Maybe the print coverage of the strike has been excessive and "unbalanced" but it's worth viewing things from the proper perspective. When you look to the core of this issue the writers have a very simple, straightforward, and reasonable claim, if someone is making money off work that they did then they would like to be compensated for it. The networks and studios (or rather the enormous corporations that own them) do not think the writers deserve a piece of the money that their work generates (and lest you think that claim is an exaggeration please understand that it is literally true. When the writer's guild met with the studio reps to renegotiate their contracts the studios wanted to do away with all residuals for writers and simply pay a one time upfront fee for their work and never pay the writers again). Part of the reason that the coverage of the writers has been so one sided is that when you strip this argument down to its essence, the studio's claims are repugnant.

Almost all of the arguments I have read against the writer's guild (including Jack Shafer's) seem to draw on a couple of key ideas, all rooted in emotion. Most often repeated (or insinuated) is the assertion that the writers are whiny rich crybabies. Boiled down to its essence this argument goes something like "Some people dig ditches, go cry me a river." Well fair enough, but right or wrong a lot of people in our society consume the work that the writers produce, and as such that work generates vast amounts of money. You may not think the work is particularly important, but it is work and more to the point that work is making someone rich. The writer's are asking for a fraction, literally a small fraction, of the wealth generated by their work, and it's worth noting that writing for TV and movies is a specialized skill that not too many people in America are able to do. It's easy to rail against TV and Movies and say they are awful, but writing even bad television takes skills that most people in America simply don't have. Again, that might not be very meaningful if not for the fact that TV and movies make so much money, and so absent of all other considerations this dispute comes down to a question of paying the writers a fair cut of what their work generates.

What irritates me the most about this article is that it seems to be built on the premise that the coverage of the strike is unwarranted because this stuff just isn't that important. By making this argument in concert with the idea that the writers are a bunch of over privileged children Jack Shafer pulls off the impressive trick of being a culturally elitist snob while at the same time showing a simple minded, stereotype driven, prejudice against cultural elites. Like it or not our society cares a lot about its entertainment, and mass coverage of the entertainment industry is here to stay. If that is a given (and it is) I think that we should be grateful that the coverage of the industry right now is focused on a major labor dispute rather than on Britney Spears and her lack of underwear, because in spite of what Shafer says this dispute is going to have some serious repercussions for most Americans whether they know it or not and it is important.

Shafer may not like it, but Americans watch a lot of TV and movies, and anything with the cultural and economic impact that these mediums have is worthy of a lot of attention. Additionally, film and television are one of America's most culturally and economically significant exports. So it's fine to say, "this is just about TV and movies" but consider for a moment what that really means.

Even if you are unmoved by the cultural significance of TV and film you should still care about the writer's strike because of the economics. California's economy is, in large part, built on the TV and movie business, and it is already being affected. Thousands upon thousands of people are already out of work in Los Angeles and that is going to hit the economy in a very bad way. As new film and television shows dry up there will be a ripple effect that will spread across the country, and if you think it won't effect you just because you don't like TV and movies that much then you have your head in the sand.

Even more importantly, though, the writer's strike is important because it is going to be a test of whether or not we as American workers are going to be able to stand up for ourselves against the sprawling cooperate machines that will inevitably take over the world of work in the US. This is going to happen, it is inevitable, and the writer's strike offers us a window into how we all might be able to fare as corporate interests continue to dominate our professional lives. I'm not calling the writer's heroes or anything, (they aren't ditch diggers after all) but their fight is important precisely because they are part of the "cultural elite." If these people can't get a fair shake from the corporate interests they (and really all of us in America) work for then none of us can. Believe it.

Simply the best--the most accurate, the most sensitive, the most measured and yet, in its precision, devastating--opinion I have read anywhere, in print or on the web, about the strike.

Seconded at every point. Especially good--quiet but elegant--dismissal of the ubiquitous "cry me a river! some orphans are starving in political camps in Burma" objection increasingly voiced wherever people think an issue doesn't merit discussion or contention.

Yes, orphans starve--and they deserve and must get the needed provisions and political or social interventions. That does not mean that a bout of food poisioning in the wedding reception buffet, a feud between families, or a movie and television writers' strike are not small catastrophes in their own right(s).

What mattcable doesn't address is the basic premise that Mr. Shafer raises at the very beginning of the article. Why do certain artists (actors, directors, writers, etc.) think that there is something special about their art that entitles them to get paid every time it is viewed? Whereas other artists (painters, photographer, potters, etc.) only get paid one time, at the point of sale.

If I buy a Picasso today for $2M and sell in fiver year for $5M, should I be required to pay a fee to his estate? How about if I buy a painting from a living artist, and then sell later, making a profit, should I split my earnings with the artist? What if I sell later at a loss, should the artist re-imburse me my money?

Maybe the United Auto Workers should strike for residuals. Every time a car is bought/sold they should get a piece of the action. And the plumber who was involved in building my house, should he get a couple of pennies every time I flush? His work is certainly more germaine to my daily life that some unknown writer who is involved with "What about Brian?"

The whole notion of residuals is just inherently goofy. The entity that fronts the money for a piece of art has the right to make a profit from that piece of work. They are, in essence, buying the work of the artists involved. If they are able to sell for a profit, they are within their rights.

Now, if writers feel that they are not making enough, they certainly have the right to strike. But at the end of the day, they should do what 99% of all other working stiffs in this country do; take their salary, save and invest, and not expect to be paid for the rest of their lives based upon work they did 3, 5 or even 20 years ago.

You've got the idea of residuals wrong. The writers don't get paid every time the work is viewed, they get paid every time a license is sold. The studio charges for the content, and the writers want a bigger piece of the money the studio collects. The Picasso analogy is erroneous; to correct it you'd need to address the reproduction rights of that work.

You may be right that writers should sell only the work product, and leave all profits or losses in the hands of the capitalist that funded it. However, neither the writers nor the studios see it that way, so their argument is not about whether to have residuals, but how much and in what context. The UAW workers' pensions are a version of the same idea: they also "get paid the rest of their lives based on work they did years ago."

The fundamental question in this negotiation is how to balance the risk and reward associated with work. Typical "working stiffs" have little risk: they get paid regardless of whether the company makes money on their work, unless it's so bad that they get fired or the company goes under. Here the writers want more upside reward, but no additional downside risk. That's not inherently good or bad; UAW workers get the same thing when they negotiate for profit sharing bonuses. For employers, profit sharing is better than salary, because they only pay if they have the money.

So, the two sides will wrestle over the details until one side blinks (or starves) and then they'll carry on making entertainment. But the spillover may also color the basic risk/reward relationship in other labor contracts.