Crossing picketwaves
The return of the late night talk shows despite an on-going strike by the Writers Guild of America begs the question: are viewers crossing picket lines when they watch a show that is breaking strike rules by returning to the airwaves?
Last night's "Daily Show with Jon Stewart" (which he's calling "A Daily Show" instead of "The Daily Show" until the strike is settled) underscored this dilemma. Stewart invited labor expert Ron Seeger, a professor from Cornell Univ., to discuss the implications of the strike and how it might be resolved, but Seeger himself admitted he was in a tight spot having to cross picket lines (literal ones: the Daily Show is being picketed by WGA members) in order to appear on the show. Stewart asked Seeger if he was unionized -- that's a big no -- and exclaimed that professors are the "migrant labor" of academia. I'd say that title belongs to lecturers and adjuncts, but anyway.
David Letterman was able to negotiate successfully an interim deal with the writers union to bring the shows under his production company, Worldwide Pants (one time motto: "Pants! Pants! Pants!"), back to the airwaves, and both Stewart and Stephan Colbert undertook similar negotiations to no apparent avail -- which brought up some clear annoyance and accusations of favoritism on the part of Stewart on last night's show.
So, how is watching the Daily Show, which is operating without its writers though still technically breaking the rules of the strike, any different than crossing picket lines for viewers? Should the union yes among us confine ourselves to Letterman until the strike is resolved or Stewart negotiates a deal? If we wouldn't cross a picket line at the grocery store, is it somehow justifiable to cross an invisible picket line to watch T.V.?
Last night's "Daily Show with Jon Stewart" (which he's calling "A Daily Show" instead of "The Daily Show" until the strike is settled) underscored this dilemma. Stewart invited labor expert Ron Seeger, a professor from Cornell Univ., to discuss the implications of the strike and how it might be resolved, but Seeger himself admitted he was in a tight spot having to cross picket lines (literal ones: the Daily Show is being picketed by WGA members) in order to appear on the show. Stewart asked Seeger if he was unionized -- that's a big no -- and exclaimed that professors are the "migrant labor" of academia. I'd say that title belongs to lecturers and adjuncts, but anyway.
David Letterman was able to negotiate successfully an interim deal with the writers union to bring the shows under his production company, Worldwide Pants (one time motto: "Pants! Pants! Pants!"), back to the airwaves, and both Stewart and Stephan Colbert undertook similar negotiations to no apparent avail -- which brought up some clear annoyance and accusations of favoritism on the part of Stewart on last night's show.
So, how is watching the Daily Show, which is operating without its writers though still technically breaking the rules of the strike, any different than crossing picket lines for viewers? Should the union yes among us confine ourselves to Letterman until the strike is resolved or Stewart negotiates a deal? If we wouldn't cross a picket line at the grocery store, is it somehow justifiable to cross an invisible picket line to watch T.V.?
Labels: As Seen on TV
posted by SJB at 10:10 AM
3 Comments:
If the Daily Show is going to be as un-funny as it was last night, then it won't just be union-supporters who aren't tuning in.
After watching all week, I take back my previous statement. (But I'm not up to speed on this: who is writing the show now? Scabs? Just Jon himself?)
I think it's just Jon, but I could be wrong.
Post a Comment
<< Home