The Extratextuals

Just a quick shout-out to the Adopt a Writer project put together by a coalition of TV bloggers. The idea is simple: because the mainstream media tend to be focusing only on big name writers, the writers end up sounding like whiney, greedy pigs (“JJ really needs more money, does he?”) … so they’re interviewing lesser-known, jobbing writers. The aim is to let readers get a better sense of the writers, why they write, what they’re striking for, etc. Neat idea, and the first writer to be “adopted”/interviewed is Jasmine Love. Go read.

strike Adopt a Writer, strike, WGA

With the possibility of a Writers Guild of America (WGA) strike becoming more and more a reality, especially after a hefty 90.3% strike authorization vote from WGA members, and given the rather nasty posturing from both sides, I started wondering what a network head should do if (when) the strike does indeed happen. Let’s consider some of the options for how to keep primetime running (though bear in mind that I’m not a lawyer, and don’t know what’s legal during strikes, so perhaps some of these are not kosher? Please tell me if they are).

1. Put on lots of reality shows. This would seem the obvious way to get lots of new shows without needing writers per se. Ever wanted to be in a reality show? Wander around Southern California on November 2nd and you might find a lot of casting going on. Or turn on the TV at 8pm on a weeknight in January and you may see Knitting with the Stars.

Pros: Because of the elongation of time that most reality shows introduce, turning two weeks of real time into three or four months of show, reality shows could be produced at relative speed. There are also a large number of shows already in the books, so the networks wouldn’t even need new concepts. If some of these catch on, they might even help the nets build up audiences for shows that they might want to use as summer fillers after the WGA’s back.

Cons: If, as Jason Mittell writes, television genres follow a cycle of innovation–imitation–saturation, a fair argument could be offered that we’re well into the saturation phase for reality shows, with many longtime favorites experiencing dips in ratings. Thus the industry might want to tread carefully: my suspicion is that three hours a night on all networks of endless reality shows could be the final spin cycle of saturation that finishes a lot of those shows off. Running that many shows could also test America’s supply of loud, annoying, and objectionable human beings.

2. Get serious about news journals like 60 Minutes, Dateline, 20/20, and so forth. Make them two hours long, and give them more money.

Pros: This is a pipedream, but it might be nice if networks actually gave a damn about investigative journalism (even if only by force). January will bring the beginning of the primaries, too, so there will be no shortage of national news. The nets might even be able to siphon some of the big bucks spent on fictional television into getting some decent international news going. Hollywood would likely balk at this suggestion, but if you look at countries that put news on and that do it seriously during primetime, their ratings aren’t horrible, and sometimes they’re high. Maybe people will actually start to like the news, if it’s actually any good.

Cons: Given the kind of news programming that Americans are usually offered, we can surmise that most network heads have little to no respect for their audience’s intelligence. So this seems an unlikely strategy. I also worry that because of this lack of respect, the two hour specials would just be on the history of the bikini, or bio pieces on Britney Spears.continued below the fold… Read more…

strike strike, WGA