,
5 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
.@koblin You’re getting dragged a bit for this story, and you should be; its framing is skewed (not “Haberman-writing-about-Ivanka” bad, but still tilted), and it shows little understanding of the industry you’re reporting on. A couple examples... nytimes.com/2019/04/12/bus…
This... well “bang out telescripts” is absurd. But you should also understand that a WGA point of contention is that many agencies choose to have a very *weak* hand re: staffing because packaging fees, which eliminate commissions on writers, explicitly de-incentivize them. 
(Traditionally, writers – in their roles as executive producers – find their own staffs. It’s our show; we pick people we can count on for good pitches and drafts and can sit with 14 hours a day. It’s great when agents want to help curate a writers’ room but it’s not their job.)
Next: stagnant pay is something “writers have claimed”? The @WGA has made compensation data public. Do you have other data that contradicts it?
There is a similar editorial skepticism in the word “perceive.” As if we’re already getting paid enough to write our telescripts.
There is a similar editorial skepticism in the word “perceive.” As if we’re already getting paid enough to write our telescripts.
Finally, you paint writers as crass or ungrateful, going after our “advocates and friends.” But you could as easily have written that agents have, for years, taken advantage of their friends and breadwinners.
And one directs fury “at” something, not “with.”
And one directs fury “at” something, not “with.”
