I didn't put up my previous post purely to take a shot at one individual, even if I did need to vent about my personal experience in order to finally let it go.
It was meant to be the start of a dialogue. Unfortunately, I've not always been the savviest person when it comes to timing and made my post on the eve of a pretty big comic book convention. So, now that some of you have settled back in from the news, do any of you have any solid examples of where you feel that the lines have been egregiously blurred?
Thanks to Graeme for blogging about this, which is the only reason I caught it.
Tom Brevoort had the following to say about foreign royalties:
Like our editorial staff, our accounting department is lean, and the revenue derived from overseas editions isn’t so great that it woul justify the manhours it would take to determine that somebody was owed a three-dollar check for a story that had appeared in Zimbabwe and to cut it.Gee, Mr. Brevoort...mighty kind of you to decide for your contractors what amounts of money are worth it for you to track. Corporate streamlining of your operation completely negates the legal and ethical obligation for you to pay them all monies rightfully owed to them.
I've been reading responses to my reporting Marc Guggenheim to the WGA and publicizing Dan Slott's private e-mails asking me to call him so he could tell me how I got my review of his Brand New Day work so wrong. I've had a fair share of supporters, but I've clearly had more detractors.
They're bringing their frustration (some eloquent, some idiotic, some ignorant) to Newsarama, Shotgun Reviews, YouTube, and even here.
Being that I'd at least like for my actions to not be a headache for Matt Brady or Troy Brownfield, I'd like to create a place for you to bash me to your heart's content where it really should be: DIRECTLY SAID TO ME, WHERE I'M AVAILABLE TO BE BASHED AND RESPOND, WITHOUT IT IMPACTING INNOCENTS.
You can come with the ridiculous commentary, like Kirk Warren who compared my reporting Marc Guggenheim to a student accusing a college professor of rape (and other extreme and inappropriate examples), as it could ruin their career, regardless of the veracity of the accusation.
Problem is: I reported Marg Guggenheim's public support for Joe Quesada's appearance on The Colbert Show and declaration that it is OK to watch a strike show as long as you don't DVR it or have a Nielsen box. There is no question as to whether he did it or not. There was only question whether it was wrong of him, as a WGA member, to publicly state such an opinion. He claimed that it wasn't and that my stance on the whole issue was merely because I wasn't aware of all the nuances of the issue. I merely directed the issue to people who WOULD be aware of the nuances: WGA leadership.
Call me a snitch. That's fine. Accuse me of trying to hurt someone's career maliciously? Suggest I'm libeling or slandering someone? You're way off on the facts. I never made anything up. At one point, I misinterpreted Marc's statement as being that he went so far as to give Joe the thumbs up BEFORE his Colbert appearance. I acknowledged that mistake and it was NOT part of anything stated to the WGA.
I'll be your snitch. In societies with a rule of law, there is a fine line between public service and snitching. Same goes for organizations, especially those centered around the ability of all to come together in unity so that they may collectively bargain as one. I'm pretty sure most of you calling me a snitch here have never had to worry about some weak link in your group's chain fucking things up for you.
It happens in union and non-union work. I've had co-workers nearly lose a contract I was working on, because they didn't care what they said in the presence of the client. Whether publicly proclaiming that he'd be able to do his job better if he actually knew what he was doing and got some training to unprofessionally insulting another contractor present on a conference call, my ability to be gainfully employed was out of my hands to some extent. The same can be said for a WGA member (and, let's not forget, PRODUCER with a possible conflict of interests) who tells the public that it is OK for you to keep watching struck shows or become a part of struck shows.
Let's not forget that Guggenheim and I were having a fairly productive discussion until another party showed up. I had actually missed Guggenheim dismissing my opinion out of hand at the end due to my not being in a Hollywood union until Slott had to chime in during his chasing me around (more on that in a separate blog).
After my post pointing out Slott's questionable actions of late (like e-mailing me repeatedly to have a phone conversation about my "wrong" review of his work), I was bowing out. There was nothing to be gained. I had received e-mails from friends that confirmed the wisdom of my decision to bow out, but they were after the fact.
Then, it would appear, someone decided to bring the attention of others into the mix. They did this quietly, while scurrying through the shadows. How could they publicly admit to doing so when they'd lose any mistaken shred of moral superiority on the issue? Forget that the act was pretty much transparent, despite their lack of owning up to it. Forget that an astute observer can pretty much tell who went crying to daddy when they felt I crossed the line. They didn't go to an organization I was a part of, either.
I'm not saying it was Guggenheim. I know it wasn't me. Hmmmmm.
I found it hilarious (and tacky) that the next interview that ran with Guggenheim at the 'Rama was done via a phone call while he was on the picket line. Screamed of damage control to me, but then the interview might have already been conducted before his error in judgment where he supported Quesada's appearance on The Colbert Show. With a week between his gaffe and his picket line interview, pardon me for being suspicious.
Posts
All Comments
