The AMPTP appears to be displaying increasing desperation as the WGA’s presenting itself as a reasonable bargaining partner is showing dividends. Having brokered the deal with Worldwide Pants that brought Late Night back with writers, WGA has now cut a deal with UA and is reportedly on the brink of a similar achievement with the Weinsteins. The AMPTP’s response on their website:
One-off deals do nothing to bring the WGA closer to a permanent solution for working writers. These interim agreements are sideshows and mean only that some writers will be employed at the same time other writers will be picketing. In the end, until the people in charge at WGA decide to focus on the main event rather than these sideshows, the economic harm being caused by the strike will continue.
Curiously the AMPTP ignores that the deals don’t “mean only that some writers will be employed;” the deals also put hundreds of non-writing employees back to work. Crew people and such who were out of work because the writers had gone on strike. Yet amazingly the AMPTP doesn’t hesitate to invoke the hardship those bystanders face whenever they’re trying to slag the striking writers.
Behind the scenes they must be ballistic about the producers who are voting with their feet and their wallets by bargaining individually because it underscores what the WGA has been saying all along: The demands are not unreasonable. The AMPTP is unreasonable.
PAD
• 
Craig J. Ries, if a contract previously existed (which it did) then there was a previously existing contract. PAD’s argument was that discussion of residuals for crew members was irrelevant, because their contract does not call for residuals. Perhaps that is so, but how is that argument different from “Discussion of increased residuals for writers is irrelevant, because they don’t have a contract calling for increased residuals”? When the WGA had a contract, members worked under the terms of that contract; After the contract expired but prior to the strike members worked under the terms of the previous contract; Now, during the strike, the union and its members want something they have not been guaranteed under any previous contract. In this case, it appears appropriate that they should receive it, but there is no current contract enforcing it. The crew members do not presently have residuals either, but the question of whether they should is not irrelevant – to them, if not to PAD.
“So, your argument utterly fails.” You probably should know what my argument is before determining that. Here goes:
PAD says that discussion of the plight of the crew members is irrelevant to his argument about the excellence of the WGA demands, because the crew members do not have any terms regarding residuals in their contract. I must admit that is correct, but then, as Craig J. Ries reminds us, the WGA doesn’t have anything in any contract regarding any subject at all – It doesn’t have any contract, so should we say that any discussion or consideration of anything regarding the writers’ interests is irrelevant? The subject PAD dismissed as irrelevant was the fact that the current strike has had an effect on the employment and income of non-WGA members. If he does not consider that subject relevant to discussion, the electricians, carpenters and other crew members should understand how much their efforts mean to him (and by extension other WGA members). It all comes down to this: If the WGA dismisses the interests of the crew members, why should the crew members offer any support at all to the WGA strike?
It all comes down to this: If the WGA dismisses the interests of the crew members, why should the crew members offer any support at all to the WGA strike?
If I thought for a moment that you were interested in an honest answer, rather than just being interested in twisting everything I say, I would answer that. But I don’t, so I won’t, other than to say that your response is laced with distortions and untruths.
PAD
Agreed. Jeff you’re pointing the finger at the wrong straw-man.
The argument at hand is between the AMPTP and the WGA. It’s negatively affecting others’ livelihood, yes, but it’s the fault of the parties who aren’t reaching an end to negotiations.
By negotiating with Worldwide Pants and United Artists, the WGA have shown that they can actually be reasonable. By not coming to the table at all since December, the AMPTP are showing they’re not, and also not competent negotiators.
Jason – I’ve been looking, but I’m not having a lot of luck finding what I read last week (in part because I wasn’t reading it on my computer, but my father’s while mine was in the shop, and that cache is now several thousand miles away). However, PAD provides a very sound explanation for why WGA wouldn’t negotiate with Comedy Central.
However, PAD, from the Ðìçk Clark Productions article on Sunday night, they were intimating that by refusing to negotiate fairly and equally with all people who came to the table, WGA was breaking some sort of established… strike… rules? I’m grasping for language here primarily because I am not terribly familiar with labour markets and law, but the newspaper article (found in O’Hare, so probably a Chicago paper, but who knows) made it sound like you can’t do certain levels of specific negotiations during a strike, shutting out some people, elsewise government agencies could be looped in?
Times like these actually make me wish I’d taken a couple of labour and law courses.
This is sllllightly off topic, but (insert Jerry Seinfeld voice here) what’s the deal with the new shows on right now? Tonight had a new episode of CRIMINAL MINDS, and tomorrow night there are new episodes of MY NAME IS EARL and 30 ROCK.
JamesLynch – some shows were held in reserve, like The Sarah Connor Chronicles and Law & Order – while others (Law & Order: SVU, Bones, House, the CSIs, etc) have a handful of finished episodes to air in the new year. When they’re aired depends on the network; Fox won’t need to air episodes of House until after American Idol does its first month or so of mega-episodes, and they’re not bringing other shows back to finish until the (April)May sweeps.
Over at TVGuide, the Strikewatch Blog has an updated Strike Chart, showing how many episodes of popular shows were written before the strike (keeping in mind that they could produce all the episodes that were written prior to the strike), produced, and how many are remaining to air:
http://community.tvguide.com/blog-entry/TVGuide-Editors-Blog/Ausiello-Report/Strike-Chart-Long/800026937
However, PAD, from the Ðìçk Clark Productions article on Sunday night, they were intimating that by refusing to negotiate fairly and equally with all people who came to the table, WGA was breaking some sort of established… strike… rules?
Sorry. I got nothing there. I’m no lawyer; hëll, I’m not even a member of the negotiating committee. I’m just one guy speculating with a layman’s knowledge of what’s been going into this, plus extrapolation of stuff that’s been said in various e-mails sent to WGA members.
I would have to think that if DC productions has a legit beef and the government agrees, they’ll compell the WGA to negotiate with everyone who is interested in carving a deal. Personally I wouldn’t have a problem with that. The more people we can cut out from under the AMPTP, the better.
If we’re going to talk violations, the finger would really have to be pointed first at the AMPTP. The way good-faith negotiations are supposed to go, one side presents their demands–requests A through F–the other side counters, and there’s a back and forth. Instead the AMPTP decided to toss standard negotiation out the window–in a move that shatters good faith and perhaps, for all I know, legality–by demanding that the WGA take demands A through C off the table before they would even DISCUSS D through F. When the WGA responded by saying, Well, we’re not going to cripple our negotiating position before we even start negotiating, the AMPTP seized that as an excuse to walk away.
To my mind–and again, I emphasize, I’m not on any negotiating committee–the WGA’s demands boil down to two major points: 1) Unionizing writers on currently non-union endeavors such as animation, and 2) getting residuals for new markets. Personally my speculation is that they’re willing to give in on the former in order to achieve the latter. But the AMPTP’s response was to insist that (1) be removed entirely from consideration before they would even discuss (2). It’s bizarre not to discuss an entire package of demands, and the WGA said they wouldn’t just toss out (1) without even an initial discussion of (2). The AMPTP seized upon that to walk away and declare that this was *entirely* about (1) when they know perfectly well that’s BS.
PAD
PAD – The very best way to refute someone is to actually do so. Saying “I could answer that, but I won’t” is amusing to the people who already agree with you, but does nothing to make a point. Osbo says I am tilting at the wrong straw man (One has to look hard to find a “right” straw man, but I’ll let that pass.), but in fact I was taking issue with you – the person who posted that the question of crew members’ condition was irrelevant to your argument. I think that gives the impression of not giving a dámņ about the people you are depending on to support the WGA strike; I also think that it would be worth your while to refute that. Whatever you really think about the crew members, it is foolish to take their support for granted.
PAD – The very best way to refute someone is to actually do so. Saying “I could answer that, but I won’t” is amusing to the people who already agree with you, but does nothing to make a point.
The point is that there’s no reason to discuss anything with you because you’re not worth discussing things with. You’re not interested in an actual exchange of ideas. You’re interested in taking what I say and twisting it into something I did not say and then attacking that. In essence, you’re arguing with yourself. Life’s too short to waste energy in such discussions where I spend most of the time saying, “No…I didn’t say that.” Your persistence in twisting and distorting my words indicates one of two things: Either you’re too stupid to understand what I say, or you are deliberately twisting what I say in order to perpetuate an argument out of a bizarre need to sustain attacks. Either way, you’re worth neither the time nor the effort.
The larger problem is that when someone distorts your position, you’re then compelled to repeat the distortion in order to refute it. “No, I did not say X, what I said is Y.” Except when you repeat it, you are reinforcing it in the minds of the readers, so that ultimately they don’t remember your refutation; they just remember the repeated charge. It’s a popular debating tactic when you’re trying to make the opposition look bad. Sorry; I’m not going to fall for it.
Get the point?
PAD
PAD, based on your actual words, directly above, written by you and not distorted by me, I think you are a contemptible, arrogant creep. What you actually say seems selfish and poorly-considered. The most consistent thread I see in your comments is that you cannot imagine that anyone could really disagree with you or be offended by your statements if they just understood what you REALLY meant. I can tell you that I have read many of your comments, understood what you were trying to say, and still disagreed. In this particular thread, you dismissed the question of the effect the WGA strike is having on non-WGA crew members as irrelevant to the point you were making. I suppose your point was that the WGA’s demands were reasonable and the producers were behaving inappropriately. It is certainly possible that you were correct about that. The question of the effect on other personnel is still completely valid and important. You, speaking for yourself and not the WGA, dismissed that question as irrelevant. Let’s turn that around. Suppose the actors were on strike and the writers were being laid off. If you read some self-satisfied actor spouting “Oh, we actors are right about everything! …The writers? I don’t care; shut up about them. We actors want this, and that, and more of something else… No, the question of the writers being paid is not relevant to the question. Let me repeat: We want…” would you feel like supporting the actors’ strike? I know that in any strike there may be unintended consequences; I know that those strikes must still sometimes continue nonetheless; You should know that dismissing those consequences as meaningless makes for a lot of bad feelings.
“Get the point?” (you ask) Yes, I get it very clearly that you are both myopic and arrogant when it comes to the interests of people who are not exactly like you. You don’t have any idea whether something will offend, and when you find out that it will, you don’t care.
PAD, based on your actual words, directly above, written by you and not distorted by me, I think you are a contemptible, arrogant creep.
Oh, the irony, considering you seem to be the only one who has such a consistent problem understanding what PAD is saying, who enjoys twisting his every post to fit your own worldly view.
Getting back on topic, and maybe Jeffrey can twist this around, the Weinsteins are now on board, and rumors are floating of an agreement with CBS now as well.
(Osbo) “The argument at hand is between the AMPTP and the WGA. It’s negatively affecting others’ livelihood, yes, but it’s the fault of the parties who aren’t reaching an end to negotiations.”
This is entirely true! There are two parties to the negotiations, Osbo. The AMPTP is not reaching an end to negotiations; The WGA is not reaching an end to negotiations (If it had done so, negotiations would have reached an end). You could make a strong argument that the AMPTP should give in to the WGA’s demands. You could make a less worthy argument that the WGA could surrender and return to work. Neither party, however, has “reach(ed) an end to negotiations,” so by your argument, the AMPTP and WGA are both at fault. I wouldn’t go that far. The strike and the WGA’s demands appear to be appropriate. So long as the WGA recognizes that the strike affects other workers and regrets the necessity, it has the high ground. When loudmouths not speaking on behalf of their union insist that the plight of the crew members is irrelevant to the issue they make their union look bad.
The most consistent thread I see in your comments is that you cannot imagine that anyone could really disagree with you or be offended by your statements if they just understood what you REALLY meant.
See, whereas to me the consistent thread is that you deliberately misunderstand, twist, or distort what I say in order to perpetuate an argument.
I can tell you that I have read many of your comments, understood what you were trying to say, and still disagreed.
Big shock there. Thanks for making my point for me yet again.
Getting back on topic, and maybe Jeffrey can twist this around, the Weinsteins are now on board, and rumors are floating of an agreement with CBS now as well.
I’ve known about the pending Weinstein deal for a while now. Hadn’t heard anything about CBS, though. That would be huge, if that happened.
PAD
Craig J. Ries: Let’s draw a distinction between “a consistent problem understanding what PAD is saying”[your words] and “agreement with what PAD is saying”[my preference]. You are assuming that to understand his point is to agree with it, but that is wrong. I know very well what he thinks about a number of things, but I disagree with him.
(Me) “I can tell you that I have read many of your comments, understood what you were trying to say, and still disagreed.”
(PAD) “Big shock there. Thanks for making my point yet again.”
So PAD’s point is that I understand and yet disagree with him? I had the impression (because he said so) that he thought I misunderstood him. If his point is only that I disagree with him, oh yes, that is true. The only way I can understand PAD’s previous statements is that he thinks so highly of his own opinions that it is incomprehensible to him that anyone could understand them and still disagree. Several people here seem to feel the same way. I do not, and do not have to. What he calls deliberate twisting of his words I would call taking him at his word and disagreeing.
Craig J. Ries: Let’s draw a distinction between “a consistent problem understanding what PAD is saying”[your words] and “agreement with what PAD is saying”[my preference]. You are assuming that to understand his point is to agree with it, but that is wrong.
There. Right there. You did it again. It’s not that his “assumption” is wrong. It’s that your interpretation of his “assumption” is wrong. He never said to understand me is to agree with me. He said that your own (re)wording of my sentiments is so far away from any reasonable interpretation that you’re doing it with deliberate intent in order to fit into your world view.
The point, Jeffrey–and very likely the last time I will bother with you on this thread–is that I believe you do not read my posts with an eye toward assessing whether you think I’m right or wrong. You read them predisposed to disagree and then put your comments together accordingly. The reason I believe this is that your comments are so aggressively twisted that either there is purpose behind it, or you’re just monumentally stupid. I don’t think it’s the latter, so I’ll take it to be the former.
You are, of course, free to disagree with this assessment, as I know you will.
PAD
PAD, just let it go. Responding to Jeffrey about why you don’t want to respond to Jeffrey isn’t going to work.
As for the AMPTP, I have a question. Who’s actually running it? When they make a decision to walk away from the table, is that 20 actual producers, 10 moguls who’ve never actually worked directly with writers, or 5 business guys who don’t make movies at all because their full time job is the AMPTP? Do all the production companies that are part of the AMPTP get a say in these tactics, or do they just meet every once in awhile and elect officials?
I ask because I’m beginning to wonder just how much the AMPTP actually represents the production companies. With more and more defections, it’s getting unclear.
PAD, just let it go.
It’s gone.
As for the AMPTP, I have a question. Who’s actually running it?
The President, chief negotiator and figurehead of the AMPTP is a guy named Nick Counter. Here’s the interesting thing: Unlike the president of the WGA who is a writer, or the DGA being a director, or SAG being an actor, Nick Counter is not a producer. At least he has no producing credits that I can find. Counter is a lawyer. I would assume he takes his marching orders from the assembled studio heads, although I don’t pretend to know the actual hierarchy.
PAD
From Peter David:
As I understand it, crew personnel do get residuals. They get them as payments into their union health-insurance and retirement-pension funds rather than as checks sent to individual members.
You are assuming that to understand his point is to agree with it, but that is wrong.
And here’s yet *another* example of your twisting.
Perhaps it’s time you stop making assumptions about what other people are thinking? You’re not very good at it.
PAD understands what I’m saying, I understand what PAD’s saying.
You’re merely twisting around what both of us are saying so it fits whatever you want our statements to mean. Yet, you apparently cannot grasp that you are doing that.
Counter is a lawyer.
And I believe we have found the root of the problem. 😉
You’re right PAD, it is very interesting that every organisation involved is run by someone who does the job, except the AMPTP. It makes my wonder if he’s more likely to value winning in itself over making good shows and movies.
Jeffrey, just to respond:
“This is entirely true! There are two parties to the negotiations, Osbo. The AMPTP is not reaching an end to negotiations; The WGA is not reaching an end to negotiations (If it had done so, negotiations would have reached an end). You could make a strong argument that the AMPTP should give in to the WGA’s demands. You could make a less worthy argument that the WGA could surrender and return to work. Neither party, however, has “reach(ed) an end to negotiations,” so by your argument, the AMPTP and WGA are both at fault.”
Not necessarily what I meant, but I understand the misinterpretation. The WGA is the party actually working to make interim deals such that some companies can work. The AMPTP hasn’t made any such concessions or returned to the negotiating table, which the WGA negotiating team claims to be at every day.
There are levels of fault here for what you seem to be saying.
There you go.
(Craig J. Ries) “Oh, the irony, considering you seem to be the only one who has such a consistent problem understanding what PAD is saying”
PAD, whether you like it or not, this statement is an assumption that I do not understand what you are saying – that my response comes from misunderstanding rather than disagreement. You know very well that I do disagree with you, and you discount the possibility that I am just too dense to understand. There is no “consistent misunderstanding (of) what PAD is saying.” You interpret this as personal animus, and I won’t argue with that. The question remains – do I disagree with you because I dislike you, or dislike you because I disagree with you? On this subject, I will quote you: “You are, of course, free to disagree with this assessment, as I know you will.” I disagree with your previous claim that no one can ever convince anyone else of anything, but on this subject it does apply.
Osbo, I don’t think there is any misinterpretation. The AMPTP and the WGA are in negotiations and have not reached an agreement. The WGA has a more reasonable position, but that’s a different matter. Neither has “reached an end to negotiations,” which is what you said was the cause of the crew members’ situation. Certainly, as you said, there are levels of fault here, but your initial claim was only that failure to reach an agreement was the cause of the situation, rather than anything to do with the justice of the situation.
Craig J. Ries: Would it be twisting your words to say you claimed I misunderstood PAD’s words? Would it be a stretch to say that by claiming I misunderstood you assumed I misunderstood? Here’s one for you: I assumed you meant what you wrote. That may have been a stretch.
Zzzzzzzzzzz.
Jason…
One of the problems of the AMPTP is that their strategy is to treat writers as an interchangeable set of resources to be used to make money.
I think that works better in manufacturing industries and commodity industries, but not when what you’re producing are basically one-offs. What the producers are selling are unique products and the value is in their uniqueness in characterization and presentation–but they themselves are not the source of this uniqueness. Writers, directors and actors are.
PAD, I’ve got a question for you.
This morning, in a talk with the LA Times, Dodgers 2B Jeff Kent came out and say he wants blood testing for MLB players. Of course, his union, the MLBPA, is really against this.
So, since you’re in the WGA, I’m curious: if some famous writer in the union came out and said something akin to what Kent has said, like, you guys should just suck it up and take whatever the AMPTP offers, what recourse does the guild have with such a member?
I’m guessing Kent is going to be a private rebuke for his comment, but is there anything beyond that the guild can do?
Granted, the situations are not identical, but I’d be interested in hearing what you know about this with, since it’s the closest equivalent I can directly ask somebody about. 🙂
Somebody upthread was asking who at the AMPTP made decisions about the negotiating and what there relationship to the studios was. Below is (I hope) a link to an artical by a former lawyer and current WGA member giving his POV on the what’s actually driving the decisions going on at the AMPTP and his opinions of what strategy would be effective in advancing the position of the WGA. I’d recommend it to anyone who was interested in the Strike.
http://unitedhollywood.blogspot.com/2008/01/strike-is-lawyers-game-how-to-play-to.html
I’d also like to point to one of the best summaries of the WGA’s position, reasons behind the strike, as well as why the WGA didn’t wait for the DGA. It is on the blog of John Rogers: Kung Fu Monkey. Specifically at:
http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2007/11/why-strike-ii.html
I’d also point to his blog on general principles as he’s got a good one.
Arrrgh!. I don’t believe I misspelled “article!”
Spit! Dirty fingernails! Dandruff!
To Jeffrey S. Frawley,
First, I will refer tou you as ‘Jeff’ until such time as you ask me not to. I do so not out of familliarity or intended disrespect, but simply because I am not the greatest typist and it’s just easier.
I believe that a little background on the relationship between myself and one Peter David may be of some use to you.
Peter and I have never met in person and the times that we heve engaged in one-on-one discourse via this weblog can be counted on one hand or less. This is primarily a result of two governing factors:
1. I lurk here far more than I post, thus the opportunity for the one-on-one discouse is limited by my prefered level of parcipitation.
2. Peter and I have an unwritten, unspoken, and unconcious agreement that is quite simply that he writes his weblog without the slightest consideration of how Mitch Evans may take it and if I need clarification I ask. Maybe a debate will ensue and maybe it wont. Hopefully a better understanding of eash others position develops.
Jeff, I’m not suggesting that you are so self-centered that you believe Peter must write his weblog for you bennefit.
I am, however, currious about your motivations because I’m left with the impression that you come here with an agenda and that it’s showing in your posts as an intent to conflict with Peter over any detail, regardless of it’s size. That impression is causing me to take you less seriously.
As always, I could be totally of base. I made a decission long ago that I can always be right if I’m willing to admit when I’m wrong. Because it’s the right thing for me to do.
Regards,
M
Thanks, David. That’s a really interesting article from the lawyer.
Mitch Evans: You can call me what you like (within reason – If you called me some of the things I’ve edited out of some of my posts that would not be my favorite thing). I suspect that you are really accusing me of each of the things you say you are not, but everyone’s entitled to his own opinion. Your approach to PAD’s columns is just fine, but everyone should know that any time a blogger in this format posts an opinion there is an unspoken invitation for response – even disagreement. I’ve been cautioned about drawing conclusions about people’s assumptions, but will stand behind any I’ve made on this string. You like and respect PAD, which is fine. I don’t know him any better than you do, but I do not respect him – because I think he is contemptuous of people unfortunate enough to disagree with him. I am pretty confident of my opinions, but know I can be mistaken; I have never yet seen any instance of PAD reversing himself on anything – Perhaps it has happened, but I never saw it. That raises a lot of my hackles.
So, since you’re in the WGA, I’m curious: if some famous writer in the union came out and said something akin to what Kent has said, like, you guys should just suck it up and take whatever the AMPTP offers, what recourse does the guild have with such a member?
Recourse? I don’t know that the WGA has any partiuclar recourse. Moreover I think they’d look terrible if they tried to take some sort of punitive action against a member writer just because he said something publicly that the WGA board of directors disagrees with.
I mean, if he said, “I think the WGA should just take whatever’s offered and shut up, and to prove it I’m willing to work for struck companies,” *then* he’ll probably get tossed out of the WGA. But that’s a far cry from saying that he just disagrees with the WGA’s position.
PAD
Jason,
No problem. I found the article useful for my own edification so I thought others interested in the Strike would as well. The flow of the thread just reminded me of so just went and got it.
de nada
What he calls deliberate twisting of his words I would call taking him at his word and disagreeing.
So taking him at his word and disagreeing required you to paraphrase “Who cares” into “Oooh, lesbians!! Hot!”? Right.
When the supposed prurient interest of lesbians is the only point of his post, “Oooh, Lesbians!! Hot!” is a pretty accurate paraphrase, yes.
If a writer were punished by the union supposedly representing his interests for writing or saying something the union management disliked, that would open the union up for a great deal of abuse. I understand that the management would rightly believe that writer was acting against the union’s interests, but the situation could get much uglier than any member would want. Free speech is the sort of thing writers’ unions should generally support.
(I used “supposedly” in the first sentence not to suggest the WGA does not represent the interests of its members, but rather because any union representing a large group acts for the general good rather than what is best for one member.)
douga: a post that begins by speculating about a stranger’s sexuality and concludes by joking about an attempted presidential assassination is not really on such a high moral level that it must be guarded against ME demeaning it. Some have argued that PAD’s purpose was to snicker at CNN for wasting time talking about Jodie Foster’s sexuality – He did this by wasting time talking about Jodie Foster’s sexuality: What a very clear distinction that is! Joking about John W. Hinckley’s insane fascination with her (and the oh, so amusing way he acted out) was quite low. Several people here insisted that assassinations are hilarious, but they’re pathetic buffoons.
Hi Jeff,
No, I was sincere when I wrote that I don’t believe that you are that self-centered. If that is the accusation I didn’t make that you believe I may have. If it is something else then I missed it when I read your post.
I don’t believe the fact that having a public weblog invites commentary is lost on anyone, especially at this stage of internet proliferation.
When your wrote that you will stand behind any assumptions you’ve made on this string were you suggesting that continued discourse is irrelevant after the initial assumption or unless further discourse gives you reason alter said assumption?
I should clarify something because I think I was not clear before. Yes, I respect Peter David. Yes, I’m fond of the work he’s done that I have exposed myself to. Certainly I have fun here reading the miriad posts from people, with 2 exceptions (Lingster and Mike). That does not equate to my liking Peter David the man. It’s just that I don’t know him well enough to like or dislike him. Now, I’ve heard alot of good things about him and a couple of not so good things. Since the good that I’ve heard is in greater numbers than the bad I’ll admit that I’m predisposed to like the man as well as the entity (the ‘entity’ being the writer of many works entertaining).
I make a genuine effort with myself to keep the fanatic seperate from the fan.
I don’t recall, Jeff, if I saw you post on “I Knew There Was A Reason I Detested Dr. Phil,” but in that thread Peter did reverse himself. Peter commented on Dr. Phil acting contrary to the Hypocratic Oath. Upon discovering that Dr. Phil wasn’t required to take that oath (I’m operating from memory, the entries in that thread are more specific) he reversed himself on that point.
I hope that helps your hackles. I know that hackles can be an irritant. Last time mine were raised it took an herbalist, two fully dressed strippers and a seeing eye dog to get them back down.
The whole process lasted four hous. It was quite a mess.
Regards,
M
Wow. Ok, I guess it’s my turn to try.
Jeff, this is a perfect example of just what everyone here is talking about when they mention your seemingly deliberate misreading or misunderstanding almost everything Peter writes here.
Peter wrote: ” Recourse? I don’t know that the WGA has any partiuclar recourse. Moreover I think they’d look terrible if they tried to take some sort of punitive action against a member writer just because he said something publicly that the WGA board of directors disagrees with.”
” I mean, if he said, “I think the WGA should just take whatever’s offered and shut up, and to prove it I’m willing to work for struck companies,” *then* he’ll probably get tossed out of the WGA. But that’s a far cry from saying that he just disagrees with the WGA’s position.”
To which you responded with…
” If a writer were punished by the union supposedly representing his interests for writing or saying something the union management disliked, that would open the union up for a great deal of abuse. I understand that the management would rightly believe that writer was acting against the union’s interests, but the situation could get much uglier than any member would want. Free speech is the sort of thing writers’ unions should generally support.”
… and seemed to either completely ignore or just not understand the portion where PAD said that it would likely take thumbing your nose at the rules and actually working for a struck company before punitive recourse would be engaged in by the union.
Oh, and then there’s this.
” When the supposed prurient interest of lesbians is the only point of his post, “Oooh, Lesbians!! Hot!” is a pretty accurate paraphrase, yes.”
Don’t you think that maybe, just maybe, you’re the only one here who saw that post that way for a reason? Like, say, the point was the overall irony of the entire situation and making fun of the silly way that the national press overreacts to a star “coming out” about his or her personal life?
Oh, and in regards to this line of yours:
” Joking about John W. Hinckley’s insane fascination with her (and the oh, so amusing way he acted out) was quite low. Several people here insisted that assassinations are hilarious, but they’re pathetic buffoons.”
Again, the humor was more in the irony of the overall situation. And I really have to say that moral outrage over that topic is hilariously funny when put forward by the man who said these things:
http://www.malibulist.com/mt/mt-commentsantispam.cgi?entry_id=5544
Jeffrey Frawley finds the drowning death of an innocent girl funny!
Posted by Jeffrey Frawley at July 23, 2007 12:32 PM
The Chappaquiddick reference was obvious enough, and pretty funny.
Jeffrey Frawley makes a joke about a plane full of people going to their deaths!
Posted by Jeffrey Frawley at July 24, 2007 03:10 PM
Bill Myers: It is also worth noting that he crashed into the ocean and died. Very unfortunate, isn’t it? Perhaps his training was not quite up to the challenge. Saying that he was cleared to fly by the FAA is about as persuasive as noting that a high percentage of fatal car crashes involve people with driver’s licenses.
His eyes looking at the displays
His hands and feet on the controls
His, His wife’s and his sister-in-law’s bodies hitting the ocean.
Boom!
Jeffrey Frawley makes a cutesy remark about the death of a president!
Posted by Jeffrey Frawley at July 27, 2007 08:51 PM
Did Lauren Bessette deserve anything less than the average person because her sister’s husband’s father is immensely beloved for losing a big piece of his head?
Jeffrey Frawley gets vemomously snarky when he’s losing the argument!
Posted by Jeffrey Frawley at July 29, 2007 03:55 PM
Perhaps someone here does worship at the altar of the little prince.
Yeah, you’ve really got the moral high ground here, Jeffrey…
Bye now.
Wow. Ok, I guess it’s my turn to try.
Jeff, this is a perfect example of just what everyone here is talking about when they mention your seemingly deliberate misreading or misunderstanding almost everything Peter writes here.
Peter wrote: ” Recourse? I don’t know that the WGA has any partiuclar recourse. Moreover I think they’d look terrible if they tried to take some sort of punitive action against a member writer just because he said something publicly that the WGA board of directors disagrees with.”
” I mean, if he said, “I think the WGA should just take whatever’s offered and shut up, and to prove it I’m willing to work for struck companies,” *then* he’ll probably get tossed out of the WGA. But that’s a far cry from saying that he just disagrees with the WGA’s position.”
To which you responded with…
” If a writer were punished by the union supposedly representing his interests for writing or saying something the union management disliked, that would open the union up for a great deal of abuse. I understand that the management would rightly believe that writer was acting against the union’s interests, but the situation could get much uglier than any member would want. Free speech is the sort of thing writers’ unions should generally support.”
… and seemed to either completely ignore or just not understand the portion where PAD said that it would likely take thumbing your nose at the rules and actually working for a struck company before punitive recourse would be engaged in by the union.
Oh, and then there’s this.
” When the supposed prurient interest of lesbians is the only point of his post, “Oooh, Lesbians!! Hot!” is a pretty accurate paraphrase, yes.”
Don’t you think that maybe, just maybe, you’re the only one here who saw that post that way for a reason? Like, say, the point was the overall irony of the entire situation and making fun of the silly way that the national press overreacts to a star “coming out” about his or her personal life?
Oh, and in regards to this line of yours:
” Joking about John W. Hinckley’s insane fascination with her (and the oh, so amusing way he acted out) was quite low. Several people here insisted that assassinations are hilarious, but they’re pathetic buffoons.”
Again, the humor was more in the irony of the overall situation. And I really have to say that moral outrage over that topic is hilariously funny when put forward by the man who said these things:
http://www.malibulist.com/mt/mt-commentsantispam.cgi?entry_id=5544” rel=”nofollow”>http://www.malibulist.com/mt/mt-commentsantispam.cgi?entry_id=5544
Jeffrey Frawley finds the drowning death of an innocent girl funny!
Posted by Jeffrey Frawley at July 23, 2007 12:32 PM
The Chappaquiddick reference was obvious enough, and pretty funny.
Jeffrey Frawley makes a joke about a plane full of people going to their deaths!
Posted by Jeffrey Frawley at July 24, 2007 03:10 PM
Bill Myers: It is also worth noting that he crashed into the ocean and died. Very unfortunate, isn’t it? Perhaps his training was not quite up to the challenge. Saying that he was cleared to fly by the FAA is about as persuasive as noting that a high percentage of fatal car crashes involve people with driver’s licenses.
His eyes looking at the displays
His hands and feet on the controls
His, His wife’s and his sister-in-law’s bodies hitting the ocean.
Boom!
Jeffrey Frawley makes a cutesy remark about the death of a president!
Posted by Jeffrey Frawley at July 27, 2007 08:51 PM
Did Lauren Bessette deserve anything less than the average person because her sister’s husband’s father is immensely beloved for losing a big piece of his head?
Jeffrey Frawley gets vemomously snarky when he’s losing the argument!
Posted by Jeffrey Frawley at July 29, 2007 03:55 PM
Perhaps someone here does worship at the altar of the little prince.
Yeah, you’ve really got the moral high ground here, Jeffrey…
Bye now.
On a sadder entertainment note…
The news making the rounds right now is that Maila Nurmi, better known to the world as Vampira, passed away in her sleep yesterday.
http://cinefantastiqueonline.com/2008/01/11/vampira-rip/
Re: whether the WGA’s fight concerns other entertainment unions, here’s a germane piece of information from the WGA’s FAQ section:
“We (the WGA) stand in solidarity with our fellow union members and are fighting for their rights along with ours. Fifty-five percent of the health insurance and pension funds for members of IATSE, the Teamsters, and the basic craft unions are paid for by residuals, but currently none of those unions receive residuals on content distributed through new media. As audiences move from traditional outlets to new media, the health and pension benefits of those unions are increasingly at risk. We care about all the members of our community, but if we and the other Hollywood unions accept an unfair deal, it will hurt everyone, including businesses that depend on a thriving entertainment industry. We HATE that others might be suffering because of this strike, but the conglomerates have left us no alternative.”
In other words, if we can set a precedent for internet residuals, many many non-writing workers may end up benefiting.
As far as why the WGA made a deal with Letterman, and not with Leno or Comedy Central, it’s pretty simple. Letterman owns Worldwide Pants, not NBC. CBS and/or Viacom own Leno and Comedy Central. Viacom needs to make a deal with the WGA, not the individual shows. I’m pretty sure that if CBS reached out to make such a deal, the WGA would be EXTREMELY receptive. (And yes, NBC collects the ad revenues generated by Letterman’s show, so nothing’s clean and simple, but making deals with a few significant players shows the numbers on the table aren’t industry-busting ravings but actually doable.)
Finally, please remember one thing through all the discussion. The AMPTP has walked out on negotiations with the WGA not once, but twice. There are always two sides to every story, but there’s only side to that.
Mark Verheiden
On the references to JFK Senior, I may have to plead guilty. On those to JFK Junior, perhaps not: He wasn’t President – ever. You can check that out. Nor was he assassinated. You probably knew that. I don’t think Senior’s death was funny; I also don’t think it gives any special priority to Junior. On that string, many people were SO upset that Junior died, when it is a fact that two other people died because of his pilot error. You can check that one out, too (Carolyn Bessette Kennedy and Lauren Bessette, for those who don’t recall). On the matter of the WGA punishing, or not punishing, disobedient writers, you are reading too much into my post. PAD’s suggestion was the correct one, as I never denied. The alternative, punishing writers for disloyalty, is a bad idea, for the reasons I stated. In the future, Jerry Chandler, the next time someone says “You’re right. To do otherwise would be a really stupid idea.” that is not criticism. Criticism is more like “You’re wrong, dumb-ášš.” The difference is not trivial.
Mitch Evans: On PAD supposedly reversing himself regarding Dr. Phil, the bulk of his point was that Dr. Phil was a low, opportunistic scumbag taking advantage of a celebrity client (a point with which I must agree). The matter of the Hippocratic Oath was a minor question of fact which didn’t substantially change the overall thrust. It appears that I am wrong about PAD never reversing himself at all, but I still cannot recall any instance in which he has actually reversed the thesis of any of his posts, or of him being persuaded of anything new. What I meant by standing behind my assumptions was exactly this: Thus far, I still believed everything I had said in this string to be accurate – I still believed it – definitely not that further discourse was useless. I’ve been caught in some errors from time to time on this site, and I have confessed to some of them; At the point of that post, I had no confessions to offer – nothing more than that. One (and perhaps the only) area in which I strongly agree with PAD is promotion of maximum free speech, and that has not changed.
Mark Verheiden: I think everything in your post is accurate. Apparently the WGA itself has addressed the issues of collateral damage pretty well. PAD’s remarks with which I disagree were made purely on his own, as he was very clear in stating.
Letterman owns Worldwide Pants, not NBC. CBS and/or Viacom own Leno and Comedy Central. Viacom needs to make a deal with the WGA, not the individual shows. I’m pretty sure that if CBS reached out to make such a deal, the WGA would be EXTREMELY receptive. (And yes, NBC collects the ad revenues generated by Letterman’s show, so nothing’s clean and simple
Hi, Mark.
Long time, no MC.
Last i looked, Leno was on NBC and Letterman was on CBS…
Jeffrey S. Frawley: “In the future, Jerry Chandler, the next time someone says “You’re right. To do otherwise would be a really stupid idea.” that is not criticism. Criticism is more like “You’re wrong, dumb-ášš.” The difference is not trivial.”
Well, the way you wrote that post, neither explicitly stating support nor offense, the apparent “hypocrisy” attack it read like you were building and the overall tone you’ve taken to PAD’s other posts here lead me to read it as “against” rather then “for” PAD’s point. Now, you, the author of the post in question, the man who actually knows what you were thinking when you typed it and knows what you meant to convey, say that you meant that as support for PAD and not as an attack. Hey, I can accept that. You say that you meant A and that I misunderstood it to be B. Fine. However, if you expect such treatment from others, then maybe you should do the same yourself. The very obvious point that was made and that you missed has been explained and re-explained to you and you still shut your eyes, cover your ears and scream at the top of your lungs that you can’t hear us and that we’re all wrong.
Jeffrey S. Frawley: “On that string, many people were SO upset that Junior died, when it is a fact that two other people died because of his pilot error.”
You know, I’m not going to rehash that entire thread all over again here. Anybody that wants to can go back and read it. However, this line perfectly underscores what’s often wrong with you when you go off the rails. It was not, as was repeatedly explained to you in the thread by many of us, that people were upset about JFK JR’s death. The nut of the matter was the glee you almost seemed to express in his death, the fact that you made factual error after factual error about the circumstances of his death, the fact that after someone chimed in and said that they knew him you ratcheted up the venom and glee factor and the fact that that every fact presented to you that destroyed one of your “facts” was just ignored and blown of by you as idol worship or some other insulting garbage.
The reaction to you wasn’t about JFK JR at all. The reaction that you provoked was purely to the fact that you were being, and are increasingly being, a dìçk. And that actually sucks since, when you’re not predisposed to distorting other people’s arguments and picking fights, you’re actually fairly smart, clever and funny. And, no, that isn’t a line that you should now take and remold to claim that you’re only liked by some here if you agree with them. You and I have disagreed and I’ve been fine with you at those times. But it honest to god seems like you’re fine half the time and then the other half of the time you’re off your meds. And the off your meds moments are growing in frequency. You’re not at Mike levels of misrepresenting other’s statements or forcing your interpretations of what people mean on people over what they’re actually saying yet, but you’re getting more and more Mike-like more and more often of late.
Jeffrey S. Frawley: “On the references to JFK Senior, I may have to plead guilty. On those to JFK Junior, perhaps not: He wasn’t President – ever. You can check that out.”
So, your excuse, Jeff, is that our making fun of the stupidity of a guy who tried to kill a U.S. president is bad, but that you’re making fun of a man’s death is ok since that man wasn’t a president.
Oh, yeah. That’s much better.
I once (I think back in the OSC/Trek thread where you first really stuck on my radar) posted the notion that you were in fact PAD himself doing some odd piece of work that would later become the revival of one Vic Chalker, fanboy from hëll. You know, maybe a Vic Chalker: The Blog Years type of thing. It was said in jest, but the sad thing is, through what’s becoming an almost irrational desire to distort and attack PAD at almost every turn and anyone else here who may be on the same side of the argument as PAD, you’re living up to the joke.
On the references to JFK Senior, I may have to plead guilty. On those to JFK Junior, perhaps not: He wasn’t President – ever. You can check that out. Nor was he assassinated. You probably knew that. I don’t think Senior’s death was funny; I also don’t think it gives any special priority to Junior. On that string, many people were SO upset that Junior died, when it is a fact that two other people died because of his pilot error. You can check that one out, too (Carolyn Bessette Kennedy and Lauren Bessette, for those who don’t recall).
I think what made people upset was your flippancy over his death, not that his death was so much more terrible than others. Since you have made it a point to make some topics off limits for any attempt at humor you can’t be too surprised if people wonder why drownings, plane crashes, etc don’t meet that high standard. If you’re gonna talk the talk…
MIKE WEBER>> Last i looked, Leno was on NBC and Letterman was on CBS…
Oops. Substitute “GE” for “Viacom” and it’s the same point. Letterman (and Ferguson) are still owned by Letterman, not by CBS/Viacom. Leno is owned by NBC/Universal. (As is Battlestar, so I should remember this stuff.)
Mark Verheiden
Hi Jeff,
I agree that the Hippocratic Oath thing was a minor point in the overall thread. I pointed in that direction because it was fairly recent and, minor though it may be, it is demonstrative of the fact that PAD doesn’t claim absolute rightness when new information is gained. As far as his changing his position in whole, I don’t recall that happening. That’s not to say that it hasn’t happened, though. Sure I frequent peterdavid.net, but not enough to state for certain when such things may or may not have happened.
I figure if someones position hasn’t changed then I have not met a… burden of proof criterion, if you will. Like if I wanted to change your mind about, say, the best car to buy then the burden is on me to prove my case to you.
Thank you for clearing up that whole ‘assumption’ thing. Your clarification has helped me to better understand your position.
I, too, am a huge fan of free speech. I do, however, recognize that one instance when speech is no longer free and can carry a rather hefty price whether speech itself is used or not.
Regards,
M
Recourse?
Perhaps recourse was the wrong word to use, particularly when talking about the WGA, as they haven’t struck me as that type of group to date.
The MLBPA, on the other hand…
Jeff:
Osbo, I don’t think there is any misinterpretation.
I disagree.
I’ll try this some more since, well, I guess it’s friday night and I have some sexual frustration to work out.
Let me go over the discussion thus far – and I’ll try to use different tactics in order to explain myself.
1) You mentioned that the WGA were keeping technicians and such out of work.
2) PAD said such a thing was irrelevant.
3) You appeared to have taken offense to that, implying that PAD said that the technicians themselves were irrelevant. To me this was obviously not PAD’s intent.
4) The context of this discussion also involves my personal contact with other television and film workers who happen to be out of work – writers, technicians, and otherwise. This is information you were not originally privy to:
Myself, I’m a non-union editor, so I get to hear about a lot of these while I’ve been working my way into this industry. I am one of these technicians that is getting less work as a result. At the moment, I have to accept non-union jobs (industrials, infomercials, news) in my local area right around the time I’ve been searching for union-eligible jobs. This hasn’t happened yet, but my livelihood will be threatened soon in the coming months.
During this time, I’ve heard a lot of IATSE members, technicians and the like blame the WGA for their woes. I, on the other hand, hadn’t seen it exactly like that. Note, that by “a lot” I don’t mean “most”, I merely mean “some”, but more than “a few”. I also hear a lot of IATSE members, technicians and the like blame the AMPTP.
Further, the AMPTP has amped up the same line of argument. They’ve been posting ads and spinning PR that point to the WGA as the ones in the wrong. They created a straw man.
5) I read your loaded questions toward PAD, questions that imply that he simply doesn’t care about these technicians. Reading this, and within the context of everything else, I misinterpret you.
Yes, I misinterpreted you. I can admit to that. I say that you’re looking at the wrong straw man. You wittily responded that I didn’t point you toward the “right” straw man. I actually laughed.
6) However, you continue to misinterpret my and other posts. This latest example was very simple:
The AMPTP and the WGA are in negotiations and have not reached an agreement. The WGA has a more reasonable position, but that’s a different matter. Neither has “reached an end to negotiations,” which is what you said was the cause of the crew members’ situation. Certainly, as you said, there are levels of fault here, but your initial claim was only that failure to reach an agreement was the cause of the situation, rather than anything to do with the justice of the situation.
I didn’t say it was the cause of the crew members’ situation. It was a cause, certainly. It’s an added pressure to lining up work. Since I’m in post production, however, there will still be some time before the strike directly affects my workload. I’m literally on the back-end of a writers’ front-end.
There are currently a spattering of unproduced scripts currently in production, signed, sealed, and delivered before the strike. There is plenty of reality material out there if people wish to participate. Quite a few are actually in production at the moment.
There is still some work.
From this, a few companies have signed interim agreements with the WGA. They’ve done this because they want to go back into production, and they want to get shows on the air. Writers are a small part of their payroll, but they need said writers to provide material that they can produce. They circumvented their negotiating representative – the AMPTP – and dealt directly with the union in order to reach an agreement. Further, the WGA sought them out. They came up with this plan, knowing that some shows were either going to go back on the air or they would have to lay off the staffs of those shows. So they offered willing companies a way out.
The AMPTP has printed ads blaming the WGA for costing hollywood its money.
Out of the two negotiating parties, one seems to have done more to help bring the technicians back to work than the other.
Now to the question of relevance, which is the most important point because that seems to be the issue that sparked most of your comments here.
The livelihood of technicians (like me) is irrelevant to one thing – the particular disagreement between the WGA and the AMPTP. My well-being has nothing to do with the well-being of the WGA as a whole. The WGA isn’t negotiating for me, the AMPTP isn’t renegotiating the terms of my contract.
It is not, however, irrelevant to the workings of the world and Hollywood at large. It is certainly not irrelevant to the parties that the AMPTP represents, the producers.
The following is a grave simplification, but it works for the purposes of this argument:
A producer’s job is to produce. That is, they must create entertainment, shepherded from inception (when the producer buys a pitch) to eventual production and distribution, and compensate the people involved accordingly. In doing so, that producer must negotiate with several parties – for equipment, for film stock, for labor, and for creative content. The producer must solicit the services of several people. Finally, the producer must sell the product at the most profitable rate possible. If the producer is not doing this, he or she is simply not doing his or her job. Ultimately, the responsibility of putting shows into production likes upon the shoulders of those in charge.
In other words, if there are levels of fault, the ones with the most fault are the ones whose job it is to develop, produce, and sell the products in the first place.
The WGA strike is just another problem getting in the way of a producer, well, producing. One of many. For example, if a location that a movie had planned to falls through (and believe me, this happens more often than not), does the film suddenly end and everyone on it turned away jobless? No. The producer finds a way around it. He renegotiates, searches for an alternative location, or builds a new one in his garage.
And the show goes on.
So, by saying that the WGA is the sole party responsible for other film and television workers being out of work is not only false, but grossly missing the appropriate target.
Also, if we’re talking levels of responsibility here, one certainly has more than the other.
The point of my posts were that a) the WGA is not the cause of crew-members woes, though it does make things harder, b) the WGA aren’t solely responsible, c) if we should look to anybody it should be to the party that has refused to come to the negotiating table, and d) the whole “other people out of work because of the strike” statement is a straw-man, a smokescreen, a reason to point at the WGA and say “look! bad!” which I happen to disagree with.
As I misinterpreted your post as one that placed the WGA as the only one responsible for technicians’ woes, you seem to consistently misunderstand my various responses to you. Much like many people are saying.
I would call that a hint.