Writers, Strikes, and the Web's dissolution of Television
Internet vs. Television
I stayed up late watching a show on PBS's Nova a few weeks ago only to find out the next morning that it was on the internet for free, broken up by chapter, and accessible at my convenience. A little pissed off, yes. Surprised, no. We no longer have to be slaves to the TV. OnDemand, TiVo, and Slingbox are popular ways to unshackle yourself. Downloading is another. Watching online is yet another. This is New Media: what I want, when I want, and how I want it.
So I can get my television content on the web.
I recently connected the laptop to an LCD flat screen TV and use the TV as my monitor. I can use Picture-In-Picture to watch a basketball game in the bottom corner while I scan the web. I can split-screen to check my email while my wife watches Sex in the City reruns. So I can get the web on the television screen.
WebTV exists but, since I don't know anyone who owns it, i can assume that it has failed its purpose so far. The new trend in WebTV sales is Tupperware parties. I don't know if that will work. But knowing that Bill Gates has made it a personal goal of his to integrate TV into the web, I'm sure it will get done soon. So be ready: television is dissolving into the web. Right now it's a mess; it's a tangled takeover.
Why actors seem so cool
It is what they say just as much as it's how they say it. Crafty writers get paid to pack actors chock full of cool. I wondered, can a good actor make bad writing look good? I came up with very few instances. Actors are trapped in a badly written script. They can only do so much. But I know of numerous circumstances where good writing makes bad actors look good.
My argument, as usual, evolves/devolves into a sports metaphor. The quarterback is the writer. The wide receiver is the actor. When the QB is exceptional, the WRs look better. Think about the Brady/Moss dynamic. Some are suggesting that Randy Moss is the MVP this year. I wholeheartedly disagree. Tom Brady won three championships with nothing much in the WR department. He is exceptional. Randy Moss has always been quite skilled and, some would say, better than Brady. But Moss has no championships. Not even close. He is dependent on his QB getting him the ball. And his QBs haven't been very good. Now he has an exceptional one. So Moss looks great. But Brady never needed Moss. His Super Bowl victories were the equivilent of George Lucas making Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher superstars three times over. But Moss needs Brady. And actors need writers.
They have been starting to get more credit. The root brilliance of Seinfeld was clear to me as soon as Larry David hatched Curb; David Chase was the main figure of the final Sopranos episode, not James Gandolfini; and J.J. Abrams has had Lost fans wrapped around his finger for four seasons now. But we're going to be without the writers' services for a while.
How it affects me: Mad Men, The Office, Weeds, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Tell Me You Love Me, Family Guy, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, and The Colbert Report are all gone. Others will miss Lost, Grey's Anatomy, Friday Night Lights, Heroes, The Wire, 24, and every CSI known to man.
But look on the bright side: There's still reality television. Well, actually that could suffer too. Reality TV shows have writers on staff to mold the raw footage into storylines and character arcs. One of the central issues of this standoff is the status of these reality writers.
Work stoppages suck
...For everyone. But strikes are essential to our progress as a nation and a world. It's usually more complicated than just Big Business vs. Common Man. But if people are willing to stop getting paid and risk jeopardizing their careers for a cause, then it's probably a worthwhile cause. This particular stoppage has everything to do with the modern state of television.
The cut of DVD sales apportioned to the writer was agreed upon when Betamax, VHS, and Laserdisc were cutting edge medias. Things have changed. New Media is taking over. The writers want a stake in the bounty. They've been getting screwed on their DVD cut, but now seeing the future in New Media, they're singing: We won't get fooled again.
So as a society, we'll deal without the writers just like we would deal without any other good or service altered by a strike. And the writers will survive. But these strikes always signal change for everyone. Something has changed because these people have reached a tipping point. So strikes are like societal growing pains. These are moments when we, as a society, can mark our growth on the bedroom doorway.
This particular growth is about the internet. Its about active viewership. New Media is the baby brother who's keeping the family up at night. It's Google at the gas pump; it's disrupting the status quo. The writers are saying that it's going to be a marathon, not a sprint. So during the marathon, if I may make a suggestion, don't just watch whatever slop they're going to broadcast. Take some time and turn the TV off. Go on strike. I'll do my best. Now if I would just shut down the computer, I might get somewhere.
Good point - safety in numbers. It's a time-tested form of collaboration.
I will be tough for the two sides to reach a conclusion though. These are untreaded waters with the web and the tv and new media. There is no precedent. Ultimately, we need writers more than we think we do. It will show in the product and the networks will come to some compromise with the writers and all will be well.
Playing fields don't level themselves. The time-honored tradition of striking, the battle between the Union and the Industry, is what levels the field.
I'd say strikes are quintessentially American.
Sure the figurative ball belongs to the corporation, but what good is the ball if it's not inflated? Writers breathe life into the product at all phases of its existence. The corporate entities enter into contracts with these writers due to the necessity of sustaining and evolving the product so it continues to appeal to the market. If the ball don't bounce...well, they don't have much.
You speak of laws creating such a fair balance that unions are no longer needed in this day and age. This idea is absurd. Imagine there were no unions. Let's say I'm a writer striking out on my own, trying to sell my story to a giant in the industry. Am I, the lone writer, going to have the time and energy to learn the ins and outs of copyright and intellectual property law? No way! How would I find the time to write? Will I have enough money to hire a team of lawyers to guide me through my dealings with the corporation's legal department? Hell no. So...when eighteen esquires flock upon me with their stacks of fine print (which they assure me is only a formality), and encourage me to sign my life away on the dotted line...you'd consider that a level playing field? I think not. On the other hand, if I joined other lone writers in a union, I'd have my own team of attorneys negotiate the deal for me so I could concentrate on my craft.
This is not comparable to the industrial age when unions had a purpose and served a great need. My point is that laws level that fair balance these days as well as personal choice. To compare poor working conditions to feeling like you are not getting enough money (they are not enslaved). For instance a writer that writes for a hit sitcom is not bound to only work for that sitcom once the contract expires.
That writer can go and do anything else he wants. my point is that the writers don't have to strike - no one these days should have to strike. the unions have power now in crippling an industry. they can say give us this or find someone else, but they aren't doing that - they are saying give us this or no one can write for you.
that is like a this is my ball and i am taking it home type of mentality. yet it really isn't there ball - what they did with the ball was theirs. the ball (the show) belongs to the corporation.
first allow me to say that i am no expert on the issue...
but... as provided earlier... the industrial revolution had a major impact on the changing economic and cultural development of civilizations. Employers initially took great advantage of the skilled laborers (as most, if not all employers will do in a capitalist driven market). Economically and beneficially speaking, employees were treated unfairly and only when employees gained some sort of power (through unionizing) were they able to change that.
Tim's article is to the point. We are in an age of technological revolution that is again changing the face of the eocnomy and culture around us. Employers will again, as history will show, take advantage as best they can. A union, and in this case, a strike, will hopefully grant the employees benefits that they seemingly deserve in the face of the changing technological landscape. To say that those laborers should have seen this coming is tatamount to asking them to be fortune tellers.
When change happens, people in power take advantage of those without. Until those without can organize and level the scales.
Thanks for visiting. We welcome any and all opinions.
i disagree. what i am saying is that the creative powers or working men that be (the writers in this case) should have been focused on posessing the rights to their material to a level they are comfortable with - from the beginning.
can you give me an example of a necessary union and why that union needs to exist to benefit society?
your argument keeps focusing on and is applicable to, private companies... but the strike in question and most others are all on an industry level, where your thoughts dont hold credence.
its similar to micro vs macro economics. two fundamentally different things.
Living and growing up in a very unionized enviornment has always shown me both sides of the spectrum.
unions seem to do little more than block out competition anymore. the picket line creates a situation of a monopoly. Capitalism should solve the issues. the law should set the bar at what is acceptable. companies in the private industry all offer different incentives as to what its employees can expect when hired. the better the perks the more people want to work at the places - the better talent gets hired and the better the resultant product. that is in theory. the companies that don't offer their employees the benefits or perks satisfactory will find their top talent often leaves and therefore the company eventually suffers.
a strike fundamental principle is to put the product on hold. to create a situation where no one can offer an input besides the owner and the current working staff.
in history strikes were needed at times to facilitate working conditions that allowed for safety and honest pay. laws now take the place of what the union supplied. unions now tend to be run as collective clicks. you can't work in some industries in large markets such as major cities located in the northeast. unions in large part hinder progress in ways.
Un
anonymous - a union strike (especially when a union continues to work without an updated contract and is arguably being taken advantage of by employers) has historically proven to be not only beneficial to the union in question but society as a whole.
see here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_action
The contract expired therefore the networks or industry should be able to replace writers if they want. The writers like artists need to find ways to get their message out. Therefore if it is more like free agency then there should be open competition. there isn't there is a picket line. there is a line drawn not to cross. In the U.S. of A every job is like free agency more or less. You work until you think you can get something better.
It is not withholding it is denying. If I ever withhold sex I would accept by doing so my signifcant other may stray to fulfill the need. not my desired result but a possiblity none the less.
When you write for a network I am sure you sign your ideas over to the network. It is like inventing something at college using your university resources - your invention actually becomes the property of the instituion more often than not. without the resource your idea isn't able to be expressed. right or wrong that is the world we live in and by attending or working for such institutions you are agreeing to this "contract".
Striking is very unamerican in my opinion.
A few points:
1. The writers' contract had expired. This isn't like Terrell Owens holding out one year after signing a lucrative deal with the Eagle. It's more like free agency.
2. If you make steel, you sell it and it gets used by the company you sell it to. If you write, people can copy and reproduce your work very easily and even legally. It makes it hard to earn a living when your work finds new outlets that weren't accounted for previously.
3. Withholding product makes people realize how much they want/need it. If it's good product, it can increase value. Come on Anonymous, like you never withheld sex before?
I never understood and never will understand a strike. I understand the point to balance the field, but it seems it is kind of a cheat. like a star player holding out after signing a contract. I don't get it. The writers signed on to write and have entered into the deal knowing the potential pitfalls. If the writers want to strike or anyone wants to strike doesn't it make just as much sense for them to walk away from their jobs. A strike is a temporary hold - a limbo of sorts. Basically they are saying they are not willing to work for the conditions presented and won't let others work for them either. basically by creating the picket line any union is blocking the job and depriving the product to the masses. This puts an unfair squeeze on society. We as the masses feel the brunt. Maybe the writers should take the potential growth in how the work they contribute becomes presented and create a year to year sort of contract. Striking is so undemocratic to me. IF they don't want to work the job find another one. If the conditions are that bad no one will fill the position. IF no fills the position the big business needs to spice up the deal. if still is unattractive the "big business" completely fails.