Cinematical

You absolutely have a responsibility to cover the Golden Globes--both the awards ceremony itself and whatever related actions the WGA takes. Your readership can make its own judgements about the events that unfold.

Reply

This is a blog. There is no responsibility to anyone for anything.

Reply

oo, atm, tied between yes and no. Well, I say no. I greatly support the writer's strike, and feel that if you don't cover the globes and such, it would almost be like a boycott, albeit a small one at the moment. Boycotts are good for all causes, and maybe soon the higherups will start to reeeally feel the pressure/hits.

Reply

I subscribe to Nikki Finke's description of the Globes so I could care less whether you cover it or not, I'm not reading any of it.
That being said, you should cover it, from the angle of how the strike could disrupt awards shows like these. This will not be pretty.

Reply

I'm torn; first off, I don't think anyone should cover the Globes, since they're a completely worthless awards show run by a shadow organization with no credibility. On the other hand, we have the potential for high comedy with presenters dealing with the combination of a) no writers and b) booze. So I say "yea."

Reply

Last I checked, the staff of Cinematical was made up of journalists. Screenwriters not showing at the Golden Globes sends a message and people will (maybe) notice. But are we seriously suggesting that journalists avoid covering a relatively major news item out of political sympathies? That sounds a little like censorship, even if it is coming from the underdog. Cinematical has shown support for the strike by just reporting the news; the facts are on the writers' side. Why should they stop reporting the news?

Reply

The question is, is there a difference between reporting the "news" -- who wins, who loses, or the impact of the strike, or the WGA marching at the event -- versus covering the Globes from the venue, or even just live-blogging the event.

There's a difference between a winner accepting the award in absentia, versus the nominees showing up and putting their faces on the camera for the benefit of the very networks and studios the writers are striking against. If film bloggers cover the live awards events, does that support the moguls by supporting a network event as it's happening?

And for the record, I am the writer Erik refers to above, and I am not a part of the "we" who support a "happy ending" because I don't believe there is such a thing, really. What I support is the writers getting what's fair, and that includes internet residuals. If giving that to the writers also happens to make the moguls happy, fantastic.

Reply

Digital or not, I consider it crossing the picket line. When I was little my parents always told me "How you spend your money is how you vote for the type of world you want to live in." If you're a writer, I think the same goes for words. How do you want to spend your words? Pretending like it's business as usual?

Reply

I call it a toss-up. The writers' strike is only tangentially related to the awards show. It's still news. The Cinematical commentary doesn't serve the bigwigs; it serves us who don't want to watch the show, but just want the highlights reel. You watch the show so that we don't have to. :)

Reply

Worker solidarity is important whether the rubes get it yet or not. I have no respect for anyone who would cross a picket line.

Reply

Don't care about the awards but as a giant F-U to the Writer's Guild I say cover the hell out of it.

Reply

Picket lines are for people who physically work for a living. WGA = bunch of educated whiners who can't negotiate independent deals and hope others will cover for their shortcomings in brokering contracts.

Reply

I can't believe it's even an option to NOT cover the awards, useless as they may be. I've always had the impression that Cinematical was a blog about the love of movies and all that implies. Had I known it was simply a shell website for the WGA I might have stopped reading some time ago.

I guess the post by silentobserver is correct in theory: this is a blog, you guys don't owe anyone anything. I'm wondering now, what if everyone across the country followed this ill-advised line of thinking. Maybe newspapers should stop reporting "news" in support of the WGA. Maybe radio hosts should stop playing music or hosting talk shows, in support of the writers. Hell let's take it to the extreme. Maybe auto mechanics should stop fixing cars in support of the UAW when they strike. Maybe I should strike from my job when the union we're paired with strikes also, despite the fact I'm not in the union myself. Maybe my wife should strike if the school nurse's union strikes.

I love Cinematical, I really do. But to get to the point: Just rename yourselves "WGA Lapdogs" and get it over with. You may shill for the writers all you like, but if the studios stopped making movies you'd have nothing to cover. It takes both sides to make it all work.

And when "real" journalists question the seriousness and validity of blogging, this is why. The inability to separate oneself from personal attachments to report what's happening cheapens the whole experience.

Reply

Hey Erik, I see your side of it man. I'm not as callous as I sound. You know where my agitation comes from? The ever-declining pool of places to get real news from, it saddens me, really it does. You know I don't even read any of the major newspapers for anything more than a laugh. And truthfully, I don't think the fact that a writer graduated from Northwestern U. makes him any better a journalist than some random guy who blogs on a website. The big difference for me is: which guy is trying to be objective? And which is the asshole trying to (subversively) get you to see it his way? The thing I always like at Cinematical was, you guys never condescended to your readers. I've been allowed to formulate my own opinion. Sometimes I agree with you guys, sometimes I don't. But I've always respected the differences in opinion like grown adults should.

I'd be lying if I said I think not covering the Globes is good journalism. But on the other hand, I don't think the Globes deserves too much positive attention anyway. So in that respect Erik, I'm split. Same for the Oscars. It's a giant self-congratulatory circle-jerk. And truthfully, the strike is already turning in the writers' favor. People outside of our little clique are noticing it. Soon, very soon, the public will pressure the studios to make nice and pay the writers fairly. USA Today had a write-up on it in their Living Section, and a phone poll showed overwhelming support for the writers. Most people realize how important they are to the process. All I'm advocating is: let them work it out, and tell us how it's coming along. We know you guys support your fellow writers. I don't hold it against you. Just don't let over-zealousness come between you, and your integrity.

Reply

"Soon, very soon, the public will pressure the studios to make nice and pay the writers fairly. "

WTF? Whatever amount they accept is FAIR as they have a choice. Like any other job, it's up to the individual to decide what one's time is worth. Like all the musicians whining about the big bad record companies, these writers show up dreaming up becoming the next Shane Black but then don't have the ability to sell products for millions, so they sign on for unfavorable compensation. Who signed the contracts? Sorry, but their whole plight and their way of banding together reeks. If what you do is great, somebody will pay you handsomely and you are in command of the negotiations. If what you do is common, you're not going to get favorable returns. Suck it up. You want the Shane Black/Charlie Kaufman money but you're delivering According To Jim level scripts.

Reply

Phil, I appreciate your perspective. I started out majoring in journalism in part because freedom of the press is one of the most important protections guaranteed by our Constitution. But even newspapers have a place for writing that is based on opinion, not just the reporting of facts.

Blogs tend to mix that up a little more, true, but what we write here is very seldom just the black-and-white reporting of "just the facts, ma'am" without the opinion of the writer mixed in. We try to make it pretty abundantly clear when what we're writing is more editorial than blogging of news, but even with a short news post, what you're reading here is shaped by the ideas and opinions of the person who wrote it. That's what we do.

Go over to Movie City News, Hollywood Elsewhere, even the blogs on Variety -- blogs are about mixing opinion with fact. And frankly, given the way the MSM reports "facts," I'd rather get my news from a blogger who's at least honest about stating his or her opinions than a reporter who purports to be objective even if they mostly aren't.

Anyhow. I've stated my opinion on this, and I'm going to mull it over and make a decision. Erik and I mostly agree on the editorial issues that we have to make around this joint; it's the few times we don't that things get really fun. If we agreed all the time, work would be ever so much less fun. It's been interesting to see how the readers fall out on this issue, in any case.

Reply

In case no one noticed, the FCC just handed the big bad media congloms yet another victory in their race to make All Media, Everywhere owned by about 5 superhuge corporations when they said it's a-ok for a company to own both a TV station AND a newspaper in the same territory.

In other words, fewer outlets controlled by fewer huge, rapacious corporations.

For those of you who still don't get that EVERY fight of the little guy vs. the big baddy is a fight we all should take up (at least in spirit, if not in literally picking up a picket and joining whatever strike strikes your fancy) is just plain sold. As in out.

C'mon, film geeks! Where's your Luke Skywalker when the Empire is burning your Aunt Beru???

Reply

>

This is just lame. If an event is being picketed, anyone who attends is crossing the picket line -- whether they actually walk through a line of people carrying signs or not.

Still, you guys are journalists, so I think it's cool to do your thing.

Reply

I find the idea of not reporting to be a bit misguided...

Part of the reason for picketing the ceremony is to use the event as a platform to get their message out. If you don't report, you're arguably diminishing the platform. Another reason would be that they want a lot of empty seats, etc. Again, if you don't report, no one knows...

The thing that really gets me is the broader context. By reporting the event, you can possibly be accused of not supporting the writers. However, let's consider the rest of the site. By posting articles on retro cinema, you are helping the studios monetize their existing content - they can go longer without writers. By posting weekend revenues and reviews, you are helping to drive people to see content that was likely created with "unfair" contracts. Again, one could argue that most of your posts help the studios far more than the writers. At the end of the day, coverage of the Golden Globes arguably puts less money into the pockets of the studios than 90% of your content, yet I'm guessing that few on the staff have argued that you put the site on hiatus until the strike is over.

Reply