Wednesday, October 3, 2007

Wednesday Afternoon

Today, George W. Bush vetoed a (sorta) bipartisan bill that would have dramatically expanded children's health insurance. It's okay to spend money we don't have for the Iraq War, even if billions of those dollars disappear mysteriously or go into corporate pockets without actually aiding the war effort. But trying to improve health care for sick kids? Well, we can't have that.

I don't think anything has lowered my opinion of Bush more than a "let them eat cake" statement he made not long ago at an appearance in Cleveland...

The immediate goal is to make sure there are more people on private insurance plans. I mean, people have access to health care in America. After all, you just go to an emergency room.

...spoken like a rich guy who has never had to rely on an emergency room and never will. As if our emergency rooms weren't already flooded with sick folks...or as if going to an emergency room and not paying the bill because you can't afford it is a workable alternative to real medical care. You wonder if before Bush signed the veto forms, he paused to realize that because of his actions, a certain number of children whose deaths could be prevented would die. Probably not.

• Posted at 12:28 PM · LINK

In Passing

The L.A. Times has an obit up for Charles B. Griffith, the screenwriter whose list of credits included the original Little Shop of Horrors, which we were discussing here the other day. I note that in the obit, star Jonathan Haze is quoted as saying the film has two days of principal photography but "three nights of second-unit work supervised by Griffith and actor Mel Welles."

And beneath that, the Times has a obit for Randy Van Horne, whose singing group performed (it says) on the theme songs of Huckleberry Hound, The Flintstones, The Jetsons and other shows. There's a nice bit of immortality. Those tunes will be played from now 'til the end of time.

• Posted at 11:38 AM · LINK

Today's Video Link

This is Jon Stewart's conversation with Chris Matthews on last night's Daily Show. Every so often, and this is an example, Stewart just talks to his guests in a candid, non-formula way that is honest and refreshing and therefore sadly unique in broadcasting today. He clearly didn't like Matthews's book and unlike most hosts, didn't feel he had to pretend otherwise. (He also clearly read it and didn't have to pretend he had, which is what too many hosts do.) I thought it was such a remarkable discussion that even though it's one of those flaky Comedy Central links, I'm going to take my life into my hands and embed it for you here.

Incidentally, I was also impressed, though less so, with Matthews's sportsmanship, sense of humor and ability to rise to the occasion. A lot of guests on book tours go on a show like this armed with their canned, rote responses which are sufficient because the hosts are asking canned, rote questions. I don't always "get" Matthews on his own show. He seems all over the map on some issues...like he thinks most of what Bush does is phony and hurtful but every so often, he seems to have this odd man-crush for the guy's macho swagger. He's often very good at changing the subject just as a guest is nearing a substantive point. It'll be interesting to see what happens if and when he has Stewart on his show.

• Posted at 10:53 AM · LINK

From the E-Mailbag...

Mike Hagan, a reader of this site, writes to ask...

I've been reading your blogs about the seemingly pending strike by the writers. I find it interesting to follow what happens as my parents were both teachers and members of the teachers union. While prohibited from striking (state law in Missouri because they were teachers), they did get the "blue flu" and try other tactics during negotiations with administration. So, the topic is interesting to me.

But, I've discussed the idea of the strike with friends and they keep asking me, "What is the point of having a writer's union in today's world?" I don't have a good answer. So, as part of your series, I think it would be great if you could address the issue of why the union is still relevant and why it is still necessary. Because, it seems as well, that there would be enough other writers out there willing to cross picket lines and replace current writers.

I think the point of having a writer's union in today's world is sharper than ever. With all the new technologies and the rapidly-changing business models out there, it's harder than ever to figure out the math. Could you dope out what would be fair compensation for the use of your work in "webisodes?" Or direct-delivery DVD rentals? Or the means of marketing that they're going to invent in five years to exploit the material you're writing this year? The folks who control the finances of this business — the Producers — have row upon row of highly-paid experts to research these strategies and the companies consult with one another and enter into cooperative ventures and partnerships. You can't negotiate with them on a one-to-one basis. They're too big and you, all on your own, are too small.

Actually, the point of a writer's union is crystal-clear to those of us who've worked in both animation (which is often not covered by the Writers Guild) and live-action (which is). I've worked for some studios like Disney under both arrangements and the difference is staggering. On the animation deals, my agent had to spend days negotiating terms that are standard in a WGA deal...even things like a clause governing screen credits. In the absence of one, they can just about put any damn name they want on the material so on a non-WGA project, we have to work all that out and it isn't easy. Because the WGA has a whole credits manual and a well-established arbitration process and a committee and precedents...and on a non-WGA project, we have to figure out a system that's fair without being able to access all that.

Even when I've had a lot of clout, the resultant deals — the ones we were able to negotiate without WGA coverage — lacked certain basic protections, like enforcement. Several times on animation projects I've written, the studio I was working for violated my contract in a way they would never have attempted on a WGA show. On a WGA-covered show, they knew, the guild would step in for me with its lawyers and handle matters. To do it on a non-WGA show meant that I'd have to go out and pay my own lawyer which, in two cases, I did. In one, I spent tens of thousands of dollars on legal fees before they paid me off — the full amount plus my attorney expenses. An exec there who left the firm later admitted to me that they often tried to get out of paying writers that way and that it usually worked. They presumed — correctly — that most writers wouldn't or couldn't spend that kind of money to go to court and would instead settle for lesser amounts. Around the office, they called it the "post-negotiation." After you'd done the work, they'd negotiate with you how much of the agreed-upon fee you were actually going to receive.

Most TV and movie writers — and by "most," I'm guessing upwards of 97% — are quite solidly behind the whole concept of the Writers Guild. Even if they haven't written animation, they've written something for a crooked publisher, a weasely editor, a slimy non-union producer. It can be shattering because the kind of work we do causes us to often lead with our hearts and therefore become quite vulnerable to exploitation. Often, we have to expend more energy on getting paid and protecting our legal rights than we expend to create the work...so we're delighted to have an entity like the WGA that's there to do all or most of that for us. If and when we strike this time, the Producers will spread the claim, as they always do, that the membership of the Guild isn't really behind its leadership. They always claim that and it's never true.

As for non-guild writers: Sure, there are plenty of them out there. But they're not interchangeable with the folks who walk off the job when there's a strike...just as if there's an actor's strike, the studio that's producing the next Tom Hanks movie is not going to replace him with an unknown who'll cross a picket line. They're going to wait for Tom because Tom is who they want, who they believe they need. They wouldn't pay Tom Hanks umpteen million per movie if he could be replaced with that unknown guy. And they wouldn't be paying mega-salaries to the folks who write The Office or the CSI shows or Desperate Housewives or any top show if they thought they could get by with the kind of writer who'd come in and do scab work. They would already have hired that guy if they felt he could do it because he'd be a lot cheaper.

There's a little more to it than this but I need to get back to an assignment. So I expect there'll be more here in the days to come on this topic.

• Posted at 10:37 AM · LINK

Sting Awakening

I love "consumer protection" investigative reporting and wish this nation's local news teams did more of them. Some time ago, I called your attention to a series that the Los Angeles NBC affiliate, KNBC Channel 4, did on the Jiffy Lube chain. Armed with hidden cameras and hard questions, they revealed dozens of cases where Jiffy Lube employees had charged customers for unnecessary repair work that often was not even performed.

Well, Channel 4 is at it again. This time, their target is the Home Depot chain, specifically their home repair and construction services. If their report is to be believed, Home Depot often does the same thing to homes that Jiffy Lube does to cars. This page will take you to transcripts and video of the five segments that KNBC has done so far on this investigation. It's about what you'd expect — consumers getting ripped off — but it's still shocking.

• Posted at 12:29 AM · LINK