You can’t write
anything about politics—be it local, national, global, or within labor
unions—without getting screwed. No matter how objective, truthful, you strive
to be, one side or another (sometimes both) is going to accuse you of letting
bias seep into your reporting. You know this ahead of time, so you just go in
and do your best; quadruple-check that your quotes, facts, and numbers are
indisputably correct; send your dazzling prose off to the brave copy editors
and the senior editors with nice offices; and then wait for the angry emails,
phone calls, carrier pigeons, etc., to roll in. And people wonder why
journalists drink (and not the good stuffSAG’s switchboard operator can afford).
But as screwed as
journalists may be, the politicians and the others who do the speechifying have
it worse. I reckon it’s easy to go off-script, forgetting a little journo like
me is in the room with her notepad and tape recorder amongst 95 of your
closest, enthusiastic friends. Hell, a politician is bound to say something he
(or she) might regret later during a historic speech before 40 million
viewersthat could decide an election slightly more important than SAG’s. And, of
course, that’s the moment we journalists live for.
My spidey sense said
it was such a momentlast Saturday nightwhen Alan Rosenberg called Unite for Strength candidates and their supporters
on the New York and regional branch boards lying liars who are always lying. Actually, what he
said was, “If you stop telling lies
about us, we'll stop telling the truth about you. And that’s what people want
to say to these people in New York, people in the regional branches, and people
in this Unite for Strength party.”
It took a few days,
but the response from the accused liars is in. Former New York board president Paul Christie and current NY recording secretary Sue-Anne Morrow emailed me this:
“SAG president Alan
Rosenberg’s statements…in a recent Back Stage article were grossly
irresponsible and make two things abundantly clear: He has no respect for any
SAG member who disagrees with the increasingly destructive agenda of Membership
First, and his perspective on the nationwide dissent against Membership First
is as delusional as his perspective on our ‘phenomenal’ TV/theatrical
negotiations which continue to go nowhere. Those of us who were elected in New
York to serve SAG’s membership were alarmed by the tone and content of Mr.
Rosenberg’s statements, and we question his ability to represent our entire, national
union in our currently stalled TV/theatrical negotiations.”
A clear, strong
statement—just like I like them. But I’m surprised that was the only statement
of Rosenberg’s the New Yorkers have officially taken umbrage with. I also haven’t
received any statements from UFS regarding Rosenberg’s quotes such as, “To
elect people who have never been near this union, never served on a committee,
know nothing about negotiations, and to replace valuable people…it would be
absolutely a tragedy.” Or his punning their party’s name into “Divide for
Weakness.”
Ned Vaughn was brief and careful about how he responded
when I asked him for comment directly and he didn’t mention any back-biting
during Wednesday’s interview with Jonathan Handel. It’s a good tactic for a candidate, if you ask me. He chose to address
Membership First’s agenda and its record during its reign rather than address Rosenberg’s comments. But
will SAG members take his reserve as fear or as a classy choice not to answer
insults with more insults? What would Barack (or Hillary) do?
In any case, I feel for Rosenberg today because—of course—readers are
emailing me to inform me how uninformed I am. I’d share a smoke with him
outside 5757 Wilshire, if only I hadn’t given up my Camel Lights many years
ago. It's a shame that hypnosis didn't work:
Y’all have been respectful, which I appreciate. A
Membership First supporter wrote, “I guess your article was fairly balanced. The truth is,
there’s a lot of detail to this whole Hatfield-McCoy feud, and the passions run
deep.” This was followed by almost 1,800 words chronicling the history of this
feud—a good assessment of the current situation but obviously from a decidedly
pro–Membership First POV.
I agree that these issues run
deep and emotions are high on both sides—no “guess” about it. But how can I
encapsulate years of merger referendums, NED misdoings, votes gone wrong (or
right, depending on whom you ask), and vitriolic back and forth in every
article? How can I even do justice to all of the heated pro-con emails and
letters that are crossing my desk now—especially when they tend to be on the
lengthy side?
This is where the Internet is a
great thing. Rather than email me (which I do, in all seriousness, appreciate
and encourage), feel free to drop some comments in the comments section below.
Why go through the middleman (or -woman), who—as we all know—is already
screwed?
--Lauren Horwitch
PS: Have a great Labor Day! Why no SAG Labor Day picnic this year, btw? Or did my invitation just get lost in the mail?
I’m
going to spend it not thinking about labor unions for a whole 24 hours and I hope you’ll do the
same.
UPDATE!: A devoted reader tells me there is a SAG Labor Day picnic in Hollywood! Man, it's like high school all over again.
Comments