2008 Woodie Awards
Reading the fine print behind Hollywood's writers' strike
By: Erin Swisshelm
Issue date: 11/30/07 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 1
Before Nov. 4, I stopped whatever I was doing at 11 p.m. Monday through Thursday and turned my TV to Comedy Central for The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. But, since the Writers Guild of America started its strike, there have been no new episodes, and my homework has gone uninterrupted.
While my professors probably appreciate the extra time I'm spending on work, I really miss my hour of satiric comedy bliss. In fact, most of the people I've talked to about the strike have expressed their frustration that their favorite shows are currently in reruns, or soon will be, once completed scripts are exhausted.
My frustration and extra free time prompted me to look into the writers' reasons for saying "pencils down" and taking on the production companies. As almost always, the root of the problem lies in money. After some news scanning, one of the primary issues seems to be Internet broadcasts and iTunes downloads, for which writers don't receive any money under current contracts. Even though the network makes money off the advertisements sold on the page where I can watch House for free when I miss an episode, the writers who told Hugh Laurie what to say don't see a dime.
Additionally, several of the news sources I found proudly proclaimed that the Writer's Guild of America, West average yearly income was roughly $204,000. That sounds like a lot of money. However, that figure is misleading. I agree with Greg Saunders of the Huffington Post when he wrote in his Nov. 15 op-ed column: "if Bill Gates walked into a homeless shelter, the "average" income would skyrocket, but it wouldn't change the fact that everyone else is poor." He then goes on to cite that the median income of the same sample of writers is $5,000, mostly because roughly half of the Guild members don't work in a given year.
That's when I stopped being so upset about missing my daily dose of Jon Stewart.
The situation, while unfair for viewers like you and me, is downright scary for those who make their living writing for Hollywood. Currently, when a TV show or movie is reproduced in DVD form or is syndicated, the writers responsible for the content receive a small bit of the profits generated from the sale of the DVD or the advertisements sold during the re-airing.
The networks still make money from the advertisements sold when they allow episodes of popular shows to stream on the internet. They make money when the shows are sold on iTunes. But the writers don't see any of it. Why? The network still turns a profit. The writers were responsible for that profit. And even though the current reproduction rules don't apply to the Internet, they should.
Sure, writing is a gamble. And if you're lucky or talented enough to get a job, there's no guarantee how long it will last. So why should writers stand for the networks not respecting them or the body of work produced by not paying the small portion of profits writers would have been entitled to if the shows were reproduced in any other media outlet?
The Internet is not going away. I won't stop watching House or Scrubs online when I miss the new episodes on TV. People will keep buying favorite episodes on iTunes. And personally, I'd like some of the profits from those viewings to go back to the writers whose work keeps me watching.
So, while I will still silently mourn the current and future loss of my favorite TV shows, I believe that the strike is a good thing. These writers are not only fighting to make a little more money in an unpredictable and fickle industry, but also are fighting to make that industry a little more fair.
While my professors probably appreciate the extra time I'm spending on work, I really miss my hour of satiric comedy bliss. In fact, most of the people I've talked to about the strike have expressed their frustration that their favorite shows are currently in reruns, or soon will be, once completed scripts are exhausted.
My frustration and extra free time prompted me to look into the writers' reasons for saying "pencils down" and taking on the production companies. As almost always, the root of the problem lies in money. After some news scanning, one of the primary issues seems to be Internet broadcasts and iTunes downloads, for which writers don't receive any money under current contracts. Even though the network makes money off the advertisements sold on the page where I can watch House for free when I miss an episode, the writers who told Hugh Laurie what to say don't see a dime.
Additionally, several of the news sources I found proudly proclaimed that the Writer's Guild of America, West average yearly income was roughly $204,000. That sounds like a lot of money. However, that figure is misleading. I agree with Greg Saunders of the Huffington Post when he wrote in his Nov. 15 op-ed column: "if Bill Gates walked into a homeless shelter, the "average" income would skyrocket, but it wouldn't change the fact that everyone else is poor." He then goes on to cite that the median income of the same sample of writers is $5,000, mostly because roughly half of the Guild members don't work in a given year.
That's when I stopped being so upset about missing my daily dose of Jon Stewart.
The situation, while unfair for viewers like you and me, is downright scary for those who make their living writing for Hollywood. Currently, when a TV show or movie is reproduced in DVD form or is syndicated, the writers responsible for the content receive a small bit of the profits generated from the sale of the DVD or the advertisements sold during the re-airing.
The networks still make money from the advertisements sold when they allow episodes of popular shows to stream on the internet. They make money when the shows are sold on iTunes. But the writers don't see any of it. Why? The network still turns a profit. The writers were responsible for that profit. And even though the current reproduction rules don't apply to the Internet, they should.
Sure, writing is a gamble. And if you're lucky or talented enough to get a job, there's no guarantee how long it will last. So why should writers stand for the networks not respecting them or the body of work produced by not paying the small portion of profits writers would have been entitled to if the shows were reproduced in any other media outlet?
The Internet is not going away. I won't stop watching House or Scrubs online when I miss the new episodes on TV. People will keep buying favorite episodes on iTunes. And personally, I'd like some of the profits from those viewings to go back to the writers whose work keeps me watching.
So, while I will still silently mourn the current and future loss of my favorite TV shows, I believe that the strike is a good thing. These writers are not only fighting to make a little more money in an unpredictable and fickle industry, but also are fighting to make that industry a little more fair.
Be the first to comment on this story