It’s been encouraging to see that the WGA strike generally has strong public support. While I think most mainstream Americans generally are ambivalent about Hollywood and Hollywood types (despite the fact that we are a celebrity- and entertainment-obsessed society), it’s clear that there’s not much to sympathize with when it comes to the movie and television studios and media conglomerates. The industry’s rush to maximize their presence and content on the Web only undermines their argument that there’s “no money to be made in new media.” As many people have pointed out, writers are only requesting a percentage of profits—so if no money is made, how would it actually hurt the industry to agree to give a tiny percentage of revenues to the artists who actually create the content?Yet, as a recent L.A. Times article pointed out, it’s not clear exactly how this public support translates into anything really tangible for the writers. Offering such support is simply symbolic and requires no sacrifice—frankly, it’s just lip service. If people want to really hurt the studios, they would need to boycott going to films, watching TV, etc. And I don’t see that happening, nor have I seen as yet the union suggest people do that.
So while such public support certainly is heartening to the cause, I don’t see it as pressuring the studios to end the strike fast, so long as people keep watching their shows and whatever they choose to put on the air when new content runs out.
