Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

TV's Golden Age Is Anything But, Say Writers Preparing To Strike (bloomberg.com)

Posted by msmash on from the tussle-continues dept.

The world's largest media companies returned to the negotiating table Monday with Hollywood screenwriters, seeking to avert a strike that could cost the entertainment industry billions of dollars and take popular TV shows off the air indefinitely. From a report on Bloomberg: Hollywood is bracing for the worst-case scenario after the Writers Guild of America warned advertisers and investors of the financial fallout and said members will most likely walk out May 2 if the new round of talks fail. Major TV programmers, such as NBC and CBS' flagship network, are scanning their slates of upcoming shows to determine which ones can air without guild writers. Negotiators on both sides are counting on cooler heads to prevail as they seek to avoid a repeat of the 100-day work stoppage in 2007-08 that cost the entertainment industry more than $2 billion, according to Milken Institute estimates. Yet the entertainment business, specifically TV, has undergone myriad changes that are creating new sticking points since the last strike almost a decade ago, and the writers say they haven't benefited.

6 of 200 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Gay by DickBreath · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The title made sense to me. It didn't seem obfuscated.

    Dear Writers, please, Please, PLEASE, for the love of God, PLEASE strike. Permanently. Maybe find shows on Netflix, Prime HBO, or Fox News that need good creative writers.

    I got rid of cable TV some time ago. Don't miss it actually. I never realized how much time something like CNN, for example, takes up to tell the same news I can read in about seven minutes on Google news, or other online sources. The endless talking heads, droning on and on and on.

    I think it would be quite amusing to watch the whole broadcast model just implode. And a lot of their problems they brought on themselves. Broadcast (even Cable) is so 20th century.

    I'm not sure what to make of your subject line.

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  2. Free Market at Work by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is how the free market should work. If wages are really too low, the strike will cost more than just raising the pay for the writers and the networks will cave. If the writers are overpaid, there are still a lot of unemployed people looking for work, the networks can go find new talent who don't belong to the union (they call it guild, but it is acting as a labor union right now).

    Notice that unlike the teachers union, the screen writers guild can't pour in cash to elect their bosses who then kick back raises and benefits, regardless of what is best for the larger organization. This is why all public sector unions need to be banned and why so many Democrats in the past were strongly against public sector unions.

    --
    If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    1. Re:Free Market at Work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      FYI - WGA is a democracy. The members elect their (non-paid) leaders who volunteer their time in service of there fellow writers. There is no structure where the elected leadership can grease their own pockets at the expense of the members.

      The total amount of money being fought over is a drop in the bucket compared to both current increases in profits as well as anticipated losses if there was a strike.

      I suspect that if the markets really were "free" that there would be less acrimony over these negotiations if there was. The studios are now huge corporations that are owned by even larger entertainment conglomerates which are often owned by even larger multinational corporations. Monopolies unbalance the equation and can lead to results that one would otherwise consider irrational in the marketplace.

  3. Re:Umm, okay... by ilsaloving · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You mean, apart from saving $1000+ a year, and not willingly subjecting ourselves to IQ squandering nonsense (ie: the typical news), and lowest-common-denominator sitcoms, leaving time free to do more useful things?

  4. Re:Umm, okay... by DickBreath · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's like breaking an addiction. Or a bad habit. It's like when ex smokers say they never realized how many things they can smell now and how much better food tastes, etc.

    It's not pride. It's the revelation of how much better it is to not watch TV any more. The extra time you have. The fact that TV gives you nothing in return. It wasn't even that entertaining actually. Just an effort to find the least objectionable content. And the ads, OMG, the ads, don't get me started.

    If you watch some on-demand programming, you can get some better quality entertainment, in less time, and with no commercials. And get up and walk away from the TV because there are also other and better things to do.

    Even if I sit in front of the TV and just browse YouTube, it is amazing the great stuff I can find. Videos of presentations from various conferences. Class lectures. There is a guy with a great set of videos Introduction to Higher Math. Various tutorials. It's way better than couch potato cable TV.

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  5. Re:Umm, okay... by penandpaper · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The ads are absolute cancer. I never realized how bad TV ads were until I would visit the in-laws and sit down to watch whatever was on to pass the evening by. Holy shit. They hit all the right buttons to get my attention or to get me to stare at the screen and I felt stupid after a set of commercials. I don't know what it is but I know I don't want it in my life.