Television and Strikes
I've talked to a few friends and neighbors about the writer's strike and found even very liberal people wishing it was over for a very trivial reason: they simply want their shows back on tv. People feel entitled to it. And besides, we're not talking about poor factory workers--these are bigshot writers.
As someone who makes their living through media (as a freelancer) I'm directly affected and deeply concerned by the lack of value media companies have placed on content as they switch over to "new media." This strike is important and their demands are not outrageous.
I've heard people say that they needed to go back on the air to save the shows so they would be there when the strike is over. This is a kind of circular argument. Of course the shows are in trouble--it's the point. One could just as easily point out that shows can't exist without writers (strikes exist to make this painfully clear to those at the top). As for the argument that the dispute doesn't affect these shows--it does. They're part of a union.
Another defense is that this is primary season and not a good time for these shows (Colbert and Stewart) to be off the air. That others would have soon lost their jobs. And that, you know, it's been a while, and they made their point. The point of a strike--the last resort unions have for leverage--is to put pressure on employers. You want them to be inconvenienced. If you're successful, you can get them to negotiate in good faith.
The fact that a lot of this kind of language seems like outdated griping and we should all go along and get along is really a testament to how much unions achieved in the first part of the 20th century. The level of comfort we've attained in our work week and labor conditions were not the result of asking nicely.
I don't even watch their shows regularly, but I tuned in the other night and found them doing some humor about the strike and being very ironic and showing some reluctance about being on the air. It made me feel a little uneasy. As we joked in our press release, they can't be let off simply because they are funny and we like their show. I agree with Rall's point here:
There are numerous shades of gray that can be applied to how difficult there decision was, but when it comes down to it, I see it like this: they are WGA members, there was no deal for them to go back on air and they clearly have written material. Therefore, they should not be back on the air. They should be out on the sidewalk.
I'm getting very polarized reactions to my comic already. Some very supportive and amused, some very unhappy comedy central fans. I'll probably do a post about some of the reactions in the next two days.
As someone who makes their living through media (as a freelancer) I'm directly affected and deeply concerned by the lack of value media companies have placed on content as they switch over to "new media." This strike is important and their demands are not outrageous.
I've heard people say that they needed to go back on the air to save the shows so they would be there when the strike is over. This is a kind of circular argument. Of course the shows are in trouble--it's the point. One could just as easily point out that shows can't exist without writers (strikes exist to make this painfully clear to those at the top). As for the argument that the dispute doesn't affect these shows--it does. They're part of a union.
Another defense is that this is primary season and not a good time for these shows (Colbert and Stewart) to be off the air. That others would have soon lost their jobs. And that, you know, it's been a while, and they made their point. The point of a strike--the last resort unions have for leverage--is to put pressure on employers. You want them to be inconvenienced. If you're successful, you can get them to negotiate in good faith.
The fact that a lot of this kind of language seems like outdated griping and we should all go along and get along is really a testament to how much unions achieved in the first part of the 20th century. The level of comfort we've attained in our work week and labor conditions were not the result of asking nicely.
I don't even watch their shows regularly, but I tuned in the other night and found them doing some humor about the strike and being very ironic and showing some reluctance about being on the air. It made me feel a little uneasy. As we joked in our press release, they can't be let off simply because they are funny and we like their show. I agree with Rall's point here:
2. They're talking a lot on the air about unionism and the strike. While that's very meta, it doesn't wash. The best way to make sure the corporate bosses feel the pinch would have been to stay off the air.What if all the shows are "forced" back on the air, like Colbert and Stewart, or deals are made with them all? Where would this strike be? No one said it was going to be easy.
There are numerous shades of gray that can be applied to how difficult there decision was, but when it comes down to it, I see it like this: they are WGA members, there was no deal for them to go back on air and they clearly have written material. Therefore, they should not be back on the air. They should be out on the sidewalk.
I'm getting very polarized reactions to my comic already. Some very supportive and amused, some very unhappy comedy central fans. I'll probably do a post about some of the reactions in the next two days.
posted by Matt Bors at
2:26 PM
6 Comments:
Granted, I don't watch many television (the only show I watch is "South Park" and they don't use unionized writers, so the strike won't affect production), but you worded it nicely about the lack of value media companies have placed "new media," especially since I'm one of those weirdos who wants to someday make a name in the media itself.
Make sure you are good at poker or betting on stocks, Chalres. The future is grim!
Hear hear.
Everyone's conveniently decided to forget that seventy-five years ago workers of all stripes got shat on with appalling regularity.
If Viacom and Comedy Central could get away with paying its writers pennies per show, they would. It's that simple.
All you assholes griping about how inconvenient it is you can't watch mind numbing dreck like Lost are asinine idiots. You're able to gripe about not being able to watch shows in your leisure time BECAUSE YEARS AGO SOMEONE WHO DIDN'T HAVE JACK SHIT FOUGHT AND STARVED TO GET YOU YOUR PRECIOUS LEISURE TIME.
Christ.
And you're the same myopic assholes who're too apathetic to get off your asses and unionize, which is why your pay sucks and your health benefits look like an industrial toilet in China. It's all stuff you could get, if you weren't too lazy to organize and take some short-term discomfort for long-term gain.
If you're pissed about the Colbert/Stewart scab comparison, and claim they had it oh-so-frickin-hard in deciding to go back on the air, go to listen to some Utah Phillips.
Stewart and Colbert were not between a rock and a hard place. They were between a, "But I'm just starting to get popular and I make a lot of money now and gosh I might lose a little of that," place, which isn't hard, but it sure as hell is comfortable.
Anyhow as Bors pointed out, they're satirists. It's not like they're newbies to criticism.
I think you guys are overreacting. These guys aren't giving a display that suggests that unions have outlived their usefulness (or that they didn't effect modern labor conditions).
I don't know much about Colbert but he did do a show in December, the proceeds from which went to staffers. The guy's got a devoted fanbase that clamored for him to return and he did.
I know Stewart was a big force for unionization. He supported and still supports the strike and his changed the name of the show out of respect for those on strike (if that matters too much, I can't say). People said he paid his writers, and he didn't. So, people jumped to the conclusion that he paid the producers. Wrong again. One of his writers, Rob Kutner, explains:
"It's not exactly correct -- Jon is paying the salary of his production staff. So, basically everyone but us, which is not, you know, in any way a malicious thing but just, you know, we chose to strike and the other people didn't, so, you know Jon has been very concerned all along with the people who are going to get caught in the middle. So that's what that was, actually."
If I were you, I'd hold off the criticism until you get a bigger picture of the situation that the WGA strike has caused. In your line of work, not unlike those of the men you and Mr. Rall currently attack, you look for good targets and moments for satirizing. Perhaps you were a bit rash here.
Nonetheless--your work has been greatly entertaining and often eye-opening since I caught hold of it. I don't intend to be an immature bitch who ups-and-leaves just because one incident rubs me the wrong way.
*Wrong again = not entirely true. My bad.
There shouldn't be a free pass for Colbert, Leno (what side agreement...Letterman got one, when did Leno?), O'Brien, Maher, Stewart, they're scabs.
What I've found interesting among liberals and progressives is this hands off approach to Stewart and Colbert. Like they are some kind of gods. They made a mistake by going back on the air. It was their choice. And it's long over do for liberal bloggers to start freaking talking about it!
So, let me just say thanks. You and Rall, totally rock for taking them to task.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home