STRIKE!

I can't believe I haven't written anything on the writer's strike yet. I've started to put something together a couple of times, but a distraction of some kind has come up or I haven't had time to find the links I wanted to include. That's no excuse. So here we go.

The Writer's Guild of America has been on strike against television and movie producers for about three weeks now. Depending on where you've looked, the strike's been well covered or barely covered at all. Since the writers are striking against (among others) the TV networks who buy shows, the networks themselves have oddly not paid a whole lot of attention to the work stoppage. If you've been following the strike, then you know what it's about, but if it's been going on without your paying much attention to it, you may not be so sure. One of the most basic maxims about writers is that "writers write." In the case of screenwriters, if they find some extra time on their hands, they also make videos and put them online. It's hardly a surprise there are a couple of videos that explain the WGA's position. The first one's been to by everyone from Atrios to The Beat, and with good reason, because it's a very clear summation of what's going on. In the broader sense, this strike is about what most strikes are about: The workers want a larger share of the profits. In this case, studios, networks, and production companies are putting their products online and not paying anything extra to the writers. Lots more people are seeing the writers' work, but the writers don't get to share in the windfall. Oops.

Of course, the big producer argument is that there's no money in online activity. I guess that would be why Google and Amazon are such steals in the stock market. To see what film and TV executives have said about potential profits online in other contexts, the writers have another helpful video. I'm certainly not the first one to suggest this, but if the issue is that you can't make a profit online (and I'll admit that I so far haven't made my fortune through this method), why not just agree to share the nonexistent profits and get the writers to shut up? If there's no money to be made, then why not give a couple of percent of it? You could even go whole hog and offer 10 percent. Why not? If you're not making anything, then you're not paying anything.

For some historical context, take a look at Mark Evanier in The New Republic, a different kind of venue for him. If you want to see the international ramifications, click over to the LA Times for this article by a friend of mine, Sheldon Chad. And to keep up with the details and developments of the strike, you could do far worse than follow the United Hollywood blog. It may get particularly interesting following the holiday, as the producers return to the negotiating table. But is this a sincere effort at finding a solution to the strike, or are they just trying to manipulate the situation? You want to be hopeful, but some of their other actions suggest otherwise.

Although I don't think the movie business will be particularly hurt over the long term by this strike, it could, depending on its length, cause major pain to the TV networks. They've already been hurting as viewer numbers have been shrinking over the last few years, and the longer they allow the writers to remain out, the better chance that people will tire of reruns and reality shows and discover that they don't feel so compelled to watch TV anyway. I don't expect many viewers who discover they don't need the TV as often as they used to rush back to it once production of new shows starts up again.