The media and the "writers Strike"

There are many reasons for the anti-union perspective of the corporate-owned media in relation to the strike involving the film producers and TV networks (AMPTP) and the writers (WGA). The TV networks' news programs are obviously covering the same strike that directly effects their bosses in lother areas. And they have never been known for placing journalistic ethics above corporate profits.

But I think, the print media has its own issues with the strike, namely the Newspaper Guild. If they look too favorably on the movie and TV writers' action they may be faced with one of their own.

But let's be fair. In the excellent State of the Unions Philip M. Dine has argued that one of the problems that labor has is its difficulty with communication with the press. And it's clear that the networks and movie studios have much better public relations.

Two recent print pieces demonstrate this problem. They both heavily favor the producers and networks.

The New York Times article by Jacques Steinberg deals with how come the soaps can keep producing new shows and avoid reruns. The answer is, of course, quite simple. As in most strikes executives and other staff people are forced to pitch in. And there is a "guild designation known as "financial Core" or financial need," which allows Guild writers to go back to work. But it's odd that after an interview with someone who criticizes two All My Children writers who invoked the clause, we find out the two writers being criticized replaced the woman making the criticism when she was fired. Why bother to include such questionable material except to make the union look bad. But at least Steinberg eventually includes the pertinent information.

That's more than we can say for the New York Post's Adam Buckman's Sunday anti-union diatribe "TV writers have already lost the battle." Buckman's distortion of the strike reality is clearly evident in statements like:

Maybe the writers don't care what others think of them, but they have to be the least popular people in Hollywood right now. Among those who must be sick of them as the strike drags on into its third month: Hundreds of stranded non-writing co-workers...; and the public....

The striking writers didn't kill TV; they only succeeded in making a lot of people - those who watch TV and those who work in it - hate them.

According to Buckman's reporting this must be the first strikes in history with only one contending force. There is, of course, no mention of the fact that the AMPTP walked out of negotiations six weeks ago.

Buckman's column reads like a producer/networks' press release. Why is no counter information coming from the WGA.

The most serious violation of journalistic ethics is Buckman's failure to mention That the owners of the paper that publishes his column - the New York Post - also owns the Fox TV network against which the "hated" writers are on strike. Do I hear conflict of interest?