Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Are Re-Runs Really Such a Bad Thing?

By Barbara Ehrenreich, Barbaraehrenreich.com. Posted November 14, 2007.


Sure, a screenwriters' strike is not as emotionally compelling as a strike by janitors or farm-workers, but look at what we're losing.
Advertisement

In solidarity with the striking screenwriters there will be no laugh lines in this blog, no stunning metaphors, and not many adjectives. Also, in solidarity with the striking Broadway stage-hands, no theatrics, special effects or sing-along refrains.

Yes, I realize the strike could deprive millions of Americans of news as Jay Leno, Jon Stewart, and the rest of them are forced into re-runs. If the strike and the re-runs go on long enough, the same millions of Americans will be condemned to living in the past and writing in Kerry for president in 08. But are re-runs really such a bad thing? After opening night, every Broadway show is a re-run in perpetuity, yet people have been known to fly from Fargo to see "Mamma Mia."

And yes, it's a crying shame that so many laugh-worthy news items will go unnoted on the late night talk shows: The discovery of Chinese toys coated with the date rape drug. The news that pot-smoking Swiss teenagers are as academically successful as abstainers and better socially adjusted. Bush's repeated requests for Musharraf to take off his uniform. Could there be a simple explanation for the powerful affinity between these two men?

True, a screenwriters' strike is not as emotionally compelling as a strike by janitors or farm-workers. Screenwriters are often well-paid -- when they are paid. All it takes is for a show to get cancelled or reconceptualized, and they're back on the streets again, hustling for work. I know a couple of them -- smart, funny women who clamber nimbly from one short-lived job to another, struggling to keep up their health insurance and self-respect.

But my selfish hope here is that the screenwriters' action will call attention to the plight of writers in general. Since I started in the freelancing business about 30 years ago, the per-word payment for print articles has remained exactly the same in actual, non-inflation-adjusted, dollars. Three dollars a word was pretty much top of the line, and it hasn't gone up by a penny. More commonly in the old days, I made a dollar a word, requiring me to write three or four 1000-word pieces a month to supply the children with their bagels and pizza. One for Mademoiselle on "The Heartbreak Diet." One for Ms. on "The Bright Side of the Man Shortage." One for Mother Jones on pharmaceutical sales scams, and probably a book review thrown in.

There was a perk, of course -- the occasional free lunch on an editor's expense account. These would occur in up-market restaurants where the price of lunch for two would easily exceed my family's weekly food budget, but I realized it would be gauche to bring a plastic baggie for the rolls. My job was to pitch story ideas over the field greens and tuna tartare, all the while marveling at the wealth that my writing helped generate, which, except for the food on my plate, went largely to someone other than me.

For print writers, things have gone steadily downhill. The number of traditional outlets--magazines and newspapers -- is shrinking. Ms., for example, publishes only quarterly now, Mother Jones every two months, and Mademoiselle has long since said au revoir. You can blog on the Web of course, but that pays exactly zero. As for benefits: once the National Writers' Union offered health insurance, but Aetna dropped it and then Unicare found writers too sickly to cover. (You can still find health insurance, however, at www.freelancersunion.org.)

So, you may be thinking, who needs writers anyway? The truth is, no one needs any particular writer, just as no one needs any particular auto worker, stage-hand, or janitor. But take us all away and TV's funny men will be struck mute, soap opera actors will be reduced to sighing and grunting, CNN anchors will have to fill the whole hour with chit chat about the weather, all greeting cards will be blank. Newspapers will consist of advertisements and movie listings; the Web will collapse into YouTube. A sad, bewildered, silence will come over the land.

Besides, anyone who's willing to stand up to greedy bosses deserves our support. A victory for one group, from Ford workers to stage-hands, raises the prospects for everyone else. Who knows? If the screenwriters win, maybe some tiny measure of respect will eventually trickle down even to bloggers. So in further solidarity with striking writers, I'm going to shut up right now.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: screeenwriters strike, writers strike

Barbara Ehrenreich is the author of thirteen books, including the New York Times bestseller Nickel and Dimed. A frequent contributor to the New York Times, Harpers, and the Progressive, she is a contributing writer to Time magazine. She lives in Florida.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Well put, Barbara.
Posted by: Urstrly on Nov 16, 2007 5:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just had an argument with a friend who has an MBA. She insists strikes are bad because they force people on both sides to be self-righteous and quit bargaining. But what do writers have to bargain with? If they're getting nothing for new media, their only choice is to stop.

At least screenwriters have a union. What about all the writers like yourself who bargain with publications on their own? Now that publishers have figured out the way to trim operating costs and up their stock price is to cut out those pesky writers and editors, there are more and more well-educated, highly literate people without job security and insurance. You're right; writers aren't in the same situation as auto workers or janitors. They can always look for jobs in advertising or PR or, better yet, selling other peoples'books at Barnes and Noble.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

well the good news on this is...
Posted by: Bearzerker on Nov 17, 2007 4:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... maybe the MSM wont be so lazy about reporting actual news and go out and work for their audience for a change...

We need a Walter Cronkite type... to tell us coach potatoes "thats the way it was [insert date]"
Giving us actual 6 o'clock news, reporting actual news events and stories... and leaving all the celebrity fluff thats been permeating the broadcasting medium since the mid 90's to programs like entertainment tonight or other reality TV programs!...

To me it seems that the broadcasters seem to enjoy deploying a Edward D. Wood, Jr. type production staff with the writers and producers being employed on the cheap, while at the same time maximizing advertising revenue during what is supposed to be basically
...public service announcement services...

Just goes to show and is another example of, how stupid we've become!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]