Variety Sucks Up to Studios on Strike
MORE Off the Record
In the days leading up to the writers’ strike, Guild members took to blogs to blow off steam about those hard-bitten studio heads—and also, to complain about what they saw as unbalanced coverage in Variety, the paper that for many in Hollywood has been the go-to outlet for coverage of the work stoppage.
“Am I overly-sensitive or did the entire front page of Variety today reflect an anti-WGA bias?” read one entry on the blog United Hollywood.
“[Variety reporter Dave] McNary’s reportage reminds me of the work of Judith Miller in the run-up to the Iraq war,” read another.
Some writers have also charged that Variety, whose editor, Peter Bart, has served in senior positions at Paramount Pictures and MGM/United Artists, has an institutional bias toward the studios. “We all know,” wrote another blogger, that “the same companies we’re negotiating with (I use the term loosely) own the press outlets we all read.”
Speaking to Off the Record, Carleton Eastlake, a member of the Guild, elaborated on his group’s complaints. “Variety seems to be doing so much press release reporting,” he said. “When the Guild doesn’t come up with a statement, they don’t seem to have the inside sources to flesh it out.”
Guild members have singled out several Variety stories for scorn. One article from last week reported that the studios have numerous movies ready to go into production, strike or no—undercutting the writers’ position by implying that the studios could weather a work stoppage. Another story led with the line: “As might be expected from showbiz writers, the WGA is probably going to push back its deadline.”
Tim Gray, an editor at Variety, told The Observer, “Our coverage has been comprehensive and very fair. We’re covering every perspective here and we think we’re objective.”
And in a Nov. 5 editorial, the tabloid glossy, which is owned by the publishing company Reed Elsevier, pointed the finger back at the Guild, which it criticized for being hesitant to speak to the press.
“During the entire pact talks,” Variety wrote, “the producers have shown a well-organized attempt to convey their point of view. But the Writers Guild of America reps are potentially hurting their cause by being so slow to explain their side to the media.”
It concluded, “By carefully watching their words, the writers are in danger of getting swift-boated.”
Indeed, in the last few days, the Guild has been racing to build a communications team and improve its press outreach.
“At first, there was no grassroots effort to get the story out,” said John Aboud, a member of the Guild who is part of the communications team. “The guild leadership and communications team was hunkered down in the negotiation itself. It wasn’t providing the press the personal touch that only the membership could provide.”
Over the weekend, the team drew up a list of “WGA Talking Points,” like “A work stoppage is simply negotiating by other means,” and “We didn’t choose this moment. It chose us.” It has begun to disseminate the list among Guild members.
Of course, platitudes alone aren’t sufficient for reporters—they need anecdotes! Mr. Aboud said the team has also put together a collection of personal stories to help make their case. One involves Marc Cherry, a creator of Desperate Housewives, who for years, according to the Guild, had to live off of earnings from The Golden Girls, illustrating the tight economics of the business for even the best writers.
Still, it may be difficult to please some writers, regardless of the tone of the coverage. “I’ve been very frustrated—frustrated enough that last night at midnight I was posting [comments to Variety.com] instead of sleeping when I had to wake up at 6 a.m. to organize a picket line,” said Mr. Eastlake. “I’m surprised—no, not surprised, I’m disappointed.”
I was also pretty disgusted by Variety's tone. On the othet hand, I wanted more breadth than I'm finding at writer site such as UnitedHollywood.com
I've found a couple of good alternatives, including AllYourTV.com, which has a pretty fair-toned writers strike blog.
So we've heard about the greed of the studios and the (lesser but no less real) greed of the writers, but what about us? I'm talking about the viewers. Many of us work crappy jobs all day long, live check to check, and deeply in debt. One of the few bright spots in our bleak lives is new episodes of our favorite shows. David Thomson's piece in "The Gaurdian" was right on the ...ahem... money. This strike, if successful, will only really benefit the top tier writers in the WGA, leaving the rank and file largely in the dust. Which is where this strike will soon land the rest of us. So the suits will dig and and control the press while the writers will get to indulge in their romatic views of themselves as Norma Raes and Billy Macguires. Screw both sides of the selfish little tantrum!
Roland--do you belong to a union? Lots of workers do; they tend to make fairer wages and be in less debt. If you aren't in a union, you might consider trying to unionize.
If the studios give the writers a percentage of the money they make off of internet downloads, *everyone* will benefit--working writers most of all. Most writers are very much not romantic about this; it's a simple matter of fighting for economic fairness and getting *paid* for the work you do.
I don't honestly know whether you're genuinely misinformed or a studio shill. I hope it's the former.
I still can't believe that those in a union think the public will keep buying the line about "we just want what we deserve". Don't we all. Only 7% of the nation is in a union....it's a dying entity.
Hey, WGA!...1920 called, they want their business model back.
To allege that Bart has "an institutional bias" towards the studios because he's served time there is a little flimsy. Why not just point out that Variety depends on advertising to survive and that its biggest ad buyers are the studios. If it weren't for all of those silly "For your consideration..." ads, the paper's revenue would be tremendously diminished.
Greg M,
Not in a union and not as uniformed as you might think. I guess I'd put my position this way; the writers have my support but not my sympathy. I think they should be paid for their work. But, there is a very real possibility that this strike will kill not only the WGA but scripted TV for the very long term.
If, as seems at least possible, the studios and networks discover that the reality shows and news/exploitation shows they'll fall back on now can make bigger profits for them than the expensive scripted shows on strike...
The writers keep saying this is about the future. I agree with them. I jusy worry that instead of making a brighter (read "profitable") future sor (I say again) SOME of its members, the union may instead be creating a bleaker, duller future (on TV at least) for us all.
And also, I'm not a studio shill. Are you a writer's?
Both sides are acting selfishly. SIT DOWN AND TALK!
Twnety years ago the studios and networks weren't in the position they're in today. Chearper reality shows may not attract the numbers of a sciprted hit, but the low cost means they don't have to. The studios, greedy and selfish as they are, have all the power here.
And finally, don't you think, Greg M., that to a single mom (an example only) working two jobs and still not making enough money for child care and food on the table, the sight of Tina Fey and Juila L. Dreyfuss demanding more money might seem a TAD greedy?
Apologies for all the typos. I was typing quite fast.
"This strike, if successful, will only really benefit the top tier writers in the WGA, leaving the rank and file largely in the dust"
Actually, since the contract between the WGA and AMPTP stipulates only the *minimum* contracted rates (i.e. what Jane and Joe Writer can expect to make on their first job) this strike is all about the rank and file of the WGA, half of who are unemployed at any one time.
Today, Joss Whedon doesn't need to walk a picket line. Neither does Marc Cherry. But between writing for Roseanne and Golden Girls, those guys lived off their residual cheques. Their residual cheques are what kept them, and writers like them, in the business long enough to make it with Buffy and Desperate Housewives.
But under today's contract, Internet TV means no residuals for writers. Without residuals Whedon and Cherry and countless others would have left the business years ago. Because the march of technology is not going to stop, it's important that writers, actors and directors are fairly compensated for work rebroadcast on the web as it replaces conventional TV.
Katie;
Very well said. Still, I would recommend checking out David Thomson's (a WGA member btw) blog at The Guardian on this topic. He's pretty insightful on the defeciencies and outright falsehoods out out by the Guild.
All that said, I AM on the side of the writers. Except perhaps for marc Cherry who said in an interview that he's ready for hardship, after all he once had to live on 45Gs a year. How demeaning and insulting can a millionaire get?
Not being pro-Guild does not equal a studio bias. As a Variety writer, I can assure readers on both sides of one thing -- Variety does not give a shit about the studios or the guilds. Neither one. Variety values a healthy skepticism of everything. Guilds included.
In addition, when Nick Counter is the only one giving quotes, that's what is used. For too long the WGA actively discouraged anyone from talking to press. It's only when the writers took it upon themselves, through blogs and vocal picketing, that the message finally got out. And Variety responded by putting up a very good strike blog on Day One that gives their staffers another outlet.
I encourage everyone to check it out AND to peruse Dave's posts. And if you still have complaints, send them there. They will be heard.
http://www.variety.com/strike
DELAWARE COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS UNION ENDORSES JOE BIDEN
Published: 12/17/2007
“He’s not just pro-union, he’s pro-working families.”
Wilmington, DE (December 17, 2007) – Today, Sen. Biden received the endorsement of the Delaware Communications Workers of America (CWA), Local 13101.
CWA Local 13101 Executive President Bud Speakman said, “We were the first union to endorse Sen. Biden 36 years ago and have never regretted that decision. What distinguishes Sen. Biden is that he’s not just pro-union, he’s pro-working families. He’s never wavered in his commitment to the working men and women in Delaware and we would expect the same of him as president.”
Sen. Biden thanked CWA Local 13101 and President Speakman for their continued support.
“Because of the support of CWA and other unions, I was elected as the first pro-union United States Senator in Delaware history. Since then we have fought together for Common Situs Picketing in the mid-1970s, the prevailing wage, Card Check, OSHA standards, pension protections and, most recently, the Employee Free Choice Act.
“History teaches us that when the union movement is strong, our middle class is strong. And when our middle class is strong, our country is strong. As president, I will immediately sign the Employee Free Choice Act into law. I will guarantee that the National Labor Relations Board returns to being a fair forum to contest unfair labor practices. I will appoint people to the Department of Labor who understand the value of unions to our economy and will make sure that pro-union officials play senior roles at the Departments of Commerce, State, Agriculture, Homeland Security and Health and Human Services. And I will also create good, union jobs by investing in our national infrastructure. We have $1.6 trillion of work to do to rebuild our roads, tunnels, ports and bridges. That means more construction, manufacturing, and transportation jobs for Americans.
“I am honored that the Communications Workers of America in Delaware have pledged their support to my campaign. As President, I will continue to work as hard for them in the future as I have over the past thirty-five years