MSNBC: MiSiNformedBumblingandClueless

I've come to the conclusion that 24-hour cable news networks should stick to what they do best: Washington politics and trials involving the untimely demise of wives in California. What they should definitely not do is try to explain the situation involving SAG and its impending strike-authorization vote, because they are routinely inaccurate and quite often wrong.

The worst offender of this is MSNBC, who has screwed up this story since the late June. At that point, the network breathlessly reported on the air and its crawls that a strike was imminent because the guild and producers were far apart and the TV/film contract was about to expire.

No one there had any idea that a) unions routinely work on expired contracts until a deal is reached; (apparently, the network geniuses didn't know that their New York-based news writer colleagues had worked on an expired WGA contract FOR YEARS); b) SAG leaders had not only NOT secured strike authorization, they hadn't even scheduled a vote; and c) no one was going to stage a strike until the results of the AFTRA ratification had been completed, which wasn't going to happen until July 8.

This morning, however, MSNBC was at its worst, when it said the strike was likely because "80 percent of the people speaking" at a town hall meeting last night in Hollywood were favoring a walkout and that sentiment "pretty representative" of SAG as a whole. 

For those of you who had the misfortune of watching this fount of misinformation, here's the real deal. A) Most of those speaking, according to reports, favored getting strike authorization, not necessarily a strike. SAG leaders such as national president Alan Rosenberg and 1st vp Anne-Marie Johnson have stated repeatedly that a vote for strike authorization doesn't necessarily mean a strike. The authorization is only leverage to get what they want at the bargaining table, they say. B) Even if the guild gets strike authorization, a walkout would have to be approved by a simple majority of the national board, where moderates--not strike hawks--have the majority. It's a tiny majority, but a majority nonetheless. C) The math does not look promising for getting strike authorization, and it doesn't take Nate Silver to figure it out.

According to a report in Daily Variety, Hollywood constitutes 60 percent of the rank and file, New York 25 percent, and the regions 15 percent. Let's say MSNBC is right, and 80 percent of the people in Hollywood want strike authorization. The Yes voters would still have to secure 67.5 percent of the vote in the New York and Regional Branch Divisions to win the 75 percent necessary. Confused?

Let's say only 10,000 out of 120,000 union members vote (which was roughly the tally for the push-poll earlier this year), and let's say the voting breaks down evenly: 6,000 in Hollywood, 2,500 in New York, 1,500 in the regions. If 80 percent of Hollywood actors vote yes, that's 4,800 total votes. They would need 2,700 out of the remaining 4,000 votes (67.5 percent) to get the magic 7,500.

Even if you discount the overwhelming antipathy toward SAG-Hollywood in New York and the regions, film and TV production outside of Southern California has increased significantly in the past few years because of tax incentives. There is little chance those actors, even in a so-so economy, would vote for the chance to stop working, particularly over new-media issues. In a lousy economy, there is no way two-thirds of New York and regional voters entrust strike-authority to a national board where moderates have but a razor-thin majority.

So whenever MSNBC starts talking about the SAG situation, turn off your television, go to the computer, and come to Strike Watch.

--Andrew Salomon

Comments

[Michael Heister]

Andrew Salomon's analysis completely ignores the overwhelming rejection of the AMPTP's "last best final" offer in the recent postcard poll. Also, he ignores even more potential rank & file backlash to the AMPTP's belligerent attitude as reflected in their recent PR campaign and their ill-considered efforts to try to foster rancor between SAG and AFTRA.

While speculation about how SAG voters outside of the greater Los Angeles area may vote on the strike authorization constitutes so much of the bread and butter of old media - Andrew's paycheck is cut by the Hollywood Reporter, so he's old media, blog or no - actors should not be confused about the very serious issues we face this year.

It's not merely about this year's contract. What's most relevant is the precedent that will be set for decades to come, and the tens of billions actors stand to lose far beyond the three-year cycle we're presently fighting over.