The Industry

Today was the first day of a three-day “International Drama Summit”
conference that MediaXChange, in cooperation with CBS, NATPE and Fox, put
together here in L.A.  A sobering fact came out of a panel discussion today with Jeff
Wachtel, head of USA Network, and David Stapf, head of programming for
CBS and Paramount. They were asked point-blank by David Zucker (who
heads Ridley Scott’s TV production company) if they would ever buy a contemporary TV
series set in Europe or South America, written and produced by
Americans and starring American actors…and they both answered with a flat-out NO.

The only exceptions Stapf and Wachtel said they would consider would be
shows set in the past (ala ROME, THE TUDORS or ROBINSON CRUSOE) or that
are science fiction (which are likely to be set on other planets,
regardless of what country they are shot in).  They believe that
America audiences simply won’t accept a contemporary series set in
Europe, no matter how big the stars are. They said there hasn’t been a
successful network show set in Europe since the days of THE AVENGERS,
THE SAINT and I SPY thirty five years ago…and they were unwilling to be the ones to try to break that record.

(So, if their views reflect those of other American network chiefs, I was doomed on FAST TRACK as a series before I ever started…though the movie has quite done well internationally as a “one off” and made money)

That said, Stapf and Wachtel said they are very open to buying formats from overseas
and setting them in America…as the networks have done in a big way this season LIFE ON MARS, 11th HOUR, MYTHOLOGICAL EX, THE
TREATMENT, and NY-LON, to name a few. The key is adapting the format to what they called our “uniquely American sensibility.” A BBC exec on the panel said the biggest difference was story-telling…he said British programs tend to meander more, “though there is some pleasure to be had in meandering.”

They also talked about how immensely successful U.S. shows are in
Europe and that American studios actively consider the international sales
potential of whatever they are developing for the domestic networks.

There was also a fascinating panel of executives and content providers discussing the potential for drama on the web. Christopher Sandberg, of the Companyp in Sweden, said the key difference between TV and the web comes is how they view the relationship between content and the audiences. In the broadcast model, the important thing is getting the viewer to click his remote to your program and to stay there to watch it. In the web model, it’s not getting the audience to the content that counts, it’s what the audience does when they get there that matters…and that is what is saleable to advertisers. Passive viewing isn’t enough in the new media world. What the web provider is selling advertisers is the audience involvement, and how people are experiencing, interactin with, & utilizing the content…not simply the audience’s eyeballs.

Fascinating stuff.

Today WGA members received an email from Patric Verrone, our Guild president, regarding the small number of writers who decided to go "financial core" during the strike. I have a great deal of respect for Patric, and I wholeheartedly supported the strike, but I found the wording, intent, and underlying message of the email offensive, particularly this:

[…]there were a puny few who chose to do otherwise, who consciously and selfishly decided to place their own narrow interests
over the greater good. Extreme exceptions to the rule, perhaps, but this handful of members who went financial core, resigning from the union yet continuing to receive the benefits of a union contract, must be
held at arm’s length by the rest of us and judged accountable for what they are – strikebreakers whose actions placed everything for which we fought so hard at risk.

He went on to include a link to a list of those writers, who number less than two dozen.

Patric’s letter, and his rallying cry to scorn those writers, harkens back to one of the darkest chapters in entertainment history for writers — the blacklist.  In my view, Patric is asking us to engage in that same, despicable behavior… to exclude these writers from work opportunities because of their political views. While I strongly disagree with what those writers did, I resent the Guild asking me to blacklist them because of it.

The writers who went financial core objected to the strike but at least they followed the rules to express their dissatisfaction. I can respect their courage and integrity if not their views. They didn’t hide in the shadows, saying one thing ("I support the strike!") and doing another (writing scab scripts for a daily soap). They stood up and were willing to be held accountable for their actions.

I would, at least to some degree, understand Patric’s suggestion if he was talking about the people who actually scabbed…who toiled in secret, writing scripts for shows while the rest of us were walking the picket lines and losing our incomes.  Go after the scabs, expose them, fine them, throw them out of the Guild. I am all for that.

But tarring-and-feathering the writers who went financial core, and suggesting that we not hire them, is wrong.  The boards of the WGA West and East should be ashamed of endorsing this wrong-headed action and supporting this offensive letter.

UPDATE: The complete text of Patric Verrone’s letter, and a spirited debate about it, can be found at Nikki Finke’s Deadline Hollywood Daily.

UPDATE: WGA members Craig Mazin and John August share their opinions about the letter.

UPDATE 4/22/08: Nikki Finke reports that the AMPTP has filed an unfair labor practices charge with the NLRB over the WGA’s letter. The AMPTP statement reads, in part:

By publicly naming names and encouraging people who have the power to
hire writers to keep them "at arm’s length," and saying they must be
"judged accountable" it is clear the WGA leadership is seeking to deny
employment to these writers in the future. That is a direct violation
of federal labor law, and as the employers of those writers we have a
responsibility to defend them and the rule of law in this case.

I don’t condone the AMPTP’s motives for filing the charges, but their statement is absolutely right and I hope the NLRB slaps the WGA with stiff sanctions for this. For the first time since I joined the WGA, I am ashamed of my Guild and its leadership. The WGA Board needs to apologize for what they have done.

UPDATE 4/26/08:  I have now heard from three board members, two of whom said that they were blindsided by the letter. They told me that the Board had voted to release the names of the fi-core writers, but they had no idea that the membership would be told not to associate with them. I am hoping that there will be a clarification and/or apology to the membership following the next board meeting.

Michael Connelly, Elizabeth Cosin, and Terrill Lee Lankford were among the MWA many members who have showed up to walk alongside the striking screenwriters on picket line recently. Obviously, there are many authors who are also WGA members (like Paul Levine, Robert Crais, Andrew Klavan, Steve Cannell, Lawrence Block, Eric Garcia, Mark Haskell Smith, Seth Greenland, Elmore Leonard, Donald Westlake, Robert B. Parker, Larry McMurtry, George Pelecanos, and myself, to name just a few). But why should a non-screenwriting author give a damn about how the strike turns out?

The answer is simple. Because we are a community of writers…not just book writers or screen writers. We should be concerned about any efforts to limit the royalties that writers receive from the commercial exploitation of our creative work.

Many of the corporations that own the studios and networks also own many major publishing companies…if they succeed in limiting what screenwriters get from new media, they will only be encourage to seek similar "rollbacks" from authors and other artists who, incidentally, don’t have the benefit of being represented by a powerful union. The final deal struck between the corporations and the WGA in those emerging markets could create a template  or how writers of books, computer games, and other media are treated.

SAG President Alan Rosenberg put it best: "This fight is for the rights of all creative artists and our collective future is at stake."

My friend Jack Bernstein directed me to an excellent article by a former corporate attorney-turned-writer that’s full of insights into the AMPTP’s negotiating strategy.

Regardless of what camp you fall in, everyone is grasping for an
explanation of why the studios are acting the way they are. That’s
because with the exception of a few carefully prepared press releases,
a trade ad or two, and some supposed “leaked” stories, we haven’t heard
directly from any of the CEOs about the strike. We’ve only heard from
Nick Counter – their point man. Their lawyer.

I’m here to tell
you, as a former litigator who spent several years at one of the
biggest corporate law firms in the world, that we’re all in engaged in
a huge lawyering game, and things are proceeding accordingly.