I was reading Time Magazine the other day when I stumbled upon an interesting analysis of the current writers strike. I don’t know if the author had Marshall McLuhan in mind (probably not) but he couldn’t have written a more relevant analysis of McLuhan’s argument. The article began by outlining the conflict between writers and the networks. Basically, writers believe that they deserve a bigger cut of profits when material they have written appears on the Internet or when shows are released on DVD. It’s a pretty straightforward dispute over money, however, the changing landscape of media outlets (i.e. the Internet) makes this issue more important than it has been in the past. The rest of the article analyzes each party’s leverage and what it means for their struggle. The writers believe that their strike will bring the networks to their knees by making TV so boring that no one will want to watch it. One genre that survives because it doesn’t require much of a writing staff is reality shows. I watch TV every once and a while but if reality shows were the only thing on I would have no problem never watching it again. To sum up their argument, the striking writers believe that content is the most important issue and people will be quick to abandon TV in exchange for the internet and services like Netflix. The networks, on the other hand, claim that they can hold out indefinitely because the medium is more important than the content and viewers will be satisfied with reruns and reality TV. I am interested to see if loyal TV viewers will prove the networks (and McLuhan) right or if the idea of the medium as the message will be struck down as the writers hope. Either way get used to TV sucking for at least the next couple of weeks.
Comments (2)
I haven't seen this argument for the writers strike yet, but it is very McLuhanesque. I feel like although the medium is incredibly powerful, the strike won't last forever - the networks will cave. People have their tv shows that they like to see and having been sucked into a tv series before, i can attest that there are definitely some angry fans out there. Reality TV of late has been drawing huge tv audiences (american idol, dancing with the stars, project runway, flavor of love, etc.), but they are not capable of replacing TV programming as it has always been.
Posted by Catherine | December 3, 2007 9:39 PM
Posted on December 3, 2007 21:39
I take the side of the writers in this one. I mean who would watch TV if it was devoid of artfully produced content? Wait that's a stupid question. Alot of people because people are socialized to have a pavlovian response to TV that associates TV viewing with being entertained. In other words, if your watching TV you automatically feel entertained. Of course this isn't true in all cases, but I think a lot of people have a that sort of subconscious response.
On another note, I also read a recent article in the New York Tims about how a recent poll has shown that most American side with the writers and how these numbers show that the writers are winning the public relations battle. It also talked about the creative tactics the writers have employed against the studios, including havin stars come out and picket with strikers to throwing massive concerts outside of studios. I think that this is yet another example of a social movement and the people within that movement successfully manipulating the media for their own benefit. I also find it interesting that most people feel this way about a strike given that many times just the word strike evokes a negative response from the public. For instance, the recent stagehand strike in New York was met with incredibly negative press. Photos of children crying because they couldn't attend plays because of the strike were placed next to articles that condemned the stagehands as being too greedy. My the difference the medium makes.
Posted by Maxwell Tracy | December 4, 2007 5:49 PM
Posted on December 4, 2007 17:49