Daily Show and Colbert Writers - Mock Debate in DC

Zach Pentel from CampusProgress.org sent us these videos. Check out their coverage of the event here.

Here's video of the mock debate in its entirety:


Some of the congress members' responses:


WGA Member Allison Abner, who helped organize the event wrote the following report:

The WGA had a great day in Washington yesterday. The event was hosted by Reps Nadler D-NY, Weiner D-NY, Schakowsky D-Ill, Watson D-CA. Each host put in a word in support of the striking writers and vowed to aid us should we need help with negotiations this go-round.

The highlight for Congressmen/women and their staffers was the standing-room only mock debate between the Daily Show and the Colbert Show writers. "Daily Show" writers Rob Kutner, Tim Carvell and Jason Ross represented the WGA. On the other side, in suits, was the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, played by "The Colbert Report" writers Michael Brumm, Peter Grosz and Tom Purcell. The debate was 'interrupted' by protesters (writers Kevin Blyer and Peter Gwinn) who were dragged out by WGAe President Michael Winship. It was every bit as smart as you'd expect from such incredible talent as these writers. And honestly, people walked away more informed than when they came in.

The goal in bringing this mock debate to Washington was to provide a national platform for our issues, to take it out of LA and NYC, and explain (in a fun and instructive way) why we're on strike. We got a ton of press (AP, Reuters, LA Times, Washington Post, Roll Call, Politico among them).

We (which includes WGA ex director Mona, assistant director Ann Tobac, our fabulous Washington point person Margaret Cone, and Sherry Goldman, our pr person out of east) also met with members of Congress on judiciary, labor, and telecommunications. We spoke to them about the state of negotiations, our hope that we'd reach a settlement soon. We also discussed issues like the importance of residuals -- both as a form of what I call R&D, which are scripts created outside of the development system such as Desperate Housewives, that we finance on our own dime; and as part of our expected income. We also discussed how residuals from writers are different than they are for directors, and how that affected the DGA deal.

But here's the interesting part -- and what will come to be the future direction we will have to take as writers: the issue of COPYRIGHT. When the WGA formed, we wrote away our Constitutional right to own our own material in exchange for residuals. By the way, we are the only writers in the WORLD in this situation. Like a novelist, songwriter, playwright -- the concept, the idea begins with us. We fill the blank page. And like any other artist who does the same thing in different form, we deserve the right to own our material.

The example I used was the trend among artists in the record industry, who are now licensing their masters back to the majors to exploit for a set number of years (generally 7), then rights revert back to us. I explained that many artists have made their pensions and most of their income on the latter portion of this deal. And for tv/screenwriters this would also hold true: who knew the A-Team would one day be available on DVD and itunes? And who knows what other uses there will be in the future?

Going forward into new media (internet, phones, something we haven't yet invented), we should lobby to retain our copyright. This is the third-rail of studio/WGA negociations, and if we don't work towards this, we will very possibly be out on the line again in another 3 years fighting to get paid another sliver for our work.

That being said, members said they would look into these issues, as they require legislation.

All in all, it was an incredible day on the Hill, except for the part where Disney's lobbyist was following us around, including to an event across town (where there were only 15 other people in the room!). And he was furiously taking notes without saying a word; if I get blacklisted, you'll know why. Also in attendance at the mock debate was Time-Warner's guy.

The studios are used to owning those halls, and never expected us to come there and be so high profile, not to mention successful. Hopefully this will be the start of a beautiful relationship between the WGA and the Hill.

From DC
Allison Abner

Dissecting the DGA Deal

So, what does the DGA deal potentially mean for writers? Depends on which email you read first in your inbox. Jonathan Tasini of Working Life (published by Labor Research Association, a New York City-based labor advocacy organization) examines the specifics of the deal point by point.

He states "there are some good things here but also some areas of concern." Three of those areas of concern are the thresholds for union coverage of new media content, the electronic sell-through offer and ad-supported streaming windows. Below are some excerpts.

Original Content for New Media

The DGA deal point states that original content for New Media will be covered "above $15,000/minute or $300,000/program or $500,000/series, whichever is lowest. Original content below the threshold will be covered when a DGA member is employed in the production."

Tasini writes:

The industry is precisely moving to a lower-cost structure--doesn't that sound familiar? It's the "kid-in-the-garage" problem--content coming from everywhere and everyone. As I described it in a panel discussion I just spoke at this week, it's similar to the off-shoring of work in manufacturing. You have the world of the WGA, where the standards are decent, with wages, health care and pensions. And, then, you have Big Mediastan--that would be the world where there is no union, where there are no residuals, no pensions, no health care. The above provision agreed to by the DGA seems--seems--to allow the growth of Big Mediastan. As an aside: it is one reason I believe that a critical component of the WGA's future--and that of the Screen Actors Guild--is to focus intensely on organizing the young kids today who are cranking out material using IMovie and other software. The unions have to get those younger--and older people--who are now producing content into the union now so that they don't become this mass of unorganized, low-wage labor that has no connection to the labor movement.

If the WGA agreed to those terms, it would basically be giving up on an important issue: union jurisdiction.

Therein lies the tough fight that all unions face: how do you convince current member to fight for the rights of members in the future? The answer is: you have to be able to show that organizing new members and broadening the reach of the union is critical to keeping the union's power what it is--and being able to bargain with strength ten and twenty years down the road. It's hard--when you've been out on strike for many weeks, any worker will feel, "damn, let's take the best deal for the present...who knows what will happen later?" But, I can guarantee one thing--if the union jurisdiction shrinks, you, buddy, will be in deep shit down the road.

Electronic Sell-Through (Paid Downloads)

While the DGA deal announces that the new rate "More than doubles the rate currently paid by the employers on television programming to .70% above 100,000 units downloaded," Tasini isn't as enthusiastic, writing:

My take: this sounds good. Wow, you get double!!! But, as I remember from high-school math, double of zero is zero. Okay, it's not that bad. But, recall, that the formula of .3 percent was the pathetic rate that was being paid out based on the bad deal shoved down the throats of the creators in the 1980s over videocassettes and, then carried over into the DVD era. In my opinion, this sets a producer-friendly standard that will be hard to break.

Ad-Supported Streaming

The DGA agreed to a "17-day window (24-day window for series in their first season).
Pays 3% of the residual base, approximately $600 (for network prime time 1-hour dramas), for each 26-week period following 17-day window, within first year after initial broadcast. Pays 2% of distributor's gross for streaming that occurs more than one year after initial broadcast."

Tasini opines:

My take: I don't particularly think this is great shakes, either. Basically, the producers get a residual-free window for ad-supported streaming--i.e., they get all the money--for the time period when the product is most valuable. We all understand that, right? First-run gets the most eyeballs. Creators, then, get to scrape for a smidgen of a much smaller pie.

For more opinions on the DGA deal and what it does/could/might mean for writers, check out the following:

* Two columns by writer Mark Evanier here and here
* A column by attorney Jonathan Handel
* This Huffington Post piece by Robert J. Elisberg
* This piece on Artful Writer by John Wells

Links!

Les Moonves hints that he's interested in resuming negotiations with the WGA. We love it. Come on in Les, the water is warm. We promise not to splash.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6521761.html?desc=topstory&

Apparently, Wall Street is not happy about numbers in the media sector. Hey CEOs, want to end those awkward run-ins at the Country Club with your Goldman Sachs pals? Here's an easy solution - make a fair deal. Let's get back to work.

http://www.mediabuyerplanner.com/2008/01/10/analysts-predict-recession-gloomy-year-for-media/

Over at the Huffington Post, Steve Young discusses what it means that Colbert and Stewart are back on the air.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-young/with-stewart-and-colbert_b_80859.html

Be green - check out this blog entry from Metro Rider LA. It lists public transportation routes to picket posts. Sweet.

http://metrorider.elhay.net/2008/01/10/support-the-wga-with-public-transit/#more-1306