By Mike Reynolds
In the July 28th edition of the Wall Street Journal, writer, former high school musician, and onetime actor Matthew Hennessey wrote a piece condemning the entertainment industry for its stance during the strike.
A former thespian (who had “a brief career as an actor,” according to IMDb), he became a “conservative opinion journalist” (again, according to his IMDb profile) and editor for the WSJ, along with making appearances on Fox TV network as a commentator.
Hennessey condemns the entertainment industry for striking and writes, “The faceless, fat-cat studio heads seem like natural villains. But if you think that means we’re rooting for you, you’re mistaken. Nobody cares.” However, in all the media coverage on the strike situation in general, I have never heard anyone who is currently striking seeking public support. The only support called for has been from fellow employees within the industry.
What Hennessey seems to forget is that even without asking for public support, the public are involved in this strike. When the industry goes on strike, businesses lose out. So much so, in fact, that some go out of business because of a “Hollywood” strike. City, county and state taxes are affected — not just in Hollywood and its environs but in New York and other places where film and TV productions are shot. The trickle-down effect of an entertainment industry strike on those not directly involved in this industry is unbelievably cruel and incomprehensible to understand until a strike is over and the public gets to witness the unexpected and damaged rubble.
Hollywood is not trying to send a message to America for help or support, but to those “fat cat bosses” in Hollywood who receive annual payments (through salary, profit participation, and shares), that add up to tens of millions of dollars annually.
Additionally, there have been technical developments introduced to the industry, and issues on what to do — or not do — with them have to be addressed.
In his WSJ piece Hennessey suggests that striking workers assume “Americans are on your side.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Those individual professionals, represented by their guilds and unions, are just seeking a fair business arrangement between employees and their bosses, not handouts or commiseration.
Hennessey proclaims that the “striking unions say they seek ‘fairness’ but an unavoidable show-business reality is that the number of jobs is limited and the supply of talent is limitless.” However, Hennessey appears to forget that the same situation exists in every aspect of industry/business worldwide. Everyone would like an annual raise to keep up with inflation. Sadly, those in the entertainment industry have to wait four years before they receive one and in the meantime (especially since the advent of streaming), they are being prevented from any wage increase, along with diminishing residual payments. While out on strike and after a certain period (which striking writers have now passed), entertainment industry employees lose their medical benefits, as well as their regular paycheck. This is a huge sacrifice in order to get a respectable and fair income. No one ever mentions the medical coverage, which, in the U.S. is an absolute must, and if someone needs medical treatment and can’t pay — one can’t suddenly become a Canadian, a Brit, or a French national and receive free medical care.
When mentioning residual payments, Hennessey continues to lose the plot by suggesting that he “would like to earn a residual payment every time someone reads one of my articles.” No journalist anywhere in the world has ever suggested their work should be residual based. And anyway, if you think that getting accurate viewing figures for TV shows is difficult, try getting accurate readership details on a newspaper story!
Leave A Comment