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?

The New York Times and the Hollywood work stopage

The media coverage of the struggle between the Hollywood producers and TV honchos (AMPTP) and the screen and TV writers (WGA) continues to raise serious questions about journalistic ethics. Most of the coverage, of course, deals with the lack of the usual elaborate TV coverage of the award shows. Take, for example, David Carr's ("The Carpetbagger") article in yesterday's New York Times. For example with regard to the likelihood of an Oscar show, he quotes one of his producer sources, Walter F. Parkes, as follows:

If there is a quick settlement with the directors' guild and if it is looked upon by the writer's guild as a framework for negotiations, and it brings them back to the table, there might be an Oscar telecast.

This is the last point made in the article. Carr never questions its accuracy despite the fact that the producers and network executives walked away from the table not the writers. But to acknowledge that would challenge the basic point of view of his article, which is that of the producers and network executives.

At an earlier point in the article Carr writes:

No one...last night... [after the Globes' non-show] wanted to be spotted jackknifing in glee with a Champagne glass in hand at a time when the town is tearing itself in half because of a writers' strike that has idled most television production, threatened future movie shoots, put thousands of people out of work....

So if you are interested in who is responsible for "the town...tearing itself in half" and "put thousands of people out of work" its obviously the writers, who are on strike.

This despite the fact as Michael Winship, president of the Writers guild, East, reminded us on Democracy Now that it was the

the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, against whom we’re still on strike...who have refused to come back to the bargaining table.

Unfortunately this view from the perspective of one side of this dispute is not unique to Carr and the Times. It has been characteristic of almost all the corporate-owned media. I'll bet that if asked when Carr was researching the article the president of the Writers Guild, west would have been happy to talk to him. But I guess Carr and his editors just weren't interested.

The other thought I had about all this is how we've reached the point where if TV doesn't cover these awards with all the stars and the red-carpet brouhaha they don't really happen. That may be the unkindest cut of all.

Media bias in writers-producers battle

The way in which the media has been covering the struggle between the Writers Guild (WGA) and the movie and TV producers (AMPTP) is very revealing of the biases of the corporate-owned media, particularly the way in which they have covered the threat posed to the award shows. For example, Variety's most recent headline:
"Globes is latest victim of WGA Strike; Ceremony collapses under weight of walkout."

Why "victim of WGA Strike?" Why not "victim of greedy, stonewalling producers?"

First of all it was the AMPTP that walked out of the negotiations on Dec. 7. So if anyone is responsible for the current problems, it is the producers not the writers.

But even at a more basic level no labor-management struggle is ever the result of the actions of only one side. No labor union has ever gone on strike unless provoked by management. The process is very simple: the current contract expires, the union makes a proposal, management accepts it or rejects it or they negotiate. In this case the WGA put a proposal on the table, the producers, instead of negotiating, walked out because they misjudged the union's strength and commitment. So we are at a standstill in negotiations - nothing is happening and the award shows (and the TV series) are falling like dominos. All it would take to get things moving again would be for the producers and networks to get back to the bargaining table. But you would never get this from the fundamentally dishonest media coverage.

Or try this Variety headline: "WGA strike means pay cuts at ICM." So anyone at ICM, whose pay is cut (or job is eliminated) knows who to blame. Why not?: "Stonewalling producers mean pay cuts at ICM"

For a breath of fresh air on the strike coverage check out Roger Wolfson on the Huffington Post and Michael Winship, President of the WGA-East on Friday's Democracy Now