The New York Times and the Writers' Strike: Part 2 - General Reflection

The New York Times and the Writers' Strike: Part 2 - General Reflections	Jan. 22nd, 2008 @ 04:12 pm

The New York Times, Unions and the WGA: Part Two
Part One of this post How Weird is The New York Times?: NYT Assigns Former Producer to Cover the WGA

In one respect the writers' strike is unusual for The New York Times; "the paper of record" has been printing frequent, if not substantive, articles on the strike and the strike leaders. If this were any other strike by a union of comparative size we would have been privileged to receive three or four reports on the course and consequences of the strike, no more. But this is a Hollywood and New York Strike, effecting the very industry that The New York Times is close to, so we are cursed with a surplus of riches. Instead of three or four generally pro-industry articles from The Times we get a dozen and more.

This strike is unusual for The Times in another way; it has a regular reporter assigned to the strike beat. Michael Cieply is the reporter's name and he is an old hand at his job, who did a stint as a producer for Sony, which is of course one of the companies that is opposing the WGA. As noted earlier it treads close to an ethical line to assign a reporter to cover a strike who was once worked as a "producer" for one of the companies being struck. But more on Mr. Cieply later. I want to emphasize that this note is not about Michael Cieply or any other single reporter. He is only important here to the extent that he is the usual New York Times filter through which flows "all the news that is fit to print." He would not be in the position he has obtained if he were not able to articulate the usual anti-union world-view of the business leaders.

The coverage by The Times of the writers' strike has followed the usual pattern of corporate media coverage of union politics. The major media rarely covers strikes or the labor movement without marginalizing the union leaders involved, and trying its best to isolate the strikers from the rest of society. The New York Times treats unions and their leaders with the same template that they treat third world countries and their leaders. Union leaders are presented as either incompetent, unrealistic, or criminals. These leaders may be radical or moderate or pragmatic depending on whether they are helping the business classes or pursuing an independent course. Strikers are made to fall into at least one of three categories. They are either; (1) too uneducated or limited in their view to realize their own best interests and therefore marching toward mirages when they strike; or (2) coddled and lazy workers looking to extend their undeserved privileges; or (3) violent thugs who only have themselves to blame when respectable society cracks down on them.

The New York Times is our preeminent liberal newspaper and they will not be caught out advocating iron-fisted union busting; such a stance wold alienate their liberal middle class readership. So given the above three categories the next move of Times strike coverage is to find inside the union the true voice of the rank and file. They will find or invent a clique of union members who represent the mature leaders and pragmatic union leaders, or the union leaders who are realistic about the need to rationalize an industry and throw off dead weight, or the union leaders who are responsible and law abiding.

Reduced to its essentials the coverage of strikes by The New York Times is not much different than the kind of coverage we receive from the Murdoch owned New York Post. If either deigns to cover a strike we mostly see the strike from the point of view of "the innocent bystander" (consumers, non-striking workers who have lost their jobs, the investor), the business leader, or the union dissident. The main difference between The Times and The Post is that The Times tries to articulate the views of that section of the business class that wants "labor peace" for the long run and the Post just says what it is for, straight out with-out grace notes or business facts. The Post will simply call strikers clowns, rats, or thugs where the Times will condescend in the kind of Times-speak it usually reserves when covering a Third World country and the "underclass." Thus there is a sense in Times' strike coverage that strikers are somehow like children -- they are out of their depth in the real world; they are crying over their loss of the warm spot; or they are acting out of misplace nostalgia for a time of union militancy and socialist dreams. Besides all that, strikers, unlike respectable businessmen, argue among themselves and are mired in dissension. Occasionally, the mask of middle-class liberalism drops and strikers are told to get in line or get crushed.

In the above the reader will find the usual contours of newspaper coverage of unions and strikes. So it must be understood that when I dissect the Times' treatment of the writers' strike I am not claiming that the WGA leadership or the writers on strike are being treated worse than other groups in the labor movement. They are being treated about the same. Any quirks in treatment mostly have to do with accidental circumstances and the fact that we are, after all, dealing with an industry of celebrities.

The latest examples of anti-union reporting of the writers' strike follow a familiar pattern with a few twists. The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, Variety, and The Hollywood Reporter are the major papers to look at when considering the WGA strike. (As usual The Wall Street Journal is an exception that would have to be dealt with on its own. Its coverage has been bluntly and honestly anti-union but without the usual cliché assumptions.) All of them have taken the exact same line from the beginning of the strike. Stated simply their line is as follows: The leadership of the WGA is unrealistic. The WGA leaders are amateurs who have lost touch with reality. The WGA leaders have a personal "ideological agenda", that can only hurt the industry.*

What all of these newspapers harp on again and again is dissent within the WGA. They look for it everywhere and in every article. When one prominent writer decided to scab on the strike he was given full, and repeated coverage. (One would think that he was not an individual but an army.) There are rumors that "A-list" screenwriters have broken ranks with the WGA, but none are named and none have come forward. In short, all four newspapers have invented a dissident faction of the WGA that is ready to break into the open and bring the current leadership down..

Thus you get headlines such as the following:

Writers’ Strike Tests the Mettle of 2 Outsiders By MICHAEL CIEPLY (Published January 19, 2008, The New York Times)

In Writers Strike, Signs of Internal Discontent Over Tactics By MICHAEL CIEPLY, (January 11, 2008, The New York Times)

Directors' Deal Could Split Striking Writers By Carl DiOrio (A Reuters piece, Published January 17, 2008, in The New York Times but also picked up by The Hollywood Reporter, The Washington Post, ABC.net, and a number of other newspapers. With the aid of google I looked around a bit and of the Reuters stories on the WGA picked up by other news venues this is the most popular.)

What is the real news of this strike? It is the unusual unity so far of the writers. I have rarely seen a strike where the workers turn up at the picket line in high numbers three months after the strike has begun. Picket lines often dwindle to 5 or 10 people this long into a strike. At the most recent picket line I went to at Viacom near Times Square in New York City I heard lively political debate and economic analysis. I heard debate over strategy and there was high level of consciousness of what this strike is about. And there were more than 200 people on the picket line.

What is The New York Times and Cieply's explanation for all of this? Perhaps it is the "Woodstock atmosphere" on the picket lines.

In the 1980s, when I was part of the Central American solidarity movement the Times would dismiss every large protest as "reminiscent of the sixties." The idea was that "those people" who are concerned with the lives of people in distant lands were motivated by nostalgia and we should ignore them. Cieply uses similar rhetoric in his analysis of the WGA strikers. He uses (sometimes weird) variations of oft' repeated anti-union clichés. Some of these cliches I noted in a previous post where I stated, "If ... picket lines are old fashion sorts of affairs that people won't cross, they blame unions for being thugs. If picket lines largely act as a moral reminder that people should stick together for the good of all who work, then the picketers are called cry-babies or people who are not serious." In this Cieply simply echoes the propaganda of the AMPTP. Early on the conglomerate mouthpieces complained of the "alternating mix of personal attacks and picket line frivolity" referring to "the WGA's continuing series of concerts, rallies, mock exorcisms, pencil-drops and Star Trek-themed gatherings."

Such complaints are clichés that seasoned union veterans have come to expect from The New York Times -- strikers are petulant children, or misguided idealists, or ideologically motivated reds, or thuggish criminals.


* Footnote: The ideological agenda of the WGA leaders is never defined precisely, but the phrase is used to refer to the goal of the WGA leadership to organize the unorganized and to maintain union solidarity. If this is "an ideological agenda" then the whole idea of having a union, and believing in worker solidarity and collective action has to be considered "an ideological agenda." The phrase "ideological agenda," which The New York Times has repeated uncritically is a code phrase for "these guys are "reds". One should expect old fashion red-bating every now and then. But in this case it hides something far more sinister. The idea that "organizing the unorganized" among Hollywood writers is itself an ideological agenda should signal to all unions that the conglomerates no longer intend to let unions expand within the movie and media industries. If other Hollywood unions listen carefully they would hear a union busting agenda from the multinational corporations now running things in Hollywood.

Jerry Monaco
22 January 2008
New York City






This
work by
Jerry Monaco is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

amptp, anti-union, capitalism, ceos, cliches, dga, hypocrisy, ideology, media analysis, new york times, patric verrone, picket lines, strike breakers, strike tactics, strikes, wga, writers, writers' strike

On the AMPTP Offer to Begin Informal Talks

On the AMPTP Offer to Begin Informal Talks	Jan. 17th, 2008 @ 07:29 pm

As many of you will already have heard the DGA and the AMPTP have come to a preliminary agreement. I post below the "joint statement" of the AMPTP majors who run the show.

The AMPTP offer informal negotiations. The offer presents a bit of a double bind.

It is my belief that in most cases such discussions "should" be formal. The notion behind informal talks is that the "old boys" can sit together and come to an agreement like insiders of the same club. The "old boy" club is the unstated "ideal" of such informal talks. But this "ideal" is not the only strategy behind such negotiation tactics:

1) It is a way to put the majors into a position that they are bargaining only over the things that they consider "real", i.e. what is in the DGA agreement. Informal talks along these lines are meant to exclude issues that are somehow "out of bounds" or "abnormal". In this case I would these issues would include union solidarity clauses and organizing the unorganized. But it may also include such issues as the 17 day grace period for streaming on line. (Seventeen days is a long time. As a fan I know that it is only during this space that I would think of looking at something on line. I would bet that practically all of the revenue comes during this period. But the WGA writers must read the fine print themselves.)

2) It is a way to make it so that if the AMPTP breaks off talks in the future (if it comes to that) they won't have to do it publicly. The conglomerate negotiators won't be seen walking away from the table by everybody if they want to leave the WGA behind. The biggest propaganda blow to the AMPTP was that they walked away. Informal talks are meant to guard against a repeat of this embarrassing possibility. If the AMPTP finds it in their interest Informal talks can just wind down without formal talks ever starting. Then the conglomerates can put their hands up and shrug, "Oh, this is not our fault. "

3) Another problem with informal talks are the accompanying media blackout. When there is a media blackout this usually means that the union is no longer able to get its word out. The bosses are always able to get their word out -- they have the newspapers to do so. Unions always have to rely on their own means of communication. In this case a media blackout will put more of a burden on strike captains to get the WGA line to the strikers themselves.

All of this being said, it is difficult to refuse any kind of talks even if they are informal. I am only writing this so that people can understand the strategy behind this kind of proposal.

The WGA leadership will know this, and many union brothers and sisters who have engaged in negotiations will know these tactics.

JOINT STATEMENT

The agreement between the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers and the Directors Guild of America establishes an important precedent: Our industry’s creative talent will now participate financially in every emerging area of new media. The agreement demonstrates beyond any doubt that our industry’s producers are willing and able to work with the creators of entertainment content to establish fair and flexible rules for this fast-changing marketplace.

We hope that this agreement with DGA will signal the beginning of the end of this extremely difficult period for our industry. Today, we invite the Writers Guild of America to engage with us in a series of informal discussions similar to the productive process that led us to a deal with the DGA to determine whether there is a reasonable basis for returning to formal bargaining. We look forward to these discussions, and to the day when our entire industry gets back to work.

Peter Chernin, Chairman and CEO, the Fox Group
Brad Grey, Chairman & CEO, Paramount Pictures Corp.
Robert A. Iger, President & CEO, The Walt Disney Company
Michael Lynton, Chairman & CEO, Sony Pictures Entertainment
Barry M. Meyer, Chairman & CEO, Warner Bros.
Leslie Moonves, President & CEO, CBS Corp.
Harry Sloan, Chairman & CEO, MGM
Jeff Zucker, President & CEO, NBC Universal

So please look at this joint statement for what it is.

Tags: amptp, corporations, negotiations, patric verrone, producers, strategy, unions, wga, writers, writers' strike

In defense of parodies and theme pickets: WGA Strike Against Multinational Corporations

In defense of parodies and theme pickets: WGA Strike Against Multinational Corporations	Dec. 20th, 2007 @ 12:27 pm

The AMPTP is very upset. They walked away from the table and since that time all they have been doing is complaining that the writers and their union have been organizing picket lines and complaining that "their" writers have been writing parodies. Beyond that they refuse to negotiate. instead they write things like the following.

Then, someone from the WGA offices happily distributed the link to a hijacked parody website that even many rank-and-file WGA members felt was over-the-top. All of this is happening right along with the WGA's continuing series of concerts, rallies, mock exorcisms, pencil-drops and Star Trek-themed gatherings.

Amidst this alternating mix of personal attacks and picket line frivolity, we must not forget that this WGA strike is beginning to cause serious economic damage to many people in the entertainment business
See Deadline Hollywood, "AMPTP Hot and Bothered"

Why is the AMPTP upset by this "frivolity"? Because the CEOs and Moguls who look at their labor force as people who should take orders and be silent, are shocked that their workers are standing up for themselves. Why do they make fun of Star Trek themed picket lines? Because the bosses don't want any kind of picket lines and they certainly don't want picket lines supported by large groups of people. Why do they complain about parody websites? Because those of us who are not members of the WGA read them, and they make us laugh, and like all good satire they reveal to us a lot of the truth.

So it was a surprise to me that a weblog of a writer I occasionally read Jim Cirile at Coverage, Ink/Writers on the Storm, complained about these tactics. I read him because as a poet I am interested in the problems of creativity and how they intersect with business.

There is a feeling from people like Jim C, people who are not used to looking at their employers as bosses, that such tactics are impolitic. What I would like to show in this post and subsequent posts is that these tactics are unique extension of necessary union tactics. These tactics should be admired and imitated by other unions.

In fact I think that other unions should make a deal with the WGA that future strikes by other workers will have the aid of these writers and satirists!

I like Jim C. so I felt a needed to respond to the post. I quote my response in whole below. I was a bit heated but he told me thanks for the post, so I suppose he was not too staggered.

I quote the post in whole and then my response, with a few syntactical corrections.

WGA Management Officially on Crack


Monday Dec. 10 -- In a staggering display of poor judgment, the Writers Guild of America, currently neck-deep in a strike effort against the AMPTP (film producers), either deliberately or inadvertently sent an official WGA communique to the entire WGA West membership plugging a spoof site ridiculing the AMPTP. The site, www.amptp.com, lampoons the AMPTP's poor judgment and is entertaining satire to be sure. But at a time when thousands of people are out of work heading into the holidays, most of whom will never see any benefit from any WGA deal, only lost income, the industry is getting more and more nervous, and key industry figures like Thomas Short, president of Hollywood union IATSE, are publicly criticizing guild management for incompetence on the front page of The Hollywood Reporter, in my opinion the Guild should have exercised some sensitivity here. To be sure, this comes across as a childish move--certainly not the deft and professional negotiations many of us were hoping for.

To be clear, Coverage Ink supports the issues the WGA is going for here. But boneheaded moves like this can't possibly help the Guild or the strikers. Goof sites are fine, and I've written a few myself. But when they're officially sanctioned by one side, it makes the sanctioner look like a complete jack-ass. Brilliant tactical maneuver, WGA.

UPDATE 12/11: WGA President Patric Verrone responds thusly:

Jim,

Thanks for writing. So you know, this web site was done without Guild knowledge or input but, when we saw it, we thought members would be interested. We remain committed to resolving this contract as soon as humanly possible. Remember, the AMPTP walked away from the table on Friday, not us. We are ready and willing to bargain at a moment's notice.

Seriously.

Best,
Patric

***********

So this confirms that no less than WGA President Patric Verrone signed off on this mail. God help us all. I defer to the first post below from "anonymous" as to a few more reasons why this WGA mailing was a serious shot in the foot. --JC

*******************
My Response a bit more extended than at Jim C.'s weblog was the following:

I don't get it. The fact is that this parody was right-on. It is what we who are only fans of writers and creators expect of you, a good parody that is also true.

Listen, I am not a member of WGA, but I am a former union organizer and once a member of the USWA and at one time, as a taxi driver, a member of the Teamsters. I am a veteran of many strikes and pickets. The publicity that the writers have been producing for this strike has been fantastic. The fan supported picket lines have been amazing. The reason why the bosses are so upset about it is because they did not expect that so many people would support "elitist" writers. The bosses thought that they would win the propaganda war. And why not? They own the media. They have the money. They can hire the big P.R firms. So it is a shock to them that they are not winning the propaganda war hands down. They look at themselves as the masters of the universe. Who are these writers to stand-up to us? Who are these writers to be better at propaganda than the big media moguls?

No matter who is striking, the bosses always use the same kind of propaganda, over and over again. "We are in this together... The strike is the fault of the greedy union leaders who are only interested in their own power.... The 'real' rank and file workers are on our side... They, the rank and file, want to work with us, the bosses... We are all on the same side, but the union leaders are divisive and ideological... We have the best interest of all of 'our' workers and the industry as a whole at heart." It is always the same line.

When the your bosses complain about how upset they are about the tactics and the "antics" of your union it is because your union is getting under their skin.

Let me say, by law, by corporate by-laws, the big corporations are not allowed to have their worker's interests at heart. The so-called "non-owner stakeholders" of a corporation, the workers and the surrounding community, are supposed to be subservient to the stated goal of the corporate-entity of making money for the owners. By the corporate by-laws only profit matters and if that means screwing the workers then that is that. The CEOs are greedy because that is their job-description. It is not their fault. It has nothing to do with personalities. It is simply the system and the institutions they work for. If they tell you that they are not greedy, that they are concerned with the workers in their industry, then they are only doing so for public relations purposes. And the only thing that will change that is some kind of counter power. Unions and their ability to act collectively and to rally the public to their side offer one possibility for what John Kenneth Galbraith called a counter-veiling power.

Unfortunately, the truth is that the WGA alone is neither big enough nor powerful enough to be a counter-veiling power, alone. They need help from many others. But to slag on the union for doing something successfully, something that we non-writers that support you admire greatly, is not seeing the reality of the situation.

*****

I will write more on this subject later.

If anyone wishes to copy any part of this post, or even plagiarize it as their own and post somewhere else, please feel free.

Jerry Monaco

Tags: corporations, parodies, picket lines, republic of hypocrisy, response, strike, strike tactics, unions, weblogs, wga, workers, writers