First Leno and O’Brien. Now Stewart and Colbert. The late-night humorists have decided to cross the writers guild picket lines and resume their broadcasts. Maybe they’ll pick up some non-union writing help along the way?
This is a shameful decision that is particularly appalling in the case of Stewart, who has become rich and famous because of support from Democrats. He should support the workers on strike, not give them a swift Christmas kick in the nuts.
It is said that one’s true character comes out in times of crisis. Is Stewart really a country club Republican underneath his Democratic persona? Oh Jon, say it ain’t so. Have some respect for yourself, man. Think of your future. You must have millions in the bank. Stay home with your wife and kids, enjoy the holidays, and let the corporations sweat until they settle with their writers.
Unless and until the writers personally pay EVERY SINGLE PERSON that is put out of work by their strike– not every employee of these shows is a writer (cameramen, directors, makeup, props, et.)– 100% of their wages lost on account of the writer’s strike, they have zero right to complaint about this.
<
p>Stewart et al. are going back on the air, sans writers, which is kinda risky, professionally, so that the rest of the working stiffs that work on those shows don’t have to collect unemployment at Christmas.
<
p>This is not unlike the major league baseball players union, that pissed and moaned about solidarity for the working man while MLB considered replacement players, and then decided to screw the umpires by immediately playing with replacement umps.
<
p>This union, like every other, could care less about solidarity. They want more, everyone else can starve.
<
p>Stewart, Colbert, Coan, Leno and others have been paying all of these people from their own pocket so far. They’re not so rich that they can do that for long. Kudos to them for being willing to go out and do their shows naked so that the rest of the staff doesn’t have to suffer a prolonged layoff.
This isn’t a “we’re starving and freezing” strike, this is a “hey, we want a bigger piece of the online streaming video/new media pie” strike.
<
p>Of course, the Democratic candidates are mindlessly supporting it because, hey! it’s a union! The only constructive 2008 runner activity was Rudy, offering to help mediate (which is something he’s got a lot of experience with, legitimately)
<
p>I think Michael Eisner (who writes a lot of checks to democrats) said it best: “I’ve seen stupid strikes, I’ve seen less stupid strikes, and this strike is just a stupid strike.”
The writers simply want to be compensated for the online media they create in the way way they are compensated for the tv media. An increasing number of “tv” shows written are now written for the web, and that’s the way the world is going. So why is this an unreasonable request?
missed one?
This is actually a very, very important strike – and the writers not only deserve to win, but they really have to at this point. It speaks to greater movements – labor as well as the media. Furthermore, writers deserve a bigger piece of that pie, as you put it. It’s not like most of them are especially wealthy, even a lot fairly successful ones. They may not all be “starving and freezing” as you put it, but they surely aren’t being compensated in a fair and proportional way compared to the networks and even some of the actors. And they’re right to demand they be compensated as they should when it comes to new media because while there may not be a whole ton of profits in it now, that’s going to change rapidly.
The new media is considered “residual”, and isn’t part of the compensating equation for writers. However, if you were writing for a show that airs exclusively on streaming on the web or could like be bought on iTunes, then they would be entitled to it.
<
p>What do I think is going to actually happen? Well the WGA wants 2.5% of the gross profits from new media. This, I think is never going to happen, and their BATNA is somewhere closer to .5-1.5%, which is where you’d see it settle when they come to an agreement. The other possibility is a per-showing rate like with DVDs. As far as increasing the rate per DVD, although the amount they want is negligible considering profit margins on DVDs, you probably won’t see a rate increase because of the decline in home DVD sales in lieu of new media.
They want 8 CENTS per DVD sold (you know, those $20 DVDs). That’s a fair compensation rate.
<
p>They want some compensation when viewers choose to download or watch episodes online… episodes that have commercials in them.
<
p>JoeTS, you should at the very least read this explanation of why they strike.
before they went on strike.
That doesn’t meant it was an unfair proposal, it MEANS they were willing to compromise and meet the execs halfway, which was NOT reciprocated. Now, the execs are facing this long strike.
<
p>I believe that there will be no writers working the humor shows coming back on, if I heard correctly on the radio. In other words, the shows will be of rather poorer quality.
<
p>I also recall that the humorists like Letterman, etc, and john and Steve, are supportive of the writers’ strike – they aren’t strike busting, but going back on the air half-winded as it were. I suspect it will HELP the writers, as we’ll get a chance to see EXACTLY how important they are to shows like that.
When the MLBPA went on strike, there was a downturn in attendance, resulting in tough times on those who sell lemon chills, park cars, and clean the seats. To ignore that jobs are interdependent in all other cases but highlighting them in this case doesn’t make much sense to me.
<
p>I don’t blame the writers for the setmakers unemployment any more or less than I blame the studios. Loosely speaking, The studios, like every other business, could care less about employees. They want more, everyone else can starve. It’s not really much different, now is it?
<
p>I don’t begrudge the studios for trying to pay as little to the writers [or anyone else] as they can get away with. I don’t begrudge the writers [or anyone else] for trying to get as much pay as they can get away with. It’s an essential part of a market based system. To call one side greedy and ignore that it’s as much about greed for both sides just shows a general bias in my opinion.
is that all the other crafts have their own unions that the writers would and have supported when they go on strike. Stewart and Colbert are going back to work for one reason only…their own money. Letterman is negotiating his own deal with the unions so his show could go back on air, and Colbert and Stewart could do the same.
<
p>As much as I love the two shows I will not be watching during the strike and will encourage boycotts by guests and advertisers unless the have a contract with writers.
He owns his own production company and the rights to his show and subsequently is in a position to negotiate independently.
<
p>Stewart and Colbert do not have sole ownership of their programs.
<
p>I don’t necessarily like the fact that they are going back, but I’m with CMassDad….there are other people to think about here than just the writers.
One day perhaps your career too will be on the line, and you will get to make a choice while we all watch and tell you what you should have done.
These guys made a commitment to the WGA and are now backing out lest they look like assholes for what they have done to the non-WGA workers. They thought they could painlessly support the union, and when they found out they couldn’t, they caved.
For the reasons mentioned in the other comments, along with the fact that even the WGA hasn’t criticized Leno, O’Brien, etc. for going back on air.
<
p>This might even further the union’s strategy if it turns out that the shows suck without the writers, as is likely.
I agree with you in the general sense in that I support the Writer’s Guild, but I think you are looking at the effects the hosts going on the air will have in the wrong way.
<
p>However, I think you are misunderstanding what having the late night hosts back on the air will mean. During the 1988 strike, the hosts where on the air every night arguing for the writers in front of millions of people.
<
p>”We have nothing to do, the writers aren’t here,” he intoned at the opening of one show. “So a guy’s gonna come in and shave me. Fifty-five minutes, ladies and gentlemen! Fifty-five minutes to go!”
-Letterman during the strike
<
p>Some have argued that the WGA leadership actually WANTS the hosts on the air. There are more ways to support a union than holding a picket sign. As for hiring non-union writers, the hosts were all writers themselves, I heavily doubt they will betray their friends and coworkers no matter how snarkily you imply they will.
<
p>Finally, Jon Stewart has become rich and famous because he is talented, not because of the support from Democrats. That is a ridiculous assertion. I watch The Daily Show because I enjoy it, not because I get e-mails from Moveon.org telling me to. Jon Stewart owes nothing to the Democratic party or to Democratic ideas. He owes his fans, his crew, and yes, his writers. I think in it is to them that he will remain loyal.
First, at least in the case of Conan and Leno, they aren’t bringing non-union writers. They’ve said they won’t have writers publicly and I’d hold them to it. As long as they don’t bring on non-union writers, I don’t really view it as “crossing the picket line,” but I guess that’s just my own opinion. More importantly, I agree with the sentiment that having the late night shows on the air without writers (so they’ll suck) will be as much incentive as any to get the writers back.
<
p>Second, I have to agree with some of the other general points on this thread. I expect Conan and Stewart to be arguing for the writers even on their very own show. Furthermore, as others have said, they don’t own the rights to their own shows, so they can’t do what Letterman did. Another point to consider is that new episodes of Letterman will trump bad ones from Leno big time, so that’s only more incentive to bring back the writers for NBC.
<
p>I hope they bring back the writers soon. TV is majorly sucking right now, one of my favorite shows (Heroes) lost essentially half a season and skipped so many plot points to get to the season finale that it was almost a train wreck… and a lot of really good shows will probably die off if they don’t do something soon. You simply can’t have a show off the air for a year or two and expect the same audience to come back. Most importantly, the writer demands are reasonable. All that said, blaming people like Stewart, Colbert and Conan on this strike or as exacerbating it isn’t rational, or helpful. Blame it on NBC, CBS and the like, not people that have supported (and been) writers in the past.
out of his own pocket. This according to an NPR interview yesterday. See http://www.npr.org/templates/s…
<
p>Mark
Oh, where to begin.
<
p>First, Stewart and Colbert (and Leno and Conan and Kimmel) didn’t “decide” anything. They’re covered under a WGA contract for writing but under an AFTRA contract for performing and there’s a specific clause in the AFTRA contract that requires them to perform non-writing duties in the case of a strike. They held out as long as they could; the studios are playing their trump card. So maybe Stewart has millions in the bank… and one lawsuit, which he would lose because he’s clearly in breach of contract, would wipe out those millions because the network will successfully be able to argue that they lost millions when he refused to host.
<
p>Second, they’re not crossing picket lines. The WGA is fully aware of the AFTRA clause, or they’d be crucifying Stewart and Colbert themselves.
<
p>Third, I think you’re going to find that watching Stewart and Colbert try to fill 22 minutes of airtime without a writing staff to help is going to be a stunningly good argument in favor of the writers.
They are going back to save the jobs of everyone connected with the show who is not working due to the strike and is not on strike. These people who are not in the WGA are not getting cheques from the WGA Strike Fund and were getting paid full wages out of the pockets of Stewart, Leno, and Conan who should be given a lot of props for paying their workers out of their own pockets when they didnt have to. Stewart is not a country club Republican, a Republican would not pay his workers when they were not working due to a strike and that is plain and simple. He is a millionaire but I am sure the burden of paying all the non writer workers connected with the Daily Show himself is becoming too great even for someone with his level of financial success and their going back to work to pay those people.
<
p>Also if anything it will help the writers cause because it will show viewers how much these shows will suck without their creative input. I am pretty sure Jay Leno writing his own jokes will not be funny, especially considering how he tends to be unfunny when he has written material. The Daily Show and Colbert will not be nearly as edgy, and they might not even be able to get guests who will not want to cross that line either, especially actors. Its a selfless rather than a selfish decision on their part Bob.
Happy residual holidays to you!
<
p>
<
p>Video has the eff word, beware, but is very funny.
Maybe the people who think shows that suck and hosts that stick it to the corporations that sign their checks will help the writers, but I doubt it. Time will tell.
<
p>I guess we all agree we’d like the strike to be over.
One, writers can be replaced, and the longer the strike goes on, the more likely that they will be. As far as I can tell, this strike is an economic strike, which means that under federal labor laws they can be replaced. That’s different than an “unfair labor practice” strike.
<
p>Two, the longer that the strike goes on without replacement writers, the more that the “talent”–the people who are actually on the screen–run the risk that people will change their viewing habits. One will sit for re-runs for topical products (Leno, Letterman, Stewart, Colbert) only so long before moving on to Netflix or Blockbuster.
<
p>Going up a bit to joeltpatterson @ Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 08:25:40 AM EST
<
p>Writers Get Paid NOTHING For Online Viewings, with Ads In Them
<
p>Um, maybe. I’ve watched episodes on line. The ads are typically 30 seconds each, and there aren’t many of them. As far as I can tell, the ads would barely cover the cost of the servers and internet connections. Also, as far as I can tell, the on-line viewing is little more than an advertisement for the broadcast–it isn’t actually all that reliable.
Raj, you are probably correct in arguing that streaming video isn’t making a lot of money right now. However, the number of people watching episodes online is increasing while the number of people watching on TV is decreasing. The writers need to set a precedent for getting a share of online revenue so that once everything is done via the internet future generations of writers won’t be excluded.
<
p>I really don’t understand the argument that complete episodes online should be considered advertising. If I watch an episode online I am probably less likely to watch the actual broadcast. Wouldn’t that make it the opposite of an advertisement?
<
p>…and I don’t have a “dog” in this fight.. If the writers believe that they deserve more money for their efforss whether or not it be based on DVD sales and on-line streaming, I sincerely don’t care. They can argue for whatever they believe they can get.
<
p>I actually do not know what business model the writers or peformers follow–whether they are employees or independent contractors–so I cannot comment with knowledge on the issue. If they are independent contractors, it seems to me that they can negotiate their own deals with the production companies. I don’t know how old you are, but at least in the 1960s there were barbers “unions” that were essentially conglomerations of independent barber shops; that struck me as being an anti-trust violation (section 2 of the Sherman Act).
<
p>It strikes me, though, that writers get paid to write, so their arguing that they are entitlted to more pay based on DVD sales or online streaming for things that they have already been paid for writing may have merit, or it may not.
<
p>On the other hand, what is likely to come to pass is that, as the writers’ strike goes on, more and more people will change their viewing habits. The writers will have shot themselves in their proverbial collective foot.