In article ,
 Josh Hill  wrote:


> I can't understand what the networks are trying to do here. Can the
> added cost of what the writers are demanding (and, I assume, me too
> arrangements for actors and directors) actually be worth more than the
> business they'll lose at a time when the networks are already
> hemorrhaging viewers?

   My guessing is that they don't care about the networks. First of all, 
WGA would also cover new cable stuff so TNT can still continue to show 
all Law and Order all the time. Outside of premium cable, not really all 
that much stuff is going on. Even most of the non-premium cable shows 
like The Closer, etc. are largely over. Nip/Tuck on FX might have 
problems, but cable usually only does about half the shows as a season 
anyway. So, if the networks are forced to stop original programming so 
are probably most of the cable shows would, too and not pick up all that 
many, (maybe BBC-America and new Dr. WHo on Sci Fi, but that would 
probably be extent). 
    Secondly, it much less expensive to pull old CSI, etc. out of the 
archive or increase the number of reality shows than it is to do new. 
While there might be some givebacks to advertisers, much should be made 
up with lower programming costs. 
   Thirdly, you are talking (in their view) short term pain for long 
term gain. 4 cents (or whatever) for every DVD sold between now and the 
end of the world is a whole bunch of money. Especially if they can break 
the writers then directors and actors will have less leverage to pull 
their share out later. 
    NBC must be salavating over 6 months of reruns against new 
programming during the Olympics and their Football Night in America.
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32