Considering some of the armchair commentary I’ve already made about this topic, it would be remiss of me to not mention the fact that negotiations between the WGA and AMPTP are to resume on the 26th November. This is a Good Thing.

Now, I’d like you to consider the sentence you’ve just read. Ignoring the fact that I am obviously biased in favour of the writers, what can you infer from that sentence about who walked away from the table and who suggested re-opening the negotiations? I’m hoping that the answer is “You can’t”. I’m not goiing to spend time re-editing it but on a first pass, I tried to put the news in the most neutral way I could.

Why is this an issue?

I was suprised to see on the BBC news website that this story was featured under the headline “Hollywood writers to resume talks“. That headline suggests to me that the Writers were the ones who were not accepting the proverbial olive branch being offered by the AMPTP. Of course, it could just be me and I’m reading too much into it. I’m also suprised that the general level of coverage, while understandably minimal, seems to have just been sourced from elsewhere and that no fact researching has been done.

For example, in the Q&A about the strike, they say that the AMPTP assert that “writers are already compensated for digital downloads” which would seem to be contradicting anything that the writer’s have said so far. Surely this is a factual claim that can be checked? I’ve looked into this further and while I knew there was a figure of 0.3% being bandied about for downloaded media that viewers paid for (and is the same as the DVD rate), I’d understood that this was the figure that the AMPTP had proposed to pay. Perhaps (and I will confess I’m not about to read through the entire 400 pages of legalese in the WGA contracts to find out - it’s not my job) it’s what the writers are, in fact, already getting paid for downloads. It is, however, still absolutely the fact that writers don’t get paid for streaming material of any sort and the AMPTP isn’t even proposing to do that either.

Part of the problem that the Writers have had in the US media is that most of the media outlets there are owned by the very people they are striking against: Fox, Sony, Warners etc. Some bias is to be expected. However, the BBC is meant to be independent and impartial and while I might side with the writers, I’m surprised that the BBC reportage seems to be less than neutral. Again, it might just be me and the way I’m reading it.

That being said, all is not rosy in the garden of independent news coverage. I’ve been disgusted at least twice in the last week at slack “journalism” and poorly researched “opinion” pieces. The first was by Emily Bell, writing for Broadcast, and the second is by Toby Young, writing for the Guardian who seems to be complaining about something (not getting paid for blogging, apparently - as if the likes of John August, Jane Espenson and other writers I’ve linked to in the past actually do!) that doesn’t particularly seem at all relevant and could be simply construed as him making a noise just because he can. (I also don’t believe that James Moran, screenwriter and attention-drawer to these links gets paid for either keeping a personal blog or having people like me steal his links - cheers James.)

Now, I have no problem with people who don’t agree with the strike provided that a) they know what they’re talking about and b) they put forward good arguments for debate. In the case of the two articles above, Toby Young just seems to have his knickers in a twist while Emily Bell just doesn’t appear to address - or even understand - the facts. (Curiously, both of them write for the Guardian and both of them seem to complain about not getting paid for articles they write appearing on the internet.) If either of them had said “The striking writers already get 0.3% residuals for downloaded media - here’s why they shouldn’t get any more” then that would have least been a strong starting point. They didn’t.

Elsewhere, arguments have ranged from the ridiculous to the, well, even more ridiculous. The one put forward by someone (possibly an AMPTP member, probably Micheal Eisner) goes along the lines of “If I buy a hammer from a hammersmith, he doesn’t get paid every time I swing it.” I don’t know what this is an argument against though - I mean, you don’t have to pay anyone everytime you watch a DVD you bought do you?

Other arguments are about how the writers get paid too much anyway and all rich and successful and there are more important issues in the world. Well, yes, I grant you that. There are other far more important issues in the world than the writers strike. Famine, war, pestilence and death are rife around the globe. However, as a filmmaker and screenwriter who wants to get stuff sold and seen, this strike is relevant to me. As for being rich, well, that’s a different matter. Also a fallacy. Also, those writers who are rich and successful are only thus because it’s people like those complaining who gave them money in the first place. At a minimum, all writers get the same percentage (unless you’re Shane Black and a producer offers you a wadge of cash for your script). However, who’s going to earn more? The writer whose film only sells 100 DVDs the writer whose film sells a million?

Okay, that’s enough rant. One more thing though - watch out for some high profile actors showing solidarity with the writers in a series of forthcoming PSAs that will be freely available across the internet. Promotional purposes only, of course.