MY BOOB TUBE IS SAGGY

For any television junkies out there, you may be interested in the on-going saga that is the Screen Actors Guild (or SAG) negotiations. In a nutshell, the SAG leadership -- like the Writers Guild before them -- is thinking about a strike in order to try and receive a better contract. Here's some recent news from Studio Briefing on the matter:

Wednesday's announcement by the leaders of the Screen Actors Guild that they will conduct a strike authorization vote next month -- raising the possibility of a strike as early as January -- has had the unintended effect of swelling the signature count on the "No SAG Strike" petition being circulated online ... Meanwhile, the British trade publication Screen Daily, has published an editorial in which it observes that a strike would affect the movie business internationally. "It is not unreasonable for Screen Actors Guild President Alan Rosenberg to point out that 'You can't use hard economic times as an excuse to sell out the future,'" the editorial says. "Well no. But the studios are also right to point out the foundations for that future have not yet been built and this is the wrong time to fight over the spoils."

I'm going to be honest and say that -- while I was totally behind the WGA strike -- I've actually been arguing against this one. It may be completely selfish on my part, but the TV industry that I love so much has never really recovered from that event, and I feared that a SAG strike would pretty much just do it in completely. In addition, I have to admit that I was with those folks who've been saying a strike in this economy just doesn't make any sense. I mean, who cares that people get a few more Internet royalties if no one has a job?

Well, you know what? ... I've completely changed my mind on this issue; the following are some recent events that motivated my change of heart (broken down by network):

ABC - As I mentioned in the last blog entry, my favorite show in the whole world, Pushing Daisies, was cancelled last week due to low ratings. And ABC, in the same announcement, stated that another wonderful show, Eli Stone, is probably gone as well.

NBC - Two new shows from last season that really struck a cord with me are Chuck and Life, but NBC just recently stated that neither of them are on the schedule starting in January. The network did, however, give the beyond dreadful (and incredibly low rated) Knight Rider a full season pickup.

FOX - The very low rated (and terribly boring) Sarah Connor Chronicles just got a full season pickup, but FOX also announced that (genius) Joss Whedon's new show, The Dollhouse, is going to be on Friday nights; virtually guaranteeing its demise.

CBS - I don't watch any of the eighteen CSI shows, so I don't really care much about this network.

Well, there you have it ... EVERY SINGLE ONE of the new shows from last season that I like is either gone or soon to be gone, yet a bunch of crap is being spared. So, what "television industry" exactly are we trying to protect by avoiding a strike here? Is it the one that continues to replace quality entertainment with shows about wife swapping and mean nannies?

Yes, it is true that Pushing Daisies never recovered from the WGA strike, but neither did anything else. The solution to low ratings isn't to constantly cancel and replace things (or continuously shuffle them around the schedule); it's to nurture the stuff that's actually good. This is a concept that the idiot suits in charge never seem to get despite making the same dumb mistakes every year. Is it any wonder that people are watching less TV than ever?

Therefore, since it looks as if nothing I like is going to be on past January anyway, I say LET'M STRIKE! I hope all the networks tank.