Why they fight

Via United Hollywood, this interesting bit:

"From Wall Street's perspective, we estimate the impact of accepting the [writers'] proposal is largely negligible," Bear Stearns wrote in a report last week.
The firm estimates that the $120 million figure would carry an average impact of less than 1% on annual earnings per share for the media companies. That does not factor in any concessions by the writers' side (the WGA),
where the principal issue is a desire for a piece of ad dollars from new-media distribution.
The potentially small financial impact suggests that studios (Alliance of Motion Pictures and Television Producers) are more concerned about setting a precedent in new-media revenue sharing. However, Bear Stearns wrote that the writers' forecast for that market "strikes us as fairly aggressive." The firm hinted that studios are looking to the future. They are concerned that a favorable settlement would embolden directors and actors in their coming renegotiations.
I think it's more that the moguls

1) have dreams of a union-free future, just like everyone else in at Herb Allen's in Sun Valley. Steve Jobs doesn't have to deal with unions, just engineers and Chinese prison labor.

2) take offense at writers being, not in the same social class, but a class that's visible from the class they're in. What are writers' children doing at Harvard-Westlake? It's not natural.

3) Just hate writers in general. This actually might be something where the moguls could find common ground with many members of the guild.

UPDATE: Or, as Atrios says about the auto execs:
I really think I have to put this in the "they're just assholes who don't like to be told what to do" category instead of the "rational economic actor" category, though perhaps someone can convince me otherwise...

No comments: