Nov 7 2007'The Office' Writers Strike, Picket, Joke
If there's a positive to this whole Writers Guild strike, it's that it's easy to pick sides. Do you support the faceless corporate entities trying to rob poor writers of their "new media" residuals? Or do you support the witty and charming writers of The Office, who seem to have very reasonable demands, and make funny YouTube videos to promote their agenda? As a side note, supporting the corporations makes you a soulless bastard.
The Office writers speak out, under the cut.
Reader Comments
1. mgroves - November 7, 2007 1:04 PM
Sorry, as a Republican I have to support the soulless corporations that make billions over the "little guys" that make millions. It's required you know.
2. Cash - November 7, 2007 1:40 PM
Mgrooves... I really hope that was sarcasm. If you want to take a stab at a political fringe, hows bout pointing a few fingers at the liberal mass media, which has so far done a horrible job of covering the strike? What little coverage they have given the strikers has not exactly been positive for that matter either. I guess while the brave rebel reporters have no problem attacking Bush, republicans, or anyone that doesn't agree with them, even they don't have the stones to say anything negative about the corporations that sign their ungodly paychecks. Big suprise /sarcasm
Look in the background... even that SOB Sylar is showing his support. That guy isn't afraid of *anything*
3. Lisa - November 7, 2007 2:44 PM
I thought that was Sylar too, at first, but it's writer B J Novak, aka Ryan the temp, who happens to look remakably like Zachary Quinto in that outfit.
4. Pat - November 7, 2007 9:46 PM
Cash,
I would think that your complaint (which is legit) might clue you in to this little fact: the media isn't very liberal. Any liberal media would have been attacking Bush four and a half years ago, when he was blatantly telling lies to the American public to get them to support the war he had wanted from the minute he got into office (any liberal media would have been attacking him long before that, and questioning his tactics after 9/11). The media these days, generally speaking, only tells the people what they want to hear. The people didn't want a media investigation telling them whether or not Bush was lying in 2003 because it would be "biased." Now, Bush's approval ratings are down and the Republicans lost the election, so the media hates him because it's what the people want.
You're the kind of person who would have claimed, 50 years ago, that Murrow was a terrible example of the liberal media because he helped to bring that scumbag McCarthy down. Or that Cronkite was liberal for calling Vietnam a mess. Or that that the Washington Post was liberal for bringing Nixon down. That was just responsible journalism. Today's media won't even do things like that, it's so not-liberal.
5. Cash - November 8, 2007 4:33 PM
Liberal or not, everyone answers to someone.
They'd rather risk their credibility then their pocketbooks.
Hypocrisy FTW
Oh, and I couldn't give a crap about Murrows. It's not like I lose sleep over any of this, just find myself entertained by it's sweet, sweet irony. Then I flip the channel to NBC where "Tip for living green" presented by the cast of Chuck are followed by adverts informing me that Matt Lauer will be broadcasting live from Iceland on tomorrow's "Today," and the fact that he's apparently fine with wasting that many thousands of gallons of jet fuel just to boost ratings and show the world how "Eco-Concious" NBC is sends me into an irony-gasm.
6. samuel - November 14, 2007 8:18 AM
get a room you two. or better yet, move to australia. problem solvered