Tea Party Inspires Pro-Union Action, by Mike Gold Brainiac On Banjo #211
February 28, 2011 Mike Gold 3 Comments
Did you ever like hot dogs? Each time you’ve chomped down on a red hot, did you happen to notice a thumb sticking out of your weenie? No? That’s because of unions.
We trust our kids to union teachers. We don’t pay these folks anything near what they’re worth, we give them no budget to work with, we expect them to pay for some of their own supplies, and we don’t bother to teach our kids manners so that those teachers can do their jobs without taking their lives into their hands.
We trust our security to union police officers. We trust our homes to union firefighters. We trust our lives to union EMS workers. We hire union electricians so that we can avoid electrocution. We hire plumbers to clean out our shit – literally. Union members build the buildings in which we live and work and they build the roads that get us between those points. We trust unions to establish necessary work environments that owners would never pay for that inure to the benefit of all Americans – they are keeping their members’ thumbs out of our hot dogs.
This might come as a surprise but I am not a black-and-white union über alles kind of guy. I’ve even been on the other side of a labor strike. Therefore, in some minds I am politically in the same camp as Michele Bachmann. During one labor action in which I was involved as a negotiator, a long-time Republican and a very conservative fellow explained to me exactly why collective bargaining is what made America great. That surprised me; he was supposed to be anti-union. He was in favor of the concept of collective bargaining because it curtailed some of the most exploitative behavior companies imposed upon workers. By providing a fair wage, a pension and health care we reduce the taxpayers’ chances of paying for what the employers would not.
Of course, the Tea Baggers and their ilk have joined together to put an end to that. That’s enough to make me sick. But the Tea Baggers have done something we haven’t seen in a generation. They have encouraged people all across the country to stand up for their beliefs and their needs and to demand respect and dignity. We’ve seen the Tea Baggers on the streets, we’ve seen them organize, we’ve seen them proselytize. We’ve seen them remind us all that, indeed, the whole world is still watching.
So most recently we’ve seen labor-supporters respond in public to the revocation of the right to collective bargaining in the state of Wisconsin. Yes, I know, the governor is doing what he said he’d do during the campaign. And I also know Mein Kampf was written before the election of 1933.
But in the short period since Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has tried to end collective bargaining in his state, there have been major rallies all across this nation with turn-outs that, in some cases, eclipse anything the Tea Baggers managed to do in those same areas.
The Hard Right has treated teachers, police, firefighters and such like they were lepers. Their signs said that unlike teachers, police, firefighters, they actually work for a living and those greedy deadbeats should take their share of the sacrifice.
Excuse me? Do they stand in front of 30 brats every day who act as though they were in the road company of Lord of the Flies? Do they stand in front of bullets? Do they stand in front of burning buildings trying to figure out how to rescue some frightened little girl’s kitty-cat? No, of course they don’t. They work for a living!
Well, here’s some news for these fools. Unionized workers have done a hell of a lot more than their fair share of givebacks. Far more, given what little they’ve got in the first place. The unionized workers in Wisconsin even agreed to this latest round of kickbacks – but they would not stand for the end to collective bargaining.
According to USA Today, 61% of Americans would oppose a law in their state similar to the Wisconsin bill. 61% of Americans. You know, only 10% of Americans actually belong to a union.
Unions have yet to join us in the 21st Century. But even though they seem stuck in 1955, a time when union membership peaked at 15%, that puts them a good 120 years closer to reality than the Hard Right.
There’s a real spirit that has taken root all across the planet. We see it in Egypt, we see it in Libya, we see it in the so-called Tea Parties, we see it in pro-labor rallies all across the nation.
Leave it to a British dude to express this very American attitude: We’re not gonna take it. Never did and never will.
The next couple years are going to be real interesting.
Anarcho-syndicalist, fellow-traveler without GPS and www.ComicMix.com editor-in-Chief Mike Gold performs the weekly two-hour Weird Sounds Inside The Gold Mind ass-kicking bizarro music and blather radio show on America’s pop culture channel The Point, www.getthepointradio.com, every Sunday at 7:00 PM Eastern, replayed three times during the week (check the website above for times). Likewise, his Weird Scenes Inside The Gold Mind political and cultural rants zap your synapses each and every day at the same venue.
Martha Thomases
February 28, 2011 - 10:43 am
Preach, brother!
There were 100,000 people demonstrating in Wisconsin this weekend IN FEBRUARY! And the media coverage was minimal. But then, they aren’t Tea Party types.
Liberal media, my ass (which could be smaller).
R. Maheras
February 28, 2011 - 11:54 am
The part about unions being stuck in 1955 is a pretty critical part of your essay.
Unions, of which I once was a member of in good standing (Teamsters Local 710), never want to take a step backwards — even if it’s obvious to everyone involved that taking a step backwards is the only way for the employing organization to survive; or even if taking a step backwards means getting rid of fraudulent malingerers who are an obvious embarrassment to the union.
At a company I worked for about 10 years ago, I saw the union go on strike because in their new contract, despite the fact that they were offered a significant pay raise, they would no longer get 100 percent of their healthcare costs paid for — like they did, since, perhaps, 1955. But the problem is, healthcare costs have skyrocketed so much in the past 20 years that almost no company can afford such largesse anymore. That’s a reality. Yet the union did not want to hear it. They put their hands over their ears and shouted “nah-nah-nah-nah-nah” real loud, hoping that reality would go away. It didn’t, and they basically went on strike for a couple of months or so all for nothing.
In Wisconsin, the only thing I fault the governor for in his quest to attack a budgetary crisis not of his making is going down a very distracting rathole by trying to curb collective bargaining — something that was a side issue and not a necessity.
What he should have done is just ask for the necessary union concessions, and if they weren’t forthcoming (or weren’t significant enough to make much difference), lay off whatever workers were necessary to get the budget under control. Instead, he got himself mixed up in an ill-advised power grab which did nothing but distract from the whole budget issue.
A side note from L.A.: I find it interesting that in a town with a liberal film industry and strong unions, the industry has — almost en masse — chosen to run to Canada or other places with cheap, non-union labor rather than support their local unions. Similarly, liberals in the film industry are all for the California social programs that result in some of the highest taxes in the nation, yet it’s the same liberal filmmakers who bypass California’s taxes by running to other states or countries that will give them huge tax breaks.
Can you say, hypocrisy?
Jeremiah Avery
February 28, 2011 - 12:47 pm
There is a movement in Missouri to overturn the child labor laws as well.
A co-worker and I were talking about FMLA and how all talk of “family values” ends when it comes in conflict with the top bribers, I mean “campaign contributors” of Congress.
Some unions keep the mediocre employed but I’d rather remain working in a safe environment and possibly have some sort of retirement fund.
Doug Abramson
February 28, 2011 - 1:10 pm
R. Maheras,
You can’t say that unions are never willing to go backwards for the common good. Some won’t, but some will. In Wisconsin, the public unions are willing to take hits on pay and benefits. Il Duce doesn’t care about the budget, just his ideological hard on. As for the movie industry, there is very little, if any, hypocrisy going on at all. While foreign production is usually a result of maximising profits, the decision if rarely made by the liberal film makers. The budgets are usually dictated by the suits in charge of the studio. These suits come from the same MBA mills as the morons running other areas of whats left of American commerce. They don’t care about what is right, wrong or even good business. They only care about the numbers on the balance sheet and how they represent their personal bonuses and stock options. If your job is to make movies and the money men won’t give you enough to properly make your film in LA, you have to go where the money you do have will make the film. Not hypocrisy, a choice of a rock or a hard place.
R. Maheras
February 28, 2011 - 2:05 pm
Doug, how can you imply Walker’s a dictator? He was elected for cryin’ out loud, and, as Mike points out, he’s doing exactly what he said he would. Jerry Brown in California is strong-arming everyone in a similar fashion, but the only differencer is Brown, if he doesn’t get the concessions he’s asking for, is prepared to raise California’s already eye-watering taxes to stratospheric levels.
As for the Walker “doesn’t care about the budget” stuff, how can you even say that with a straight face?
Regarding Hollywood, your assumption that it’s Republican bean counters behind the indistry’s decisions is so laughable I’m speechless.
MOTU
February 28, 2011 - 2:09 pm
Sounds to me like they are snorting their ‘tea’ and that’s some party.
Jeremiah Avery
February 28, 2011 - 2:11 pm
Though it pales in comparison to a party by the MOTU, no doubt!
R. Maheras
February 28, 2011 - 2:16 pm
Jeremy wrote: “Some unions keep the mediocre employed but I’d rather remain working in a safe environment and possibly have some sort of retirement fund.”
Keep telling yourself that. My dad was a union truck driver for more than 30 years. He received his modest retirement for about 20 years, but then one day, less than a year before he died, he received a letter from the pension fund saying that it had gone insolvent, had changed hands, and his pension was going to cease. No maybes or what-ifs… it was just going to stop. And there wasn’t a damn thing he could do about it. To this day, I’m convinced that sudden weight on his shoulders was a contributing factor to his precipitous slide into the grave.
Many, if not most, union and state government pensions are under-funded and their projected “return on investment” grossly over-exaggerated. Some have even been raided for cash, either by unscrupulous union personnel, or government officials doing a budgetary shell game. The result is that many are now nothing more than a ponzi scheme that will need huge influxes of cash to meet pension commitments.
In short, things are going to get much worse before they get better, and it sure as shit isn’t the fault of the new guys like Walker.
Doug Abramson
February 28, 2011 - 2:51 pm
R. Maheras,
My smart ass nickname for Walker is referring to his style, not how he got the job. If an executive doesn’t have enough legislative numbers on his side to rubber stamp their policies, which Walker doesn’t, compromise is needed. Walker won’t. As for the budget, the public unions said that they were willing to cave on the money issues, as long as they weren’t stripped of there rights to collective bargaining.Walker said no. Ideology is more important to him than fiscal issues. Walker doing what he said he would in the campaign doesn’t make him right; it makes the voters dumb, since most in the state are now against this policy. As for California’s “eye watering” taxes, there are 49 other states, many with lower tax burdens to choose from.
Martha Thomases
February 28, 2011 - 3:12 pm
R. Maheras said: Regarding Hollywood, your assumption that it’s Republican bean counters behind the indistry’s decisions is so laughable I’m speechless.
You’re confusing the creative people of Hollywood with the suits. Studio heads are often Republicans (I’ll cite Murdoch of Fox and Dick Parsons, formerly of Time Warner. Sumner Redstone also doesn’t seem like a progressive guy). The banks that lend the money are also most likely headed by GOPers.
If you have counter-examples, by all means, let us know.
Rick Oliver
February 28, 2011 - 3:19 pm
This isn’t about concessions and negotiation. This is about breaking the public sector unions, and without the public sector unions, the union movement will be virtually dead, because most private sector unions were killed by simply shipping those jobs out of the country. Sure, we still have trade unions, but a lot of construction work is done by immigrants who aren’t in the unions, and most home repair stuff is done by non-union shops.
You can’t ship teaching jobs overseas, and parents might start to complain if the teachers had a poor grasp of basic English and suspicious accents. You can’t ship police and fire jobs overseas either. Well, you could, but the response time would be a bitch.
If people think that education, and police and fire protection should be optional then let’s privatize them all and contract them out to the lowest bidder. If you can’t pay whatever rate they decide to charge for their services, you’re shit out of luck. I’m sure this makes perfect sense to teabaggers and Libertarians, but it ain’t what made our country great. And if you have any doubts about what the end result will be like, just dial the clock back about 100 years.
Mike Gold
February 28, 2011 - 3:30 pm
Martha, you’ve got me thinking. That’s not unusual, but this time it’s politicsalacious. Or a Zen question. One or the other.
Which is smaller: the liberal media or your ass? Let’s start with the reality that you do not have a large ass. Add to that the liberal media are pretty same small. And, Olbermann aside, most of the members of the liberal media are pretty small. Now, of course your ass could be smaller. You can still sit comfortably while discussing heavy issues and knitting at the same time.
So it’s a Zen question.
Neil C.
February 28, 2011 - 3:40 pm
Mike,
As a sportswriter/copy editor at newspapers for over 20 years, the term “liberal media” is one that has always burned my ass. The media will go after the best story or one that provides the best sound bytes. I found the main goal of newspaper people is to get the damn thing finished by deadline. There might be a lot of stories that don’t dig deep, but that’s not any kind of bias; it’s either laziness or not having time to fully examine the issue.
Mike Gold
February 28, 2011 - 3:40 pm
Russ — I once made the mistake of saying the Canadian film business was non-union or somehow less union. Big mistake. Got lots and lots of letters. And I’ve done film work in Toronto and Calgary, so I should have known better. And since then I’ve done some work in Vancouver, so I do know better.
Therefore, I later said the Canadian unions were more reasonable than their American counterparts. That got me a shitload of more mail. But when it comes to being reasonable, let me restate that the Wisconsin workers agreed to further cutbacks but NOT to ending collective bargaining. I think they are right on both counts.
As for my own union activities, I was also a member of the Teamsters when I worked as a partsman at Warshawsky & Co. That was a summer job. A year or so later I joined the Industrial Workers of the World as I worked at a Wobbly shop, the Chicago Seed. Being a Wob was a perfect settling, and I remained a member until I became an editor and was sort of tossed out because I was management. The idea of the Seed having “management” is kind of remarkable. I still remain close to their basic philosophy, love the history and the lore, and remain tight with a former general secretary who I’d known since my high school paper. At roughly the same time I got on radio and had to join AFTRA which was, at the time and in our hometown, bankrupt. AFTRA wasn’t as much fun as the IWW, but, then again, when I started packaging comics for IDW I made a lot of typos.
Mike Gold
February 28, 2011 - 3:44 pm
Jeremiah, thank you for the lead. I had read something about the Missouri situation but there was no follow-up. So, thanks to you, I’m about to go spelunking for information. Including an email to an old friend, a former St. Louis Post-Dispatch columnist, who maintains a lot of connections.
Yep, I can see myself getting righteously pissed about this one.
Jeremiah Avery
February 28, 2011 - 3:53 pm
Glad to help, Mike. Though if this proves to be a distraction, then sorry for diverting your attention.
It always seems to be the workers’ fault and not the mismanagement of the higher-ups. As a federal worker, it irks me when Congress lumps us all together; yet if the shutdown does happen, they still get their 6-figure salary whereas I need to find a way to cover my rent.
People want the services but don’t want to pay for them. Someone I read made a point how people want to pay a dime in taxes but want a dollar’s worth of government.
Mike Gold
February 28, 2011 - 4:08 pm
Holy crap. The Missouri lead most certainly did pan out. Hard to believe. A conservative philosophy is one thing, but dialing life back to 1835 is absurd.
http://voices.kansascity.com/entries/missouri-senator-wants-repeal-child-labor-laws/
Mike Gold
February 28, 2011 - 4:13 pm
Doug, what you say about Canada is true in a great, great many states. You can get really solid incentive deals in a whole lotta places — Texas, Mississippi, New Jersey. The lower costs of working in Canada were enhanced by the fact that the US dollar used to be worth so much more than the Canadian dollar, so in addition to lower costs you got a lot more bang for the buck.
It ain’t the union people who jack up the cost of movies. It’s the $150,000,000-plus budgets.
R. Maheras
February 28, 2011 - 4:35 pm
Martha wrote: “You’re confusing the creative people of Hollywood with the suits. Studio heads are often Republicans (I’ll cite Murdoch of Fox and Dick Parsons, formerly of Time Warner.”
No, I’m not. I deal with people in the film business every day, at all production levels, and while there are a smattering of conservatives here and there, the people who get the pictures made are, for the most part, liberal. This is obvious even if one doesn’t deal directly with Hollywood by what themes consistently appear in films — REGARDLESS of their commercial appeal.
Point of fact near and dear to my heart — films about the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. Dozens of negatively slanted films were produced and released — the vast majority of which lost money (some horrifically so). If a Republican were truly pulling the strings, those films never would have been made in the first place. But, for the sake of argument, even if a few had been made to test the “commercial waters,” so to speak, no conservative bean-counter in his/her right mind (pun intended) would keep going to the “commercial failure” well over and over and over again.
The fact is, there are a lot of liberals in this town who push their agendas regardless of the financial repercussions. Maybe they are stupid, maybe they are passionate, or maybe its all a write-off. All I know is it happens all the time.
Martha Thomases
February 28, 2011 - 4:46 pm
R. Maheras said: The fact is, there are a lot of liberals in this town who push their agendas regardless of the financial repercussions. Maybe they are stupid, maybe they are passionate, or maybe its all a write-off. All I know is it happens all the time.
Name some names. Who are these people who get movies made who are liberals? I mean the ones who can okay production.
Movies, even cheap indies, cost tens of millions of dollars. Hollywood studio films cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Even a successful lefty like George Clooney can’t afford to finance a picture by himself (or at least not more than one a decade or so).
The movie industry is run by capitalists. They make movies to make money. If they don’t make movies about Iraq and Afghanistan that reflect your views (they certainly don’t reflect mine), it is most likely because they think there is no profit to it.
R. Maheras
February 28, 2011 - 4:59 pm
Martha wrote: “Name some names”
C’mon… you’re not even trying. Cameron, Spielberg, Lucas, Hanks, Howard… just to name a few. Every one of those folks can just pick up the phone and get a film made in this town.
Martha wrote: “The movie industry is run by capitalists. They make movies to make money. If they don’t make movies about Iraq and Afghanistan that reflect your views (they certainly don’t reflect mine), it is most likely because they think there is no profit to it.”
You didn’t listen to a word I said. Despite commercial failure after commercial failure, Hollywood made dozens of negatively-slanted films about Iraq or Afghanistan. Why? If Hollywood was run by conservatives, that never would have happened. The fact is, politics frequently trumps business savvy in Hollywood.
R. Maheras
February 28, 2011 - 5:04 pm
Mike wrote: “The movie industry is run by capitalists. They make movies to make money. If they don’t make movies about Iraq and Afghanistan that reflect your views (they certainly don’t reflect mine), it is most likely because they think there is no profit to it.”
My bad. All I know is TV and film productions have been fleeing to Canada since at least 2000. And they do so because it’s substantially cheaper than shooting in L.A.
R. Maheras
February 28, 2011 - 5:06 pm
Oops! Mike, for some reason my cut-and-paste didn’t take and Martha’s comments appear above.
Here’s your quote I meant to paste: “I once made the mistake of saying the Canadian film business was non-union or somehow less union.”
🙂
Mike Gold
February 28, 2011 - 5:09 pm
Russ said to Doug “As for the Walker “doesn’t care about the budget” stuff, how can you even say that with a straight face?”
It’s crystalclear that Walker’s a union-buster, and that’s a matter of his philosophy. But let us remember, the Koch brothers own a lot in Wisconsin, and Gov. Walker has done a lot in his short tenure to change laws in order to help the Koch boys made another ton of money. And that, of course, is what the “Tea Party” has come down to — another populist movement co-opted by Big Money.
“Regarding Hollywood, your assumption that it’s Republican bean counters behind the indistry’s decisions is so laughable I’m speechless.” Jeez, heaven forbid we look to Hollywood to form our policies and laws and reformist energies of ANY political stripe. The people who run the studios are of all political persuasions, the actors are of all political persuasions.
The right deeply believes its own myth about “liberal” Hollywood — the town that gave us noted conservative Republicans such as Ronald Reagan, Dennis Hopper, Clint Eastwood, James Woods, Dennis Miller, Larry Miller, John Wayne, John Ford… it’s really quite a long list. And conservative Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump contributed $50,000.00 to Rahm Emanuel’s campaign. So these sweeping assumptions we all make tend to get a little wacky.
Yes, there are those with a political agenda and get to indulge in it from time to time. That’s free speech for you. But no matter where they fall — and this certainly includes the Hollywood bankers — don’t confuse politics with making money. That brush tars both parties.
Mike Gold
February 28, 2011 - 5:11 pm
Neil: And, of course, the ever-shrinking news hole. And, of course, the ever-shrinking attention span of the public.
R. Maheras
February 28, 2011 - 5:31 pm
Mike wrote: “And conservative Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump contributed $50,000.00 to Rahm Emanuel’s campaign.”
I didn’t know that, but it’s not surprising. Power brokers tend to play both ends against the middle if it suits them.
Rick Oliver
February 28, 2011 - 5:53 pm
Part of Walker’s “budget” is selling Wisconsin power utilities to the Koch brothers in no-bid contracts. Don’t you just love those “free market” capitalists?
MOTU
February 28, 2011 - 6:42 pm
Mike Gold said,
” Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump.”
And here is another clear reason why the GOP are out of their fucking minds. TRUMP is the frontrunner?
Who’s after him, Chuck Norris?
Martha Thomases
February 28, 2011 - 7:11 pm
R. Maheras said: C’mon… you’re not even trying. Cameron, Spielberg, Lucas, Hanks, Howard… just to name a few. Every one of those folks can just pick up the phone and get a film made in this town.
And none of those guys can bankroll a film. Spielberg has a studio (Dreamworks), but they partner and distribute through other studios.
Being in demand is not the same thing as being in control.
Vinnie Bartilucci
February 28, 2011 - 7:16 pm
Right now, pensions are the big threat pretty much across the board. A combination of promises made during periods of plenty, inventments that have not come close to keeping up with the payouts, and people just plain living longer are making way too many plans a pyramid scheme waiting to fall.
Wisconsin has gone way past the cliff and down into wackyland. But a lot of other companies and municipalities are trying to find ways to keep the ice from braking. Chris Christie in NJ is trying to get teachers and other unions to contribute 1.5% towards their medical benefits, and he’s being treated like he’s asking for their first born. Yes, he’s absolutely using their reticence as political hay, but the absolute unwillingness of the unions to cooperate is making it easy for him.
Camden’s police union called the government’s bluff, and we know what happened there.
We are still stuck in a world where “cooperation” means “half-losing”, and any admission that the other side has a good idea if the worst of crimes. That needs stopping.
R. Maheras
February 28, 2011 - 8:10 pm
Martha wrote: “And none of those guys can bankroll a film. Spielberg has a studio (Dreamworks), but they partner and distribute through other studios.”
Apparently, you don’t understand how financing a film in this town works — especially if you think studios (even the biggest ones) have the capital to up-front for most, if not all, of the films they make. They don’t, and, like Spielberg or Cameron, they find investors, or they get a bank loan, and use someone ELSE’S money.
There are any number of ways films in Hollywood are financed, and here’s just one: http://www.slate.com/id/2117309/
And your comment about guys like Cameron or Spielberg not being in control? Hilarious… simply hilarious…
Doug Abramson
February 28, 2011 - 8:12 pm
R. Maheras,
I’m sorry, I was unclear in my writing and confused a point. Liberal film makers should have been in quotes since I was parroting you. I don’t know what the political leanings of the suits are. I don’t care, and I never said that they are Republicans. An other thing that I never called them were film makers. They do their jobs the same way that they would in any other industry; by concentrating on the company bank book. Film makers, make films. The suits move numbers around. They also play a long game. I wouldn’t be surprised if many of the dozens of anti-war flops that you mentioned made money. Many films that get labeled as flops or under performers based on domestic box office make very nice profits after a few years when all of the other revenue streams are added together. Unless of course someone other than the studio is due a share of the profits. For some reason, the studio accountants always say that those movies lose money.
Doug Abramson
February 28, 2011 - 8:21 pm
R. Maheras,
I just saw your response to Martha. I believe that most of us are talking about the AVERAGE film maker. You are talking about people who operate almost outside of the system. Speilberg does have very few problems getting a film made; but Favreau, Rami, and especially Gilliam very much do. THEY, and many others like them have to make the money men happy, otherwise their films do not get made. We’re talking Mustangs, you’re talking Bentleys.
Mike Gold
February 28, 2011 - 8:52 pm
MOTU, last week (and this is Monday) there was a serious poll — sorry, I forget who conducted it — which compared a bunch of Republicans to Obama. Donald Trump was the only Republican who out-polled Obama, by two points. Obama still has the lead of all of today’s leading candidates, within the margin.
However, let’s be completely fair here. Trump is a highly successful television star despite his obvious handicap of having had a drunken poodle grafted to his head. If the Democrats were smart (the set-up line of the past 100 years), they’d dump Obama for Betty White.
You know. Instead of dumping Obama for Clinton.
MOTU
February 28, 2011 - 9:22 pm
Mike,
Oh I would SO vote for Betty White.
McCarthy
February 28, 2011 - 11:40 pm
Trump’s new show could be a Vice-Presidential edition of Celebrity Apprentice. Then Gary Busey could bite Billy Ray Cyrus on the cheek while selling Frozade in Central Park and become Trump’s running mate. Just substitute “Frozade” for “yellowcake uranium” (not much of a stretch) and that’s enough of a reason for us to go into Iran. Which is what we all want.
Doug Abramson
March 1, 2011 - 12:06 am
McCarthy you’re scaring me man!
R. Maheras
March 1, 2011 - 12:08 am
Doug wrote: “I wouldn’t be surprised if many of the dozens of anti-war flops that you mentioned made money.”
Most failed miserably by Hollywood’s own success/failure criterion.
Why are you assuming I know nothing about the infamous Hollywood “accounting” system? I think I understand it better than most.
Doug also wrote: “We’re talking Mustangs, you’re talking Bentleys.”
No, Martha pressed me twice for any examples and I instantly gave her five without so much as one Google search. Martha didn’t say, “Give me Mustangs.” You did.
Doug Abramson
March 1, 2011 - 2:11 am
R. Maheras,
You seem to be taking offense where none was intended. When I don’t know someone, as I don’t with you, I’ve always found it better to explain my points instead of assuming that the person I’m talking to knows what I’m referring to. I’d rather someone tell me that they know something than wonder what the hell I’m talking about. Also, on an open forum like this, someone might not know what Hollywood accounting means. Explaining what I’m saying means that person gets my references. As for Hollywood itself, Martha asked you to name some of the film makers that you said could get any movie made and are liberals. Spilberg is a liberal, I have no idea about Lucas, Hanks and Cameron (Howard was a life long Republican until very recently); but they don’t make liberal films. Of the three, Spielberg is the only one that occasionally makes films that can be called political, but I don’t think that The Color Purple, Schindler’s List, Amistad, or Saving Private Ryan are “liberal”.When these men make movies, they want them to make money. They definitely don’t make liberal message pictures without regard for their money making prospects. Lucas doesn’t even belong on your list. If he could get any project made, the live action Star Wars television show would be on the air, not in development hell.
Bill Mulligan
March 1, 2011 - 10:44 am
“If he could get any project made, the live action Star Wars television show would be on the air, not in development hell.”
Even Lucas can’t just wave his hands and make things magically appear. The problems with a Star Wars TV series are many. He wants to make money and for TV that means he can’t spend movie prices to get the product…but if it looks like the Star Wars Holiday special, well…
Plus, the idea of the show, setting it between the events of the original trilogy, fails to stir much enthusiasm. Good lord, we have the entire empire falling, with all the great potential for conflict that would cause, armies of Imperials out there probably with each declaring new Emperors, a total of 1 (one) jedi left in the universe…great stories would practically write themselves. This passion for prequels and middlequels leaves me baffled.
Mike Gold
March 1, 2011 - 10:57 am
Bill, I’m not disagreeing with the substance of your last response but I’ve got an extremely close friend (and a friend of this site) who was involved in that fiasco. Evidently, nobody in a position of authority at Lucasfilm could agree on squat, what George liked was roughly on the par of the last three movies — very weak on story. Cheap bastard that he is, evidently George remains in deep fear of doing another Young Indiana Jones: profitable, but not profitable enough to be worth the effort.
Except that Young Indiana Jones show was, in my opinion, great. And everything Lucasfilm has done with Star Wars in the past dozen years REALLY sucked.
But, since it’s a lot cheaper to produce, I’m expecting a Jar-Jar Binks syndicated talk show net season.
R. Maheras
March 1, 2011 - 11:31 am
Mike wrote: “But, since it’s a lot cheaper to produce, I’m expecting a Jar-Jar Binks syndicated talk show net season.”
I still can’t believe Lucas initially signed off on a character like Binks, and then, opted to keep him around.
As Jar-Jar might put it, “Mesa tinks Mista Lucas done losta his mind.”
Mike Gold
March 1, 2011 - 11:35 am
“Mesa tinks Mista Lucas done losta his mind.” Evidently, that’s an opinion a lot of people at LucasFilm share. But they’re well paid to play in the world’s greatest sandbox — not exceptionally well, but well enough to stay there.
Reg
March 2, 2011 - 12:07 am
Mike said…”I’m expecting a Jar-Jar Binks syndicated talk show net season.”
Wash your mouth out with 20 Mule Team Borax…or fingers.
Russ said…”I still can’t believe Lucas initially signed off on a character like Binks, and then, opted to keep him around.”
And I can’t reconcile Lucas greenlighting this absolutely horrid ‘black face character’ against his personal interest in…shall we say…all things Nubian.
R. Maheras
March 3, 2011 - 10:49 am
Hey, Neil. I had to find a quote I wrote about how media bias creeps into the news business, and I finally loacted it and pasted it below. For nearly two decades I’ve worked closely with the media, and have been an editor myself. Here’s my POV:
For every story that appears in the media, a number of decisions have to be made to get it there.
Let’s pick on the newspaper editor as an example. Because there are almost always far more stories than there is space in a newspaper, the editor decides which stories will be covered and which will not. The editor also decides how a story will be framed and what the exact news peg will be. When the reporter comes back with a finished story, the editor decides what to leave in and what to leave out (this may be space related, but it may not). The editor then decides if the “pertinent” facts are in the right place – knowing full well that most readers skim, and may only read the first four or five paragraphs of a story. Then the editor writes a headline for the story – emphasizing the key point(s) the editor wants to use to capture the reader’s attention and set the story stage with. Finally, the editor decides the location of the story. Will it be on the front page, and, if so, will it be above the fold or below? Will it be on Page 3, Page 6, or will it be buried (fittingly enough) near the obituaries?
Every single step of the way the editor makes a decision as to what will and what will not be news, and how that “news” will be framed and prioritized in the eyes of the reader. In short, for any editor, it is no exaggeration to make the statement, “News is what the editor says it is.”
Thus, if a newspaper editor has a strong political viewpoint, I don’t care how professional the editor thinks he/she is, the fundamental biases that editor has will affect how the news if framed for the audience. For example, if the editor is a firm believer in Global Warming theory, he/she will tend to print stories supporting the theory and avoid printing those that challenge it. In some cases, to go through the motions of addressing the tenets of Journalism 101, an “opposing point of view” will be added to the story, but it will almost always be buried at the end, and it will almost always consist of one paragraph with a single subject matter expert quote. This technique is used by “The New York Times” on a regular basis.
This process is fundamentally no different for magazine editors, television producers, or bloggers.
In short, news manipulation is a fact of life. The degree to which it is manipulated depends entirely on the discipline, perceptiveness and professional integrity of the journalist.
If I were the editor of, say, The New York Times, I’d surround myself with some assistant editors of all political stripes to let me know when my own biases were getting in the way of my impartiality. However, I think too often today media gate-keepers surround themselves with like-minded people, so many of today’s news outlets are polarized.
Bill Mulligan
March 3, 2011 - 1:14 pm
Russ says “I still can’t believe Lucas initially signed off on a character like Binks, and then, opted to keep him around.”
I think the reaction to Binks was so negative that Lucas became bound and determined to keep him around, if only to say “See? See? He’s critical to the story!”.
It’s why voters keep sending Sheila Jackson Lee back to congress; the more obvious it becomes that you have made a monstrously bad mistake the more it hurts to admit it.
Bill Mulligan
March 3, 2011 - 1:20 pm
Mike, what gets me is that a Star Wars TV show need not be crazy expensive at all. This is a story told on a thousand worlds, many of which could look like my backyard. I’ve seen kids with Adobe After Effects pull off light saber battles as good as anything in the first 3 movies (and actually, the fight in STAR WARS was pretty sub par, thanks to the sabers breaking. It was still awesome because WE CARED ABOUT THE CHARCTERS!!! Take a hint, George!)
If the motivation is to knock the audience on its ass every week with something they have never seen before, it will fail. Just tell a story and tell it well.
Rick Oliver
March 4, 2011 - 11:11 am
Hey, the rightly loathed Binks had more “character” than most of the live actors (no fault of the actors)– and soon we’ll get to see him in 3-D!
R. Maheras
March 4, 2011 - 11:31 am
I completely fleshed out my thoughts about the “myth” of media bias in this essay on my blog: http://open.salon.com/blog/r_maheras/2011/03/03/the_myth_of_media_bias
Re: Jar-Jar Binks in 3-D… heaven help us!