number of owners of media outlets, you reduce diversity and opinion. More and more stories get ignored. It's not hard to find evidence of this -- there's plenty of links to be had if you go looking.

In my experience, I've noticed the effect of consolidation twice recently. When I had a Vancouver adventure earlier this year, I got used to the fact that the two newspapers there were owned by the same company. That's the case in a lot of cities. The coverage was bland and uninspired, very rarely straying off canned content for Arts and "feature-y" things. I've been a daily newspaper reader all my life, but after a week I dropped reading the daily paper altogether, and sucked it up to buy the Weekend paper, along with a nine dollar Sunday New York Times.

But as bad as that experience was, and as softened as it was by still being able to check all the online sources I love, the experience I get when I visit the U.S. is worse.

My parents retired to Florida a couple years ago. We lived in Florida in the 1970's. Now, when I go back, I notice that the newspapers and the tv stations are all owned by the same people. Radio in the USA is a joke -- it's all bland Clear Channel crap, or Dittohead noise. No wonder people have started diving for NPR.

It's astonishing how narrow a field of information actually gets discussed there. The paucity of thought and ideas expressed has actually noticeably started to affect the democratic process. People are ill informed. They're kept in the dark and fed bullshit. And the bottom line of the media congloms grows ever larger.

This is sounding pretty lefty, I know, and I'm sorry for that. I do try to keep an open mind. There are plenty of centre, and rightish thinkers that I admire. In Canada, you actually get to hear all of these people for yourself. You're allowed to decide.

If you're an American, now that it's coming up on Christmas and you're cutting down trees, dreaming of reindeer and songs of joys and peace, and TeeVee and media seems like a background sideshow, I'd ask you to pay attention to one more thing.

This.

The other rule, which gives owners of newspapers more leeway to buy radio and television stations in the largest cities, is a step in the direction of deregulation. It is intended to help the newspaper industry, which is suffering from dwindling advertising revenue, and to recognize that the historical conditions that gave rise to cross-ownership restrictions have changed, now that more news sources are available on the Internet and cable television.

But the change drew criticism from newspaper executives, who said it was too modest to be meaningful, and from prominent lawmakers and commission Democrats, who called it a Christmas present to the nation’s largest conglomerates.

Both rules are certain to be reviewed by courts in the coming months. On Capitol Hill, some lawmakers said Tuesday that they would try to undo the rule about the newspaper industry.

Bush's F.C.C. flunky has been trying to push through further media consolidation for a while now. Earlier this year, he was rebuffed by an outpouring of citizen outrage. No matter. He promised W. that the rules would go through and that the kinds of good, thinking citizens who run the AMPTP would get a Christmas gift -- the ability to control even more of what you read and see and hear.

The rules were successfully changed yesterday. But it's not final. There will be appeals.

I want you to think about the news in the last few years -- the bad info leading up to the Iraq war, and everything else and ask, "have you been well served by your media?"

If you think the answer's no, then before you start wrapping or playing Guitar Hero or trying to figure out what to do with weird Uncle Harry, take a second to write your congressperson.

Tell them that -- never mind changing the rules -- they should hold hearings into media concentration.

It's bad for us as citizens. It's bad for America. (It's not great for Canada, either, but we're at least not as far down the road in restricting voices.)

The Hairy Eyeball, The Grumps, and The Day The Love Died

IT ALL COMES DOWN to the hairy eyeball, my friends.

I'll admit it. I woke up this morning feeling rather shattered. I was out with The Sister last night. The Sister is quite a sensible thing, good head on her shoulders, always with the top-shelf advice. And she's not afraid to bust Brother's chops about his media promiscuity. "People keep telling me they hear you on the radio," says she, "And I say, 'about the strike?' and they say 'No. I think he was talking about Christmas specials.' And then she shakes her head.

The Sister is amazed that apparently, I will talk about anything.

The Sister has a plan and an adventure. She's always planning some adventure, is The Sister, and this one involves Europe and Paris on the New Year's and it makes us feel rather ordinary and protean.

So when we're ordinary and protean we like to fix it with a bit of the Irish. And maybe a draught. Or six. And then there's laughter and it's all well and good because we're at the place, not the place I always go but the place that's even closer -- the place that's mere steps from the digs-- where there's wireless and the food's good and they make burritos with Havarti. And the sister's spinning the tale of the time so-and-so did so and so; and then there's the cameo appearance by a cutter friend -- top chap, let's call him Rentals, fresh from some reality-tv show wrap party and that, dear readers, is when it all started to tip into the wrong. By the time the sister grabbed her cab and the Rentals stayed on, the hairy eyeball was well nigh inevitable.

So ce matin I rose and Advil'ed and did some outline work for a while and was generally a man of the grumps. And lo, the student from years gone by tipped me on Facebook to someone of similar disposition. Seems John Doyle's back, my friends. He's got the hairy eyeball too. And it's pointed squarely at yours truly.

This is good in so many ways. There were those who were starting to suggest that there was, perhaps, something a little off in my praise of the Doyle. A little bit of dressdown does wonder for my cred. It chases away those annoying whispers of logrolling, even if it does sting a bit on a heavy-lidded day such as this.

In his column today, Doyle opines on the things that make him grumpy...an excerpt of which I reproduce lovingly below:

The wussiness of the Canadian TV racket While I was away - I came back grumpy, obviously - an issue blew up. Chris Haddock, creator of Da Vinci's Inquest and Intelligence, complained - during an interview with a reporter - about CBC's lack of promotion for Intelligence. He had a point. As anyone with eyeballs can conclude, The Tudors and Little Mosque get tons of promotion while Intelligence got little.

In a response, a CBC spokeschappy took this condescending view: "We have not yet made a decision as to whether we'll continue with the show; when we do, Chris will be the first to know. That's precisely as it should be. We're happy to see Chris remains a passionate supporter of his show, which we happen to think is pretty good." Yada yada. Spokeschappy also tut-tutted about Haddock's "attempts to negotiate through the media his relationship with the CBC."

Worse, the normally sensible Denis McGrath, a TV screenwriter of some note, tut-tutted in his blog, "I'm with the CBC on one thing on this: This is not something that should be playing out in the media."

What utter nonsense. The Canadian TV racket suffers from enough don't-quote-me wussiness as it is. There is so much fear of angering some self-aggrandizing TV exec that hardly anyone speaks the truth, out loud, to the press. Intelligence is an excellent, world-class TV drama, internationally acclaimed. CBC should be proudly promoting it and is mandated, as a public broadcaster, to air what is not necessarily massively popular, but simply excellent. Haddock is right. CBC is wrong. Another TV writer going all meek and mousy on the subject is disheartening. I really hate that.

Now I've already heard from one country, a wag and wit who took issue with the concept that I'm "normally sensible" about anything -- an opinion I'm sure The Sister would agree with -- but it's the tut-tutting I take issue with. I think it's fairly clearly established at this point that I do not "tut-tut."

If anything, I bloviate.

Doyle was reacting to the rather terse entry entitled CBC to Haddock: Mommy Has Other Kids, Too. But in selectively quoting only the first part of my comment, I think Doyle missed my essential point:

Whereever you come down on the issue, I'm with the CBC on one thing on this: this is not something that should be playing out in the media. There is precious little space available in our American dominated mediasphere for stories on Canadian shows as it is. Sucking the air away for a process story about a producer's griping is a bit unseemly.

Intelligence was burned in promo this fall. And they took away the late night window repeat. And it's unfortunate that they couldn't get a bump for Season 2 by getting those DVD's of Season 1 out before the premiere -- which, after all, is exactly the thing that made 24 (a middling success in Season 1, into a monster hit for Season 2)

Point is, Intelligence was promo'd in the first season, and didn't do that well then, either.

Doyle's frustration is palpable because he gets so much regular stick and doubletalk from the CBC, and Canadian producers in general. The timidity he speaks of is a real problem. I see it myself every day. It's why I started this blog. This week's round of holiday parties has brought out, once more, the comments from people who'll whisper things to me and then say, with horror, "don't write about this on your blog." (Inevitably, it's a piece of gossip I wouldn't write about in a million years.) It's hard getting people to go on the record about things like writing "letters of support" and the real commitment to homegrown stuff at various outlets. I just think the nature of my objection to Haddock's complaining comes from a different place.

Though CBC's Cancon bonafides can't be questioned, it also has the sturm, drang, and otherworldly considerations that go with being a first class bureaucracy.

The psychology of covering the Canadian TV racket is a thorny and complex stew. Diane of Tv, Eh? described Lee Anne Goodman at CP this way in a recent entry:

"one of the few reporters to integrate Canadian television into her TV coverage as if it's not living in a ghetto"

Doyle does that too -- but he's got a slightly different cant, being a columnist and not a regular reporter. This invisible ghetto of Canadian TV coverage is a real problem. And the column space comes down to math: if we get a Haddock complains article, we don't get another article about something that's coming up. It's process over content. I don't like political stories where they cover the polls and not the issues, either.

I would submit I've probably written almost as much as Doyle trying to support Intelligence. I've been clear that I'm an unabashed fan, and that I think Haddock's kind of a genius. And in my wrapup/eulogy for the show I pointed out that even if the show's done, it's not done...

I just find it difficult to differentiate between Haddock complaining and, say, Jeff Seymour complaining. What's the difference? Besides the fact that one show is a good show, and one was a bad show, aren't these two guys doing exactly the same thing? Why is it okay for Haddock to go off at his network, if it's not okay for Seymour to go off on his network?

Haddock is a man of supreme gifts, and Intelligence was a frequently sublime show. But the audience didn't find it -- for whatever reason. Bad promo is part of that. But it's not the full story.

And another thing. Now this is the hairy eyeball talking. With all the tremendous respect Haddock has in the industry, I wish he'd use a bit more of that to build up the industry, and not just promote Haddock. He's had a famously fractious relationship with the Writers Guild of Canada, for example. And the cross-country grapevine for months has suggested that he's none too pleased with The Border, either. I keep hearing that he considers it "his territory" or "Intelligence-lite."

You know, rather than complaining about your promo, hell, why not say that? That at least is a feud that gets the name of another show in there. That's a dustup I could get behind. It might even be fun.

Anyway, dear readers, as I sat here with a warm cloth on the head, trying not to see stars, the hairy eyeball feeling came full circle. My immediate thoughts of Doyle and the Sister and how I wronged the Rentals with that last Irish are supplanted by a call from an actor of my acquaintance. He was calling about his underwear. Apparently he left underwear here during the last poker game.

I know how that sounds. No, gentle reader, I have no further information on how and why the underwear came to be left here. I can almost 100 percent vouch that there was no nudity during the poker game. We simply don't play that kind of poker. I will, however, reveal one very important, salient point in this peculiar new development:

The last poker game at my place was three weeks ago.

I search around for about five minutes, and sure enough, there's a bag with the actor's three-week-old ginch. It's been sitting there in my entry closet for three weeks.

Oh my stars. It's all too much. I'm simply shattered. It's hard to worry about a show's promo or who's tut-tutting about what when you've got three-week-old-ginch staring you in the kisser.

But the writer in me has to admit, damnit, that is one fitting end to the day of the hairy eyeball.

So to sum up:

Haddock: still a genius. Doyle: grumpy, but a good read. The Sister: Adventurous and Sensible. Rentals: Wronged. The Actor: Ginchless.

As for me -- I'm just looking to warm up the cloth. Oh, my stars.

***

EDIT: I've been told that some people (a lot) don't actually read Blogger comments, and that they don't automatically come up unless you click the permalink. For that reason, I'm appending this post because Chris Haddock left a comment below where he responds to some of the stuff I said in the post. First, let's print Haddock's comment in its entirety:

Alright, to correct some very large and unsubstantiated comments attributed to me by some apparently anonymous types: Regarding the BORDER. The Producer, Peter Raymont, and I'm sure Peter will happily verify this, when developing the show the Border, was referred to me for some insight into producing, as he'd apparently never done a drama before. I happily agreed to talk to him. When he asked me to recommend a direcotr for his pilot, I recommended John Fawcett, who he did not know. He hired John Fawcett. That may address both comments a)that i do something to aid the industry. I offer freely (that is happily and no charge) to many producers, writers, actors and directors and network execs,all of whom solicit my advice from time to time.

My simple answer to yur suggestion that I help the industry and not just promote my show is I concentrate on making the best show I can, offering dozens, indeed, hundreds of jobs to crew, actors, directors, editors, producers, the chance to play at the top of their games. But dn't take my word for it. Ask around. You can ask John Fawcett, who solicited my comments on his pilot for The Border. I gave further solicited advice to others involved in the production as well.

B)Regardin my alleged comments that I don't like the border, or call it intell lite, or the silliest of all, that I consider they walk on my turf, these are all inventions of other people, at least I hope that they are of other people and not you. So if you choose to publish these sort of rumors, please do me the proper thing and solicit my comment on these allegations. Seems only reasonable, before you start saying things that are patently untrue

)what famous fractious relationship with the wgc are you talking about? I know nothing of what you speak, and would love to know more, you apparently know a side of things to which I am not privy. Really, you gotta watch your mouth if your'e gonna repeat things other people apparently make up on the spot. I would like to know where you heard these things, because I'm bewildered by them. Finally, I did not solicit any press, I did not solicit the ex spook who wrote for the Star. I responded to journalists who call me, which by the way, is really really easy to do. Phone, dial, ask for Chris. I do not comment publicly on other Canadian shows, unless it is to help out. When I have said that we do make our fair share of crap up here, I don't cite any particular show. As far as The Border goes, I wish it well. importantly, i wish the cbc well i happen to think it is operating on less than all cylinders. I do not agree with many of your comments about various aspects of the industry, I don't agree with your comments about me just speaking out to get publicity: It says more about the lack of publicity for the show that when I do make critical comments it's interpreted that aha, I must be doing it to get publicity. I don't think setting up false competitions between producers is at all helpful to the industry. When people take shots at me or the show, I let most of them ride, it's par for the course. However, it is also part of my job, and any producer worth their salt, to defend themselves or their shows from false, invented, or misleading information which is publiclly published. There is a truth in this industry in this country, and that is, it is small, it is competitive, and full of frustrated artists who daily equivocate between speaking the truth and keepign their mouths shut so as not to offend real or imagined powerbrokers and endanger their careers. Same goes for journalists. You're right about one thing: Intelligence ain't done. and the best of luck to you dennis, i understand you are one of the writer's on The Border. I hope you have the integrity to question your sources more rigorously in the future.

Blogging is not journalism and it is first draft stuff, but in retrospect, I guess it was a little offside to publish scurrilous rumor about The Border and Haddock. There is, of course, a few thousand miles between here and the coast and a whole lot of place for rumor to get inserted in. I may not have solicited Haddock's comments, but nevertheless, there they are, unedited -- so I hope that provides the record there, answered.

Second, John Fawcett has said on many occasions very nice things about Mr. Haddock and his work. As have I. And Alan Di Fiore, his collaborator on DaVinci's inquest, has an article profile up through the Victoria Times Colonist where he praises Chris and his work. It's not actually too hard to find people that will praise Chris and his work. I praise Chris and his work, so if I didn't think before I typed, I also have real doubts that I could do a bit of damage to the guy's rep.

Of course Haddock's over a decade (if you count DaVinci and Intelligence) body of work has helped the Canadian industry and lots of craftspeople, and writers in it. His company keeps many people working in Vancouver. So I probably chose my words poorly there. I'm sorry about that.

There's a couple of other things that get tossed in there too -- from the WGC thing, which I've heard from several people and was spoken about like it was a pretty well-known thing; Chris says it's not so. He also makes reference to the article I reposted about Michael Wilson, the ex-spy who inspired Burn Notice, and the op ed he wrote for the Star praising the show. Several of my commenters suggested Haddock was behind that. I think that's bullshit, frankly, I've exchanged emails with Wilson and he's the kind of guy who says what he wants, period. But because those comments were made on this blog, even if they weren't made by me, I'm more than happy that you get to hear straight from the horse's mouth that it's bullshit.

Here's the thing about Canada: it's a pretty small place. I write what I think here, and I want people to talk about it, and I really and truly believe that stuff doesn't get talked about enough. I wrote once upon a time about Twitch City and how I didn't really like the show (upon its DVD release, tied to a review in the NYTimes; a positive review, by the way) and Don McKellar came on here to poke me a bit. Now Chris is taking his turn. I am actually delighted by this. Not because I'm some self-aggrandizing ninny, though I'm sure that can be said -- but because this kind of thing will shake loose the quiet, stale orthodoxy that underlies and holds back the industry in this country. I think I am frequently right in what I write about here, but like every other guy in the world who ever sticks their neck out, I can get it wrong. Opinion's like that -- whether you're a mid-level writer or a guy with his name above the title, and a 200 person staff. You're not gonna get it right all the time.

For where I was unfair and conjectured unwisely, I apologize to Haddock -- and you know, though I've probably just pissed off one of the bigshots in this country, a guy who does have years more experience than me and who I admire, I still don't regret it. But nor do I back away from it.

Cause agreeing with someone, even 97% of the time doesn't mean you gotta agree with them all the time. And I still don't.

But I do count myself as one of those that hopes that Jimmy Reardon gets to get his shot ass out of the doorway of the Chickadee, and that Haddock and the CBC -- however they argue, through the media or in private -- continue a creative partnership that's set a very high bar of quality and a target for everyone else to aim for.

And the rest of it? I guess I'll wear it. If you got a big mouth, you have to do that sometimes.

Hairy eyeball out.

On The Border

YES, YES, several people have gleefully emailed me about that namecheck today in the Globe. I'm working on it. In the meantime, here's a nifty article by the Toronto Star's Bruce DeMara, about the main location we used to shoot THE BORDER, which wrapped its first season last week:

It is one of life's sweet ironies that the filming of the new CBC series The Border is actually taking place at a border point.

When the ill-fated Rochester fast ferry service to Toronto came to an abrupt halt in January 2006, after less than two years of operation, the Toronto Port Authority must have wondered what to do with a new state-of-the-art $8 million building equipped to handle thousands of passengers and staffed by the Canadian Border Services Agency.

Enter White Pine Pictures, the producers of The Border, about an elite team of special agents dealing with smuggling, terrorism and other trans-border issues.

Not only is the building on the southern tip of the city's port lands functional, it's downright ideal, producers and crew say.

"This building has been a godsend, literally a godsend," said producer Brian Dennis.

While some shooting was done for the pilot at Pearson International Airport, "post-9/11, it is very tricky to pull off. It's also very, very expensive," Dennis said.

"We found this place and saw ... the customs hall and the interrogation rooms that are brand, spanking new and the jail cells. It was like manna from heaven," he added.

When the crew arrived, a huge portion of the terminal building was bare walls and ceiling, and concrete floor.

"It was a giant room with stud walls, it wasn't even drywalled. It was a total blank slate. It was great, it was a production designer's dream," said Benno Tutter, the production designer behind the cool glass-and-steel set where much of the action takes place.

The marine terminal, with its large windows overlooking Toronto's harbour and waterfront, actually presented an opportunity to use the existing natural light instead of artificial studio lighting, said director of photography Gavin Smith.

"We don't try to hide the fact in any way that this is Toronto. In fact, we embrace it completely," Smith said. The city's striking waterfront skyline is also used frequently and prominently in many of the show's scenes, he added.

The terminal building has also proven to be versatile and adaptable, with numerous temporary "swing sets" constructed on-site that have seen parts of it transformed into a hospital, an apartment space, a swanky hotel room, a state room on an aging ocean liner and a professor's office.

Dennis said outdoor customs booths at the site have substituted for Vancouver's port and a massive cargo container at an adjoining shipping business has served as the setting for an episode regarding smuggled illegal aliens.

The nearby Leslie Street Spit temporarily became a Sudanese village and a ship, Algobay, berthed in the harbour and long since departed, served as another handy location.

Raitt said the authority has developed a "great working relationship" with the production team, especially deputy harbour master Mike Riehl, who maintains an office in the building and is affectionately known to cast and crew as Spike.

"It's really been a nice working environment," Dennis said.

The Border premieres on CBC January 7 at 9pm.

One I Missed

THERE HAVE BEEN issues that came up in comments about the strike here and whatnot that I haven't really done that great a job of esplaining. The Huffington Post has.

Alexander Pope's warning is sage, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." Indeed, people with limited information often think themselves expert, and it's that crevice where they fall into trouble.

Most outside observers drop into this hole. Unfortunately, the issues in this negotiation are intricate and arcane. One word can make a universe of difference. (Truly. Remember those infamous six ultimatums by the AMPTP? The only demand they care about -- the sixth one they never mention -- is that writers change "distributor's" gross to "producer's." Distributor's gross is money. Producer's gross is words. Few "experts" are remotely aware of this one-word, essential point.)

Articles with "little knowledge" are everywhere. One example for all must suffice. In a recent Huffington blog, producer Ron Galloway irresponsibly chastises the WGA for introducing reality and animation into the negotiations. It seems informed. In fact -- fact -- reality and animation were in the WGA proposal since before the strike was called! (Moreover, they aren't even strike issues. The WGA will never strike over these.) Either Mr. Galloway knows these issues have always been on the table, and he was being deceptive. Or he didn't know, in which case he has no business commenting.

In truth, most people not in the WGA or an AMPTP negotiator have little business commenting. Writers themselves are barely-near comprehension after walking for weeks with thousands of fellow-professionals debating their own livelihood. If it's hard for writers with all that, imagine how almost-impossible for others.

And so, they misunderstand. The best fortunately go to many sources and touch the surface well. The worst let themselves be dupes. And the public gets hit with misunderstanding.

If you read the full article, you'll misunderstand less. You're welcome.

Canvassing the Readership

IT'S NOT MUCH to look at. But it's comfortable. It's a couch, and it's in my retired parents' place in Florida. It's where, after an exhausting and exhilirating year, I will be spending a good portion of next week, after a quick little jag down to New York for the weekend.

The aim for the week on the couch (and outside in the yard, in shorts, yes...shorts) is 3 books. I've got two chosen already. I'm going to get through the Peanuts and Schulz biography. And I'm finally going to read Bob Dylan's Chronicles. I have room for one more -- a fiction. I've got about twelve candidates stacked up on my table. But you know, the more the merrier.

Leave your suggestions in the comments below.

I'm also looking for suggestions on reprint posts. If you've been reading the blog awhile, and you can remember a post you'd like to see again, let me know about that, too.

Oh, and last night I stumbled upon my second Rent-A-Goalie. I think it re-airs on Showcase sometime this week. And somewhere on a Citytv station near you, there should be a repeat of Episode 4 of Across The River To Motor City. I meant to write about that one before it aired. Oh, and are we up to my eps of Blood Ties on City yet?

Man, things get away from you at this time of year.

The Clarity Moment

IT'S FUNNY JUST how different a TV series is from a movie. I'm starting to think I understand why TV evolved toward the writer-showrunner model, while writers on features continue to be tossed overboard almost on whim.

With a feature, you're all moving toward one product. The script is chunking, chunking along toward that inevitable start date or greenlight. If you've got a greenlight, it has way more to do with actor or director availability than with that document; the temptation to keep turning over, piling on writers and sucking what you can out of them would be unavoidable, I think.

On the other hand, on TV, adding more writers on top of each other doesn't help. Because you're not rushing headlong to that one story. You're instead building a system of parameters. A storytelling engine from which multiple stories can spring -- stories that seem enough alike that it feels like the same show, but not so alike that it seems repetitve. Oh, and you have to be economical, too. You can't just throw money at the problem like you can in a big budget movie.

In those early days, behind the scenes there's a ticking clock that has nothing to do with what's in the scripts. This ticking clock boils down to, "can we figure out this template and get scripts moving out there before production realities start bearing down on you?" If you can, you win. You've broken the back of the series. If you can't, you flail. And everyone who watches your first few episodes will know you're flailing.

Bionic Woman, this fall? Definite flailer. Flailer shows can find themselves in the room - it's not necessarily a death sentence. Smallville had a rough start, with a bunch of eps that were only kryptonite monster of the week eps that quickly became the law of diminishing returns. But by midway through their first season, they'd righted their ship and found the way to get to six seasons (and counting.)

One of the knocks you often hear about Canadian shows (or if not a knock, then a lament...) is "too bad. It got good around Ep 8." When you're doing a 13 episode order, of course, and your promo, anemic as it is, is all front-loaded, that's frequently too little too late. But it's also true. I remember being amazed to tune in a later episode of Eleventh Hour (a CTV drama from a few years back) and being amazed that it was a pretty good story. I'd long since stopped watching it. I watched an ep of Da Kink in My Hair last week, and thought the same thing.

The thing that separates shows that find their way fast from ones that find their way too late -- or not at all, I think, is when they have what I call, "The Clarity Moment."

It comes on in different ways, and through different routes -- but the funny thing about the clarity moment is that you all recognize it. All the writers light up and go, "Yes! Yes! That's the show." It's the moment when flipping through the bible stops and where the most important blueprint for the show is no longer the pilot -- but instead is something living, breathing, and hanging in the air of the writers room. And the reason why you know you're there is -- everybody gets it.

Well, I don't know if everyone's come on side yet -- but I think the 2007 WGA Strike may have just reached a clarity moment.

From the New York Times:

Letterman Seeks Deal With Writers’ Union

By BILL CARTER and MICHAEL CIEPLY
Published: December 16, 2007
In what may be the first break in the entertainment writers’ strike, David Letterman is pursuing a deal with the Writers Guild of America that would allow his late-night show on CBS to return to the air in early January with the usual complement of material from his writers, even if the strike is still continuing.

Executives from Mr. Letterman’s production company said Saturday that they were hopeful they would have an interim agreement in place with the guild as early as this week. That could potentially put Mr. Letterman at an enormous advantage over most of his late-night colleagues.

Jon Stewart of “The Daily Show” on Comedy Central has also been urging an interim agreement and would begin working toward getting one in place on Monday morning, according to a representative. But Mr. Letterman is in a stronger position because, unlike Mr. Stewart, his show is not owned by the network but by Mr. Letterman’s independent production company, Worldwide Pants Incorporated. (So is the show that follows it on CBS, “The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson,” which would return with writers under the proposed interim agreement.) The news of Mr. Letterman’s potential deal came at the same time the WGA took a new tack that could potentially throw the negotiations into procedural chaos. The writers’ representatives said they planned on Monday to exercise a legal right to insist that the major studios and network production companies bargain with the guild individually rather than as a group.

In a letter sent to members on Saturday, negotiators for the Writers Guild of America East and the Writers Guild of America West said: “Each signatory employer is required to bargain with us individually if we make a legal demand that it do so. We will make this demand on Monday.”

The writers’ move was aimed at breaking what has been, at least in public, a united front by a small number of media conglomerates — General Electric, News Corporation, Sony, Time Warner, The Walt Disney Company, Viacom and CBS — whose entertainment units dominate the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, an industry bargaining group.

What's fascinating about this is that this will give CBS a huge advantage. Supposedly all the late night shows are going to come back in the New Year anyway. But CBS will have writers. Letterman might just have the chance to prove, as he has at many times in the past, that he's relevant again.

I watched a Letterman rerun for five minutes the other night and mused how much I really miss my late-night TeeVee wind down. Sure, I've hewed closer to Stewart in the last little while, but if Letterman were back on the air, I'd definitely watch.

Which should make CBS happy, right? They've got the edge.

Um. Well, no.

Let's pick up the tale from Nikki Finke, who reports how CBS responded with this statement on Saturday:

Regarding David Letterman's company, Worldwide Pants, seeking an interim agreement with the WGA: We respect the intent of Worldwide Pants to serve the interests of its independent production company and its employees by seeking this interim agreement with the WGA. However, this development should not confuse the fact that CBS remains unified with the AMPTP, and committed to working with the member companies to reach a fair and reasonable agreement with the WGA that positions everyone in our industry for success in a rapidly changing marketplace."

So a network will go against something that actually benefits them? Wait a minute, what's going on here? Aren't these guys competitors?

Well, yes and no. And that's where this further DHD story gets really interesting. By moving to ask each company to negotiate individually, the WGA is helping to make the case that the big media companies who make up the AMPTP are colluding.

Ford, Chrysler and GM don't bargain as one against the UAW. So why should competitors, supposedly with different goals (some have TV networks, some have none) and businesses that are way more healthy than the auto business, be allowed to do this?

Time was, of course, the AMPTP did represent 350 or so different kinds of producing entities, including a lot of independent production companies. When you get above a certain number of players, collusion is impossible -- there's just too many variables.

The reason that there aren't all those companies in the AMPTP anymore is that the big studios lobbied Washington hard to change something called the fin-syn rules. Used to be that a network couldn't produce the shows it aired. By changing the rule in the companies' favor, it meant that their businesses became way more profitable, and led to the disappearance of most of the independent companies that used to be in the AMPTP. In essence, it created a climate where collusion was possible.

And now we see it on its face: a network that releases a statement against a situation that will benefit them and cause them to make more money than their (supposed) competitors.

Now, look at the new tack from the AMPTP.

If you track down to the end of that letter, you'll see the signatures of eight CEOs.

Eight.

They're not even bothering anymore to keep up the fiction that the AMPTP is an umbrella organization representing anything other than the biggest of huge media.

That, to me, is the clarity moment. While the FCC head tries to ram through further media consolidation, Americans, it's time to realize that maybe your congressional representatives should look into this.

The strike's not good for you -- you don't get to see decent shows you like. Even when they want to come back, the network says: doesn't matter. Not if we don't get the deal me and my other billionaire CEO's want.

Media consolidation isn't good for you -- you get your news from these same companies. They pay lobbyists to stack the deck for them. This is not good for democracy. And it's certainly not a climate where anybody should be seeking a labor deal.

The AMPTP has shamelessly engineered walkouts at the table, and has haplessly spent way more time trying to defend its indefensible position than actually bargain.

Americans, fans, it's time to write your congressperson. How hilarious would that be? If House and The Office and Letterman and Buffy and Trek and Desperate Housewives actually helped politicize people? This is more important than pencils. More important than entertainment.

Alex at Complications Ensue has sample letters and links to where you can send them.

It's time for clarity. Time to write that letter.

Other links on the same subject: United Hollywood's take; Elisberg in the Huffington Post