[To borrow a title template from Brad DeLong]
Why in reason's name would you quote studio heads and the AMPTP as sources about writers on the eve of a strike by writers against studios heads and the AMPTP?
I mean, seriously:
The average working writer in Hollywood takes home about $200,000 a year, according to the studios and networks.
Incidentally, according to the WGA, the median writer makes about $20,000 a year from guild work. So, y'know. It's not a normal statistical distribution, there.
Daniel H. Black, a lawyer at Greenberg Traurig, a firm with a large television practice. "If the strike goes more than a month, the guild is going to have a colossal mess in terms of members challenging leadership."
Gosh. I'm sure that Daniel H. Black is completely unbiased with no vested interest in any side, to give such an opinion about the doomed internal politics on one side.
"Working writers are used to steady checks and living a certain lifestyle, and that is going to feel a pinch in a hurry," said Frank Biondi, the former president and chief executive of Viacom.
WTF? This is exactly like going to a Republican campaign consultant to find out what's going on in terms of strategies and consequences for the Democrats.
Then, of course, the Times itself seems obsessed by the wealth of the WGA, noting that the "average" writer makes about eight times the national per capita income. And the writers want more, because they don't make as much as actors, directors, and studio runners, how greedy.
Why does anyone think the New York Times knows what good journalism is?
Posted by Greg at November 4, 2007 11:09 PM