So *whispers* is Jon Stewart a scab?

Cafe Society
21

[QUOTE=WhyNot]

Ah, see, now that’s useful information. I found a lot of online chatter speculating as such, but I couldn’t find anything straight from the horses’ mouths.
[/QUOTE]

Well you can still speculate as to why exactly he’s coming back; I mean, was he “forced” or is he doing it because he has compassion for the rest of his staff, some of whom have been with him for many years.

The quote itself is directly from him, in person, though. It’s the meaning that can be interpreted in different ways.

22

TJdude, I am clearly also blind as well as jumpy. I didn’t even see the word “character” in your post. You’re right, the character Stephen has said he doesn’t have writers.

I’m a little tired right now, sorry.

23

[QUOTE=Zebra]
It’s been killing me because Stewart covers politics differently from any other ‘news’ service. I’m willing to bet that him being gone all this month has had an effect on the Iowa caucaus.
[/QUOTE]

I’ve seen articles discussing this when the strike started. A lot of younger people get most, or all, of their political coverage from programs like the Daily Show.

24

When Carson Daly came back, writers sat in his audience and disrupted his show. I’m curious if they have the stones to pull that on Stewart and Colbert.

25

Carson Daly has a show?

26

WGA writer here.

The issues are… complicated. Way too complicated to try and get into it here without my brain exploding – I’m about to embark on a 18h car trip to visit family (that’s 18 hours, one way) and I still haven’t finished packing…

Yes, we applaud the whole “going back so our staff members have jobs” thing… but to many of us, this is hollow as all hell. These hosts make a fortune. Our showrunners, who make a hell of a lot less than they do have been paying their assistants and a bunch of other staffers since the beginning of the strike. They haven’t been saying anything about it - no news stories, no mention of it in interviews, really… they’ve quietly kept them fed, housed and kept their kids in daycare. The “staff” the late night hosts speaks of? They’re industry people, for the most part. These people DO have access to industry funds FOR SITUATIONS LIKE THESE. This whole “we’re going back for the peeeeeoooooppppllllle!” thing? Yeah, ain’t doin’ it for me.

But yes, I understand. People are getting fired. Hell, it happened to us, where I work. Day 5 of the strike. Execs turned around and fired all the assistants. As I’ve said in other threads, it was like hitting the kids and saying “Look what you made me do!” Our show runner and our producers, who are all writers, are paying them out of pocket, so we can rehire them once the strike is over. One of our actors has stepped up and picked up some of the bills, too. If that’s what it takes, that’s what we’re going to do.

WGA Writers who are going back to work, as hosts, and writing their own materials… They are crossing picket lines. To me, there’s no question about it. Some union members are a little more iffy about it.

Damn it, PENCILS DOWN MEANS PENCILS DOWN. If all our showrunners started saying that they were going to go back to writing because our crews needed jobs… where would we be? I mean, isn’t that what the moguls are after? Union breaking. Weakening the ranks by making it necessary for people to come back to work. Dividing loyalties… and then trying to spin it their way in the media. Dudes – they hired the PR firm that handled the Tobacco Companies PR Campaign during the whole “cigarettes will give you cancer!” discovery period…

Just my 2 cents. I’m sick of this strike, I’m sick of not working, and I really really want to get back to work. Unfortunately, it looks like we’re going to be out here for many more weeks. Hope y’all like reality TV.

Elly, your friendly neighborhood Strike Captain, WGAe member
(also AFM Local 30-73 and AFTRA)

27

Elen, with all due respect, I think that Stewart going back to work is the right thing to do, because the country needs him! We have one of the most important elections of the decade coming up, and viewers of TDS are better informed than are Fox News viewers, for all Stewart jokes about being just comic, he’s a damn sight better journalist than 99% of them working on TV. We need him on TV, actively taking potshots at all the stuffed shirts on the campaign trail. Him going back to work is no different (and I’d argue, just as important) as when the unionized workers in WWII agreed to wage concessions and “no strike” rules. I know that’s cold comfort when you’re stuck eating ramein noodles and worrying about where you’re going to get enough money to pay your bills, but having Stewart back on the air might prevent the whole country from winding up that way.

Leno and the others aren’t so important, so feel free to curse them all you want. :wink:

28

Yeah Elen, I understand your position and I really think you guys have gotten a crappy deal but I think the fight should continue but with the least amount of affecting the people who are not part of it.

I can’t speak for all shows but I know some people from some late-night shows and they do not all have access to industry funds. And they will lose their jobs and will get no money from anyone for it. Anyone who is paying staff salaries out of their own pockets is going to have to stop sooner or later. Colbert’s weekly payroll (a relatively small staff, at approx. 85, compared to other shows) must be tens of thousands of dollars; neither he nor Jon (who produces) can afford to pay those salaries for long. They are the lowest-paid hosts in late night. Someone like Letterman might be able to longer, but should he? How long should he (if he is; I’m talking hypothetically) pay out of his own pocket the salaries that his corporation would normally be paying? It doesn’t matter how much money he gets paid: how long should a boss feel obligated to personally pay the salaries of people who are not actually working?

It’s a really tough position all around, for the writers and their innocent-bystander co-workers and the hosts of the shows. I’m glad I would not be in the position that Jon or Stephen or David or any of the producers are in. I hope it all ends really quickly with the best result possible for the greatest number of people.

29

I also wouldn’t be surprised if Jon (and Colbert) didn’t have some rather cutting comments about the matter on the show when they go back to work. Stewart might also choose to end each broadcast with a message of solidarity for those still on strike. (Of course, both of them could just do 22 minutes of them sitting there and saying, “Man, I’m really pissed about this!” over and over again. :smiley:

30

It’s not clear to me which side in this strike is objectively “right.” But that’s the beauty of negotiations – it you don’t believe you’re being paid a fair wage, quit (or strike) and your employer has the choice of replacing you or paying you what you demand. And certainly the decision to bargain as a collective team is a reasonable one, since it gives your team a bargaining power that they would not have as individuals.

So up to that point, I’m “with” the writers. They, not I, have every right to decide upon what they think is fair and demand that from their employers.

The discussion here is where I begin to lose sympathy, though. By the same logic I just laid out, it seems to me that Carson Daly, John Stewart, Stephen Colbert, et. al., have every right to decide for whatever reasons that they wish to go back to work. The ire levelled at them arises from the assignment of a moral wrongness to the decision to “cross a picket line.”

I have noticed no real condemnation levelled at the writers who disrupted Daly’s show. Why is that? I suspect it’s because those favoring the union model believe that the right to strike should include the right to shut down the business, and this is where unions and I completely part company. I suppose the union is welcome to try and convince people there’s a moral failing in anyone who crosses a picket line, but when substantive action is taken to disrupt the business that’s operating in defiance of the strike, then they lose any moral high ground at all, as far as I’m concerned.

31

[QUOTE=Tuckerfan]
Elen, with all due respect, I think that Stewart going back to work is the right thing to do, because the country needs him!
[/QUOTE]

Nonsense.

First off, you do realize that Jon’s not getting his writers back. And apparently, from what I can tell, he won’t actually be writing even for himself. So that means that the actual satire of his show will be minimal. It will probably be about five minutes of him babbling off the top of his head to the camera, an old taped segment about Steve Carrel mocking some local fruitcake, and then an extra-long interview segment. Now, some of those interviews will have some political importance (and while Stewart does a better job on busting wingnut authors and politicians than Jay Leno, he’s hardly a Mike Wallace or a Terri Gross), but many of them will be authors on less important subjects, or C-List celebrities (actual movies stars are often not going to cross picket lines). This is going to suck, or at least not be at all informative.

Secondly, the fact that Jon Stewart was a more dependable source of information than major media outlets is a crying shame, and the solution has never been more Jon Stewart. Perhaps his viewers will instead turn to NPR or PBS or some of the better newspapers and get some *actual *news instead of it filtered through the comic sensibilities of a host and his writing staff.

32

[QUOTE=Menocchio]
Nonsense.

First off, you do realize that Jon’s not getting his writers back. And apparently, from what I can tell, he won’t actually be writing even for himself. So that means that the actual satire of his show will be minimal.
[/quote]
Even Stewart’s off-the-cuff improvisations will be better than nothing.

Actually, they could and probably will, pick something that’s at least topical, if not fresh.

Stewart’s a far, far, far better interviewer than Terri Gross is. Stewart has no qualms about calling a “wingnut” a “wingnut.” I’ve been listening to Terri Gross for nearly 10 years now, and I’ve never heard her smackdown down anyone like Stewart did Bernard Goldberg.

I agree that it’s a shame, but if he keeps raking in the ratings and the journalism awards, while “hard news” shows like The CBS Evening News with Katie Couric continue to plunge in the ratings, “the suits” will get a clue and go back to delivering real news again. Of course, it can be argued that if “the suits” had a clue to begin with, there’d not be a strike now.

Put me in the “Ye of little faith” on this point. While I hope that it does happen, I’m not betting it will.

Maybe it’s because his show sucks. :wink:

33

Basically the ‘producers’ will negotiate when the prime time shows run out.

34

[QUOTE=Bricker]
By the same logic I just laid out, it seems to me that Carson Daly, John Stewart, Stephen Colbert, et. al., have every right to decide for whatever reasons that they wish to go back to work. The ire levelled at them arises from the assignment of a moral wrongness to the decision to “cross a picket line.”
[/quote]

I actually haven’t seen much “ire.” I’ve seen sympathy that Stewart and Colbert have been told by their networks that either they get back to work or their staffs will be fired.

Because most people on the SDMB just hate Carson Daly and take pleasure in any disruption of his show. It’s personal, but it’s not really related to the WGA strike.

35

[QUOTE=Zebra]
Basically the ‘producers’ will negotiate when the prime time shows run out.
[/QUOTE]

It does seem that the Writer’s Guild picked an odd time to strike. I’d have thought at the beginning of a (writing) season would have made more sense, not after they had enough material in the can to get them through to the Christmas slow season.

36

[QUOTE=Bricker]
I have noticed no real condemnation levelled at the writers who disrupted Daly’s show. Why is that?
[/QUOTE]

I can only answer for myself, of course, and the answer is ‘cause there’s not much to say after “well, that was rude.” If there was a thread about it, I didn’t see it, and I don’t care enough about Carson frickin’ Daly to start one of my own.

If you want to start or link me to a thread about it, I’ll post in it. My post will probably consist of “Well, that was rude,” however. :smiley:

[QUOTE=Menocchio]
Secondly, the fact that Jon Stewart was a more dependable source of information than major media outlets is a crying shame, and the solution has never been more Jon Stewart. Perhaps his viewers will instead turn to NPR or PBS or some of the better newspapers and get some actual news instead of it filtered through the comic sensibilities of a host and his writing staff.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah. That’s…just not going to happen. Although Stewart has said the same thing himself many times in many interviews, it always comes off a little disingenuous to me. I find it hard to believe that a person so in touch with the ideas and feelings of his fans is so out to lunch on the single fact that yes, Virginia, most of his fans get most of their news from The Daily Show. I know I do.

No, seriously, why is it “a crying shame”? Why must newsworthy news be dry and dull and boring people in boring suits? Where is it writ that news must put people to sleep? As long as one understands satire, it’s a perfectly good tool for communication, and despite the fact that his “news” segments are less than 12 minutes long, somehow they cram more news in there than my local nightly news.

Now, I do think “the country needs him!” is a rather romantic hysteric sentiment worthy of Mr. Colbert (the character) himself. But, like all humor, there’s a kernel of truth there. No, we don’t “need” him - after all, it is just a television show. And he may not have huge amounts of influence - after all, the show has been on the air for more than 8 years, and it didn’t prevent either Bush term - but yeah, we want him. I want him, and not (just) in a dirty, dirty way.

37

[QUOTE=ShibbOleth]
It does seem that the Writer’s Guild picked an odd time to strike. I’d have thought at the beginning of a (writing) season would have made more sense, not after they had enough material in the can to get them through to the Christmas slow season.
[/QUOTE]

That was pretty much dictated by when their contract was up. They could have agreed to keep working without a contract, but that generally only happens when the parties involved feel they can trust one another. Given how blatant Hollywood is about screwing it’s people, I can’t say as I blame them for not trusting “the suits.”

38

I read that Kimmel is going broke trying to pay his staff. Letterman and Leno make a ton more and have been at it longer. They still have money.

39

[QUOTE=acsenray]
I actually haven’t seen much “ire.” I’ve seen sympathy that Stewart and Colbert have been told by their networks that either they get back to work or their staffs will be fired.

Because most people on the SDMB just hate Carson Daly and take pleasure in any disruption of his show. It’s personal, but it’s not really related to the WGA strike.
[/QUOTE]

I wasn’t intending to limit this observation to “people on the SDMB,” – although it’s certainly true here – but just in general, in the world at large.

Perhaps your rejoinder is true for the world at large? :slight_smile:

40

[QUOTE=WhyNot]
I can only answer for myself, of course, and the answer is ‘cause there’s not much to say after “well, that was rude.” If there was a thread about it, I didn’t see it, and I don’t care enough about Carson frickin’ Daly to start one of my own.

If you want to start or link me to a thread about it, I’ll post in it. My post will probably consist of “Well, that was rude,” however. :smiley:

[/QUOTE]

Fair enough; as I said above, I may have given the wrong impression when I posted. I meant the reactions of the world at large, not necessarily the SDMB pundits alone.