The studios attempt a rewrite on Writers' Guild history

[thatcrazycajun]

The Wall Street Journal (now AKA "Rupe's Rag") reports here on the currently-ongoing strike by the Writers' Guild of America (East and West) against their employers in Big Media. One paragraph leaps out at me:

Late last week, the WGA posted on its Web site a phone number to report "strike-breaking activities and scab writing" to the guild's 12-person Strike Rules Compliance Committee. The Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, which negotiates on behalf of studios, responded yesterday with a statement that said, "Asking members to inform on each other and creating a blacklist of those who question the tactics of the WGA leadership is as unacceptable today as it was when the WGA opposed these tactics in the 1950s."

Um...except, ah, guys—the WGA didn't oppose them in the 1950s. Indeed, as this Wikipedia page on the Hollywood blacklisting of that period reports, the union actually cooperated with the blacklist, taking writers' names off movies if they didn't agree to "name names" for the late, unlamented Rep. John Rankin (D-MS) and his boys on the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). And they were still trying to make up for it by finding deleted credits and restoring them as late as seven years ago! I just know if Harlan Ellison, who survived the blacklist and never hesitates to rant about it to this day, is reading this, he'll be torqued as hell (yeah, I know, not that it takes much for him).

Understand this: I take a back seat to absolutely no-damn-body in my enthusiasm for and support of labor unions in their struggles with Big Business in general (when they don't let their zeal get the better of their ethics and judgment, such as the Teamsters under Hoffa the Elder notoriously did). And I support the writers' demands in this strike. But even the noblest ends do not justify morally wrong means, ever; and the 1950s blacklist is a disgraceful stain on our country and on the entertainment industry that should not be forgotten...lest it be repeated.

If this is simply a case of a studio spokesperson not having done her/his homework before writing a press release, I might be willing to let it slide. But no matter how worthwhile the goal you're trying to achieve, neither side should be allowed to rewrite history in order to get there.

Comments

[stevemb.livejournal.com]

Er... the statement that said the WGA opposed the 1950s blacklist is from the studios, not the WGA.

That said, I think it's a simple error made in the enthusiasm of calling out the other side's (apparent) hypocrisy.

D'OH!

[thatcrazycajun.livejournal.com]

Mea maxima culpa. You are correct. I blew it.

[scruffycritter.livejournal.com]

Interesting.

I wasn't so sure the cases were equivalent anyway. Today's blacklist is made up of union members who undercut the union (if you dont want in, don't join). The 1950's blacklist was for people who did something that had nothing to the their union-reprsented day job.

My initial thought was also, "So what? If someone did the wrong thing 50 odd years ago, and understands now that what they did then was wrong, then why can't they call someone else out for it? There's no shame in learning ones lesson. Ex-smokers are allowed to convince people to quit smoking, right?"...or is that moot now given the above reference enthusiasm?

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

Never let it slide. Not for WGA, nor for the WSJ, who should have checked that fact before publishing it as true. We have to get the history right, or we're doomed to repeat it.

You've seen "Good Night and Good Luck", I hope?

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

stevemb makes a good point... still. Don't let it slide for *anybody*.

[thatcrazycajun.livejournal.com]

No, I haven't seen it, and I know I need to. Will do so as soon as I can find a copy on DVD.

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

The irony of the movie? During the preview screenings, the audience was surveyed. Several remarked as to how they thought it was a very good movie, but that the actor that played McCarthy was... over the top.

Only... they never used an actor for McCarthy. It was *all* file footage, i.e. the Real McCarthy, as it were.

(That's the scary part about that whole era was that even the sheeple that watch movies these days thought he was over the top, but so many people in the moment bought it lock stock and barrel. Some parts of the times we're in now are worse than back then. But then again... I'm very glad that I can walk the streets of my town being my own weirdo self and basically thumb my nose at the Emperor and not get hauled up before some star chamber because my buds are informing on me... )

But were there communists in the White House?

[a-phoenix-afire.livejournal.com]

According to the Venona papers Alger really did work for Moscow.

SENATOR McCarthy did not control the HOUSE Un-American Activities Committee (which BTW had been in business for ten years prior to the infamous blacklistings).

HUAC did not blacklist members of the entertainment industry. Hollywood film studios did.

The Democratic party blacklisted McCarthy for investigating them because they didn't do their jobs, namely, protecting American g'vmnt from communist infiltration at a time when communists were clearly the enemy.

Senator McCarthy was doing his job. Over the top? Name a world-class politician from any side who's not. Also, I haven't seen the movie yet and I could be wrong, but don't you think it might have depicted more of the over-the-top stuff than its overall percentage in real life, for the sake of dramatic effect?

http://www.amazon.com/Blacklisted-History-Senator-McCarthy-Americas/dp/140008105X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195072933&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Denial-Historians-Communism-Espionage/dp/159403088X/ref=pd_bbs_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195072933&sr=8-5

Re: But were there communists in the White House?

[thatcrazycajun.livejournal.com]

If you are going to join that proven nutbar Ann Coulter in defending Tailgunner Joe and his crowd, you will not find much sympathy or patience among me and mine. Even if one accepts the notions that (a) there were in fact Communists in the US government (and there probably were a few, at least), that (b) they were bent on destroying and/or taking over said government, and that (c) they were in such numbers as to be the worst thing the US had to worry about at the time, none of this can EVER justify the suffering of hundreds of provably innocent people whose lives and reputations were needlessly ruined by McCarthy and his counterparts in the House, Rankin et al., and by their blow-buddy over at the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover. All too often, their supposed zeal to protect America looked an awful lot like trumping up charges to silence critics and/or get rid of political opponents—or people they just plain didn't like.

As for your links, I note this paragraph in the top review of Blacklisted by History: "On the first point, save for some new details, Evans, a contributing editor to Human Events, treads worn ground...Evans is also given to conspiracy thinking—an approach that, by its nature, yields claims that can neither be confirmed nor falsified. Defense attorneys and debaters like Evans follow different rules than historians; they try to score points, not to advance knowledge."

I got yer citations right here: Read this (http://www.yuricareport.com/RevisitedBks/CoulterTreason.html) and see if you don't find some problems with this view. Go on, I double-dog-dare you. And if you want to know what the film mentioned is really about and its origins, read this (http://www.amazon.com/Good-Night-Luck-Screenplay-Landmark/dp/1557047146/ref=tag_dpp_lp_edpp_ttl_in) too.

McCarthy was doing far, far more than "his job," and the Army hearings and Murrow's interview with him proved it by letting him hang himself with his own words. The attempts of people like you to rehabilitate him and his ilk smack of the same kind of mentality as Holocaust deniers: in both cases, the proponents need to get rid of awareness of past monstrous actions in order to legitimize and revive the despicable views those actions represented.

Shame on you, sir. And I hope to God above that one fine day real soon, you run into someone like Harlan Ellison, who (a) actually survived the McCarthy era and the blacklist and remembers quite well EXACTLY what happened, and (b) is far better equipped than I to do the job of tearing your argument into little bitty bits that it truly deserves.

[thnidu.livejournal.com]

"...who should have checked that fact statement..."

The point is that it was not a fact. The distinction between

• facts (things that are true)

and

• statements (things that are said), possibilities, ideas, etc., whose truth we are not conceding

is one that we should not lose.

[thnidu.livejournal.com]

I don't recommend trusting Wikipedia as a sole source, but just as a starting point, for investigation of anything that matters.