A lot has been written about the writer's strike in Hollywood, and I don't want to rehash the excellent work that's being done at the United Hollywood blog. Yes, the studios are horribly unfair and are penalizing the writers by not paying them as the world transitions to the internet. I think it's important to understand that this fight is actually significant for the rest of us as well.
The writer's strike is not just about labor rights, it's not just about residuals for writers, and it's not just about studios. What this strike is really about is control of our media system, because what the studios want, no matter the arena, is control of their content, their talent, their distribution channels, and ultimately, customer behavior.
For instance, these big media companies are beginning to weigh in on controlling the internet.
None of the big four TV networks has taken a public position on Net neutrality, either, but the Media Institute, a First Amendment think tank funded by major media companies including the nets, filed comments just last week with the FCC opposing NN regulation, saying there is "no need" for it.
What these studios want is clean mechanisms for reliable distribution of their content, and a reduction of competition from alternative sources of content. They want to be bottlenecks again, like they were before the internet. This is a drive though borne of their desire for total control of the whole creative cycle, including undermining the power of their writers so they can control them as well.
Now, it should be pretty obvious that studio executives are extremely leery of political programming and advertising that challenges entrenched interests or advertisers. After all, these are heavily regulated industries, and upsetting politicians when facing decency fines and media ownership requirements isn't smart. Writers that have economic power are a threat to the studios, because they challenge them to put creative (and profitable) content on the air that is attacks entrenched interests, whether that is the Simpson's mocking of Fox News or the Colbert Report's skewering of the right. It's unlikely that Stephen Colbert, without protections afforded to him by labor, could take as many aggressive creative risks he does on a regular basis. While it's unthinkable to believe that he could be taken off the air at this point, realize that institutions are quite malleable in times of crisis.
The studios have a history here, and we're not just talking about the McCarthy period. Consider that Bob Iger, head of ABC and opponent of the writers, is responsible for the Path to 9/11 propaganda film blaming the Clinton administration for the September eleventh attacks, a gross distortion of history forced onto his network by right-wing lunatics he wouldn't stand up to. Or consider that Les Moonves, head of CBS and opponent of the writers, canceled The Reagans because of minor pressure from the right. Crushing political speech, as Moonves tried to do when his company threatened to sue Jason Lee Miller because he reported on Katie Couric's inaccuracies in reporting on Iraq, is something these networks would do instantly if it were in their interest. These media moguls are intent on dominating communication channels and forcing their products down our throats. That is what they do, who they are, and what is in their DNA. Political suppression would come naturally and easily to these people, and one serious check on them is the fact that their creative producers have power.
Watch the hilarious youtube clip above of the members of The Office on strike. The producer of the show suggests that the studios have their lawyers write episodes, because lawyers are very creative. The funny thing is that if studios could have their lawyers write their content, they probably would. Lawyers are easier to control than talented, creative, and ambitious writers. That's why the joke is funny.
Right now, the fact that writers have economic power means that the shows that are produced and aired, while still determined by studio executives, are not completely dominated by them. Controversial shows get made, new creative models do get tested, and talent has the power to ensure that there is quality work put on the air. If Iger and Moonves could get rid of the cost (and therefore the quality) while reducing distribution channels and competition by gutting net neutrality and cutting a sweet deal with the telecom and cable companies for premium distribution, they would do so in a heartbeat. And you can be quite sure that controversial advertising, or even just regular advertising challenging politically powerful figures, would be off the air. Shows would get worse and more generic, and our culture and politics would be poorer.
Obviously, the residuals issue is the main point of contention here, but it's not very much money for these multi-billion international conglomerates. What's at hand here is control. Who has it? The media moguls, or everyone else.
The problems of network ownership and creative control are not directly at issue in the current strike by the Writers Guild of America. What's at stake is how writers will be compensated, given the control everyone assumes the big companies will exert over new methods of delivery.
But make no mistake -- deep resentment in the entire creative community over the absolute power now wielded by these companies is the fuel that feeds the strike. The public is also fed up, turning out in droves and sending millions of e-mails whenever the FCC holds hearings on the subject. And yet the large corporations move forward, seemingly unaware that they are strangling the creative engine that might save them.
