Well, of course Bill Maher is bringing his show back without its writers
Maher confirmed today that Real Time will not abide by the WGA strike, acknowledging the show "will not be as good" as it would be with its writers
Aux News Bill Maher
Just a few weeks after dismissing some of the Writers Guild Of America’s demands as “kooky”—stating that “this is show business,” and that no one is “owed a living as a writer”—HBO’s Bill Maher has put the network’s money where his mouth is by announcing that he’ll bringing his series Real Time back to TV without any of his striking writers. That will make Maher the first late-night host to do so, as most of the other members of that particular and tiny TV fraternity (including Stephen Colbert, Jimmy Kimmel, and Jimmy Fallon) have looked for alternate ways to keep their staffs financially supported that don’t involve breaking the strike. But not Maher: Declaring “I’m not prepared to lose an entire year” after five months of striking, he’s decided to pull the rip cord and bring the show back in what even he grants will be an inferior form.
Writing in what is, by Bill Maher standards, extremely diplomatic language, Maher plays the “I’m just thinking of the little guy” card extensively in his post, asserting that he’s unwilling to “see so many below-the-line people suffer so much,” despite acknowledging that “The writers have important issues that I sympathize with, and hope they are addressed to their satisfaction.” (How Maher thinks such hopes will be fulfilled when TV hosts are unilaterally deciding to ignore the strike is left unaddressed in his missive.)
Maher adds that, “I will honor the spirit of the strike by not doing a monologue, desk piece, New Rules, or editorial, the written pieces that I am so proud of on Real Time. And I’ll say it upfront to the audience: The show I will be doing without my writers will not be as good as our normal show, full stop.” But he also claims that the show (which will apparently run as an “off-the cuff panel discussion” while its writers continue to strike)“will not disappoint”—and hey, thank god for that, because we’d hate to live in a world where Bill Maher did something disappointing, yeah?
107 Comments
I’ll take this moment to plug Strike Force 5. It’s a podcast that the other late night hosts made, and all the ad revenue is going to their staffs. I don’t even watch late night shows since Craig Ferguson retired, but I’m enjoying it. It’s just four funny guys and Jimmy Fallon shooting the shit.
“four funny guys and Jimmy Fallon”
Extra points for username/comment synergy on that subtle burn.
This sounds more enjoyable than their actual late night shows; where they mostly function as propoganda mouthpieces for the left.That is super admirable that the proceeds are going to their staff. Got to give it to them for that.
It was written? I thought he just dumped a box of Alpha-Bits on his desk and read that verbatim
To be fair, Maher does not do disappointing things. One cannot be disappointed when the expectations are already zero.
To be fair, Maher never disappoints Maher. That’s why he so lovingly enjoys being up his own ass.
Bill’s repeated his talking points so much he hasn’t said anything “off the cuff” in years.
In related news, Real Time discovered to have writers.
I mean, low expectations, but I don’t necessarily see a problem of Maher is just doing an interview show. The guild has rules establishing what is considered work as a writer and what isn’t. That sort of bit Ryan Reynolds early on because his writing credit on Deadpool 3 meant that any ad libbing, which he does a lot, was considered a rewrite and violating the strike. As long as Maher’s new show doesn’t violate the rules set by the guild, it should be fine.That said, I don’t really see how he makes a bearable hour long show. John Oliver, who is much more interesting, designed his show in it’s format because he didn’t think anybody would want to just watch him for a half hour straight,
It’d be nice to show some solidarity for the folks who have been supplying him with one-liners for decades. If he wants to do interviews he can fuck off to his “Club Random”
It would, but his contract also doesn’t allow him to strike. His statement – like Drew Barrymore’s – made it seem like a unilateral decision, but the networks can absolutely require talk show hosts to return. If it’s anything like last time, it would involve everyone, but John Oliver who most believe was not required to go back because his show is so heavily written and not interview based.
John Oliver also built a tour so he can pay his staff during the strike.
I can’t tolerate the short time he spends as a guest on other people’s shows. The cigar-holding is… I’ve seen him described as having teenage edeglord engergy.
Is it really that interesting to see someone take the position on every issue you know he’ll take?
It’s
called integrity.
For
some people, politics is not a game. Some people genuinely want to
achieve something, and work with focus towards a better world. Besides,
your vapid half-thought is a copy-paste response of someone who is so
politically illiterate that to them, anything left of center-right
looks the same.
Interesting. I confess that I’m having trouble seeing how Colbert/Kimmel/Oliver/Noah’s nearly identical jokes about how Trump is racist and has terrible hair is achieving that better world. But that may be the vapidity talking.
The entire talk show industry is built on the idea that it is. Nobody watches these shows to be challenged.
I think that’s largely true, but frankly, Bill Maher’s show comes closest that I’ve seen. He takes positions that he knows a lot of his audience will disagree with, and that don’t hew the progressive line always. I remember someone once describing Colbert’s show as “giving the machine what it wants” and that seemed like a pretty good description of it to me.
Now you know how the rest of us feel listening to woketards!
The panel discussion is really the only thing that’s worth watching most of the time anyways. Maher’s “comedy” is perpetually stuck in the tone of the early 90s, no matter what the topic is, so the monologue and mid-panel bits are usually scroll-through time for me. New Rules can be funny at times, but I’d say it’s about equal hit and miss.
He’ll probably lengthen the initial interview, or have a second guest for one-on-one interviews, and then let the panel discussion go longer. They already extend it with “Overtime” anyways, so that time will likely just fold into the real show.
Bill’s show excels at the group-chat segment versus the written segments, so payroll will benefit from this [temporary?] lack of writers.
I’m fine with him going on the show and talking to a couple of people every week about politics and stuff with no prepared material. Maybe if they put a “No writers were harmed in the making of this discussion” disclaimer on the screen everyone would be happy. Well, not everyone. And not happy.
Judging from the stunned silences that his ad-libs usually garner, this iteration of Real Time will be 60% Bill scowling at the audience for not “reacting satisfactorily” while the applause sign gets a workout.
I attended a show once when I lived in LA, they did not have an applause sign.They were handing out tickets on the street and my roomate wanted to sit in a studio audience for once.
The is such a snobby self sucking asshole that of course he’s also a scab. I sincerely hope writers don’t forget this.
There shouldn’t be ANY union writers returning to that show. He can go the Gutfeld route and hire non union for the rest of the show’s run.
Wait, are you trying to tell me someone was writing those Shecky Greene Borscht Belt grade jokes for him? Chris, I thought he was just making them up on the spot.
He’s such a dick. But see how he congratulates himself for giving “some help” to his team.
Ridiculous question, but: Does anyone complaining about this actually have a solution for the many below-the-line people (with much lower salaries than TV writer) who are being affected by a long strike? Because I don’t think “TV host pays an entire staff’s salary out of his own pocket indefinitely” is the answer. Yes, it’s insufficiently progressive to deviate from the narrative like this, and of course it’s easier to tweet “scab” at someone who will never see it, but I was curious.
I support the aims of the strike 100% but some of the methods kinda baffle me. Like I find it kinda insane that people are abstaining from making video reviews of new movies or even talking about them on social media because they want to be an ally, I don’t see how helping projects tank through lack of engagement and promotion is going to help the people who worked on them and are striking
“I support the aims of the strike 100% but some of the methods kinda baffle me.”
Such as?
“Like I find it kinda insane that people are abstaining from making video reviews of new movies or even talking about them on social media because they want to be an ally, I don’t see how helping projects tank through lack of engagement and promotion is going to help the people who worked on them and are striking”
You GET that this isn’t a strike method, right? That this has nothing at all to do with your first sentence?
It BAFFLES YOU that people not involved in the strike are supporting it?
Read that sentence again please. WHY are you baffled that people support the strike?
I think the idea is a lot of those people were either already paid, or have deals so crummy they can’t expect to get much money from them anyway. If studios make a ton of money off projects that were already in the pipeline before the strike, they can afford to try and sit it out longer and perhaps break the unions’ will. It’s the classic, “wait until they start losing their houses” tactic.
Regardless of whether they’ve been paid, that’s a project they worked hard on and could have been a much stronger note on their resume than it’s going to be now. It feels like forgetting that a LOT more people work on these things than just writers and actors, and I’m sure there’s solidarity with them but that should go both ways.
I guess in the end a positive outcome to the strike will benefit them in the long run, even if it hurts them in the short run. No offense, but phrasing the question the way you did plays into the narrative that the studio heads want. The answer is for the studios to take care of the people they employ. The idea that writers and actors, who don’t even employ the below-the-line people, are responsible when the studio is causing the problem is laughable.
The issue is that labor strikes seldom last anywhere close to this long. Few people can live for long off what they get from strike funds and the like, which is why they’re painful for both sides. After five months a lot of these people are getting killed financially, and there doesn’t seem to be much movement happening.
Sure, but what’s the alternative? just keeping working for a wage that doesn’t pay the bills because the other side doesn’t want to negotiate? Show them that you can be bullied into giving up the strike?
I’m no labor expert but it’s always been my general understanding that union contracts have clauses requiring mediation if sides can’t come to agreement within a certain period of time.
Are you suggesting that that clause is being ignored right now?
I’m wondering if it exists, and if not then why it was omitted. Again, five months for a strike is near unheard of and right now the studios have the war chests to outlast the unions.
Yes, that is a very interesting question, quite germane to the topic we were discussing.
I agree with that sentiment 100%, but at the end of the day, how can we get the studios to pay the below-the-line workers during a strike? To them, it’s just further leverage; paying them costs money and costs them leverage.
The only way for the WGA to ensure that those workers get paid is to stop striking. It’s not the responsibility of the union to support workers who aren’t members. It would be great if the government could supply this kind of support to all workers without the need for unions. It’s very unfortunate that this is the case, but if the only remedy is to stop striking, then it’s not a workable solution.
I mean, the obvious solution is that the studios should have actually been negotiating this whole time, instead of sitting on their asses trying to starve out the writers. Short of that, the government probably should have been called in to arbitrate and force the studios to act in good faith (again, by actually, you know, negotiating).
Outside of that, there’s not really much that can be done for the below-the-line crews (of which I am one, FWIW).
“the government probably should have been called in to arbitrate and force the studios to act in good faith”What Maher has been advocating for for a while, for what it’s worth.
There isn’t a solution. They have to wait it out too. The flip side is that when THOSE unions go on strike, the actors and writers will remember that solidarity and support them. (with much lower salaries than TV writer)[citation needed]
Citation: “Someone makes less money than me, and therefore I am whining if I ask for more than I have.”
No solution here, which is why when I read this, I thought, you know what, maybe Maher is doing the right thing here. The show will probably be drudgery for those who were in it for the jokes, and that will serve as an example of how important to good TV writers are, and at the same time, put some money back into the pockets of all of the other people who are out of work due to the strike.
Also, any person who has been part of a multi-union industry also knows that unless your contract is the one that is striking, you have to go back to work. The networks absolutely can force talk show hosts back. The reason they aren’t is because there are no actors to interview and they’re using it to save money on salaries. Just to use an example, if the technicians at a hospital go on strike, doctor and nurses still have to go to work. If the nurses go on strike, the techs still have to show up. It only changes if a strike is authorized for all parties.If there wasn’t a SAG-AFTRA strike right now, every actor would be required to show up to work on sets with picket lines. We know this because it’s what happened before they went on strike.
“Does anyone complaining about this actually have a solution for the many below-the-line people (with much lower salaries than TV writer) who are being affected by a long strike?”That’s what a strike is, though. It’s supposed to be disruptive. It’s unfortunate (and I mean that truly) that others have to suffer, but that’s not the fault of the strikers. It’s the fault of the studios. It’s definitely easier to say, well, you can break the strike if it’s for a good cause, but that’s not how a strike works.
Those things are easy to say, but reality is that the workers not part of the strike will still lose income AND they won’t benefit at all from whatever agreements are made.
I’m aware of the reality. But that’s the reality. And the further reality is that the blame falls on the shoulders of the studios. It might be easy to say, but it also has the benefit of being the truth. The reality is that when rich people are greedy, less rich people suffer. When their contracts are up, they should strike too.
We’ll see if it works, but it seems like Maher’s compromise is trying to address that. The idea is that the show will be advertised as a lesser product because of the missing writers (and he’s not using non-union writers), while the unfortunate (to use your word) byproduct of other workers suffering can be addressed.
Multi millionaire TV host pays staff for duration of strike is the correct solution. Also, contracts that have contingencies for labor stoppages. Maher is a self important blow hard (as is Barrymore for that matter) and , whether you like it or not, a scab.
It’s a very tough situation.I live walking distance to Sony Studios in Culver City and am positive that the coffee shops and pizza joints near Sony are suffering somewhat.These places thrive on sending lunch up to the studio or preparing food for pick up and if no one is working, then no one is putting in any lunch orders. If no one is coming to work, then no one is stopping in for coffee on the way to the studio. It’s rough. These aren’t places that do robust dinner business. They live and die on breakfast and lunch orders. One does what they can, but my chicken parm sub or slice of pepperoni order isn’t making up for the usual business.
Absolutely. And it’s not blaming the striking writers to note that, and to try to ameliorate the situation somewhat.
The writing for the show is so abysmally unfunny that it would kinda make me chuckle if what he does without them manages to be decent. To be clear they should all have jobs and be paid more etc etc I’m sure they’re good writers, it’s probably hard to find passion to write this guy’s smug monologues
Many years ago, my friend circle overlapped with some people who worked in his writers room so I’d occasionally get the behind the scenes gossip at parties, and the word then was that he was painfully unfunny and hard to work for.I can’t speak for the current writers or anything, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the writing is unfunny because Maher selects for things that are unfunny.
Pretty sure no joke gets told unless Maher thinks its funny. That can really winnow down how funny the show could be.
All jokes aside, Maher might be the only one still writing his own openings.Which would explain why they suck and clearly telegraphed his slide into cantankerous contrarian a long time ago. Real Time was OK for a bit because he could (mostly by accident) assemble a panel that actually generated interesting discussions. But around the first time I heard him bring on a Muslim Middle East expert and ask “why do Muslims hate freedomamerica?” several times while the expert patiently explained that every piece of available data shows that isn’t true and Bill responded with “yeah, doubt it.”, i stopped. just such an smug asshole who is quite comftorable being openly bigoted to peoples face.
I love that he thinks that a version of his show that is entirely open panel discussion with all of the tired bits and bloviating monologues removed is somehow worse.
I stopped watching the show years ago, but when I did watch, I’d usually watch the monologue then skip to “New Rules”. I found the panelists arguing and talking over each other to be stressful.
That’s fair. For me personally, though, after years of watching the same thing magnified on CNN with these insane eight-to-fifteen person panels of in and out of studio commentators literally screaming over each other like Uncut Gems, the little three-person discussions on Real Time don’t really bother me. I wish there were more discussion shows that were small and generally well-moderated. I do get what you’re saying, though. Sometimes you just can’t listen to people sniping at each other.
Don’t even get me started on Uncut Gems. Well-made movie about people I hate constantly shouting and stressing me out.
Cant wait to see the top tier guests he will get on the show to interview.
It will be the same unknown political hacks from skeevy think tanks who are paid according to the number of seconds they are on screen. Those segments are the some of the worst TV you will see outside of The View.
I will honor the spirit of the strike by not doing a monologue, desk piece, New Rules, or editorial, the written pieces that I am so proud of on Real Time. All respect to the writers on his show for trying to make him *seem* smarter and wittier than he actually is, but those are some of the worst parts of the show.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I vaguely remember a time when Maher was mostly respected as a bright free thinker who spoke uncomfortable truths without regard to societal proprieties. Was there some incident that caused a large number of people to turn on him, or was it a gradual process of stepping on different peoples’ toes every couple of months and causing them to think, “Hey wait a minute, this guy’s just a smug asshole”?
I’ll take the hit here. Maher most definitely was that guy for a while, especially when he was the only real liberal who was willing to criticize his own side substantially, and I still watch the show because he still CAN be.But he’s also almost 70, and he’s allowed himself to ossify into his viewpoints and not really consider any challenges to them, which is the key point of free thinking. Basically, he’s lost any sort of empathy, and sees pretty much everything from only his own point of view now, which is his main problem. You don’t say what he did about the 9/11 terrorists without at least being willing to consider someone else’s point of view. There isn’t much of that any more, though I think his contrarian nature still finds some interesting viewpoints from time to time.To get around to your main question, I think it was the N-word incident that probably did the biggest damage (https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2017/06/12/532474238/ice-cube-leaves-bill-maher-shaken-and-stirred-over-the-n-word), but it’s been gradual too.
Empathy was always in short supply with Maher, but yes, 100%. Bill’s fall from “cranky pragmatist” to “old man yelling at woke cloud” has been longer and more surprising than Adam Carolla, whose had far less distance to drop but arguably took slightly longer than Dennis Miller. Now Chapelle and Chris Rock are standing on the cliff looking down, debating who’s next.
Is it violating the strike to quote Dark Knight about the hero living long enough to become the villain?
And Musk was once considered a brilliant inventor/businessman/scientist/Iron Man. Media-concocted personas are usually based on bullshit.Maher peaked at the best time for a washed-up stand-up and dimwitted asshole like himself—during the dire W years, where America was climaxing with islamophobia/war on terrorism, New Atheism was cool and edgy, and young white college males consumed an inordinate amount of comedy-as-political-news (Daily Show, South Park, burgeoning social media memes, and Politically Incorrect). Perfect time for a sardonic contrarian with multiple political personalities who offended “both sides”, but wasn’t a Bad Guy because his liberal personality was cool with the gays and blacks existing, and his libertarian personality was cool with legalizing weed and offending Christians. And he’s got jokes, folks! He essentially took over the Dennis Miller role after that one’s hard swing to the right (babe). Which of course is sort of happening here again with Maher. American pop culture/media always craves this archetype.
Probably the anti-vaxer stuff, he’s been anti-vax long before covid. He’s still one of my favorite comedians, but I don’t like the format of his show, so I’ve never really watched it.
Having watched his show for a long time I would say the covid mask and lockdown and vaccine thing is what broke him.
“a bright free thinker who spoke uncomfortable truths without regard to societal proprieties” and “this guy’s just a smug asshole” are the same picture.
Well, I did try to imply that there was at most a razor-thin line of separation between the two, but I don’t know how well I pulled it off…
IMHO, his act aging out of the college demographic was the beginning of the end for Maher. You need only look at his latest sit down on Bill Burr’s show to see how much he hates youth, and anything associated with any generation other than his.
He was never respected by anyone who knew shit. He was always a smug nepo boomer asshole; that demo just used to be the audience, and people just don’t care for that bullshit anymore.
Probably when Ben Affleck went full woketard talkin about Islamophobia with Sam Harris
run as an “off-the cuff panel discussion” while its writers continue to strikeSo. just like cable news when a bunch of people just sit around hearing themselves talk about “pressing issues”. [insert eye roll]. Of course with Maher running the panel there will be dick jokes and sexual innuendo thrown in.
This basically. It’s more akin to Guttfeld than anything.
“Proud to have as a guest for our return episode, Drew Berrymore!”
I so love the auto-cynicism applied to the “looking out for the little guy” narrative.
This was the same jackass that only eats food he grows himself, yet couldn’t shut up about “open the restaurants! open the restaurants!” at peak pandemic. Inevitably, it turned out he was invested in several restaurants.
He’s doing interviews. So the fuck what? All the morning shows are on. All the news shows are on. 60 Minutes, etc. Same. Motherfucking. Thing.This is just a reason for people who already hate Maher to hate him more. Hey, you go ahead and enjoy that. Must be a small life you live to give a shit about this.Bill Maher could save a puppy from a doghouse fire and you’d find a way to make him the bad guy.Noticed how quickly you dismissed Bill’s statement about the employees who are suffering because of the strike. Trickle down poverty, motherfuckers. Fuck those people because the internet tells us we need to hate Bill Maher and that every strike is flawless and without consequence.Just seriously fuck off with that shit.
All of the Late Night hosts did this last time. Only Letterman had a deal that let him use his writers. The others were required to resume production without their writers and ad libbed through everything. We all laughed and enjoyed the viral clips of them interacting with each other. Conan grew a beard.This isn’t any different. The difference is that the other late night hosts are not going back because no actors can promote their work. If the SAG strike resolves before the WGA one, I guarantee they will all be back, if not sooner.
Honest question: does anyone under the age of 40 enjoy Bill Maher? I had a few years where I watched Real Time. Then I saw Bill Maher’s movie Religulous and he came off so smug and unlikable, even more so than on Real Time, that I was rooting for the really chill Jesus impersonator at a Christian theme park in Florida to just punch Maher in his smug face.
I stopped watching the show about a decade ago, and he was already insufferable then. I tried holding on mostly because he go good guests/interviews pretty regularly.At this point, even my parents are over him.
Fuck no.And Jesus was Religulous fucking terrible. Selecting only the weakest, stupidest foils and throwing the lamest sophomore attacks on theism. Even in the context of the smug neo-Atheist movement of the time, that was some terrible shit.
Remember when the most famous atheists were Bill Maher and Ricky Gervais? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
I mean, there were always more famous atheists, but most atheists are just people who keep that shit to themselves. They were the loudest atheists — the ones who thought that atheism was somehow impressive and awesome and that plucking low-hanging fruit was heroic.
That would mark him as a rather poor Jesus impersonator, though.
Even Jesus had his limits.
Say what you want but this absolutely weakens the position of the WGA. No question about it. And, no offense, but the interviews is what most people care about. The monologue. New Rules. All of that. It’s window dressing. It’s the onions, peppers, and or even egg-over-easy on the burger but it’s not the burger. And the studios likely see that and that will be even more crystal clear when Maher comes back as a scab. He’s not going to do a half-ass show. The studios will go, “why should we give in to the WGA when Maher’s show without writers is about 90 to 95% of his show with writers?” I don’t know that Real Time ever really needed writers. Jimmy Fallon’s show is a true variety show. It sucks. But that show needs writers. It also needs a new host cause, again, see Jimmy Fallon. But the point stands.A politically-based chat show like Real Time does not need writers. But, again, the bad in all of this is Bill Maher is a scab, it weakens the WGA position, and exposes the fact that Real Time can thrive without writers.
I also think that this whole deal is because Maher is not happy missing out on 5 months of making bank from HBO. Not that he doesn’t make money elsewhere. But, still, HBO pays him a shit load of money and he’s purportedly paying his staff from his own bank for the last 5 months. I’m sure that’s a motivator, even if it’s a bit.
I support Maher. it’s a tough postion to be in. The show won’t be as good as it is with writers, though.
Honestly, I watch his show specifically to see what interesting people are on the panel. His monologue was always terrible.
As I have said previously on another post, the longer the strikes last, the worse it will get for those striking. Studios will find a way to move on without the writers either by employing non union writers, or writers from other countries. It’s either that or AI. This is the same thing that happens in other professions when technology makes people obsolete, or when jobs get sent overseas. In Hollywood the show must and will go on.
I went from watching Maher every week and really looking forward to his show, to watching it and realizing I wasn’t enjoying the hour very much anymore, to just deciding not to watch it at all and realizing I was much happier without him in my life.
It’s hard to put my finger on it but I kind of felt Maher went from “I think this and you think that but we can still coexist” to “I think this and if you think differently, you’re a fucking idiot.”Maybe I changed, too. I always understood that Maher would have on guests with multiple points of view. But after a while, I went from “I don’t agree with that person but respect our differences” to “I don’t agree with that person, think she’s a fucking idiot and wish Maher wouldn’t give her a platform because it only gives her a legitimacy she doesn’t deserve.”
Look, I refuse to be “triggered” by the invocation of Bill Maher. He’s an unabashedly hetero male boomer libertarian. That’s fine. In a truly diverse media environment, I fail to see why that shouldn’t be one of many different perspectives, even if you or I may personally find his perspective annoying. He doesn’t have the reach or influence of Fox News. He’s never fed people propaganda or lies about elections being stolen to my knowledge. So if you don’t like him tune him out. It’s easy to do.As far as him going back on air without writers, I get it. He hosts a current events program, albeit with a comedic slant. He can have politicians on to discuss topics. Yes, those shows will probably suffer without writers or pre-written comedy bits. But perhaps that will just serve to underscore how valuable writers are.Conan O’Brien eventually went back on the air during the last major strike for many of the same reasons: All of his staff were out of work and he couldn’t afford to pay them out of pocket indefinitely. I don’t recall there being much hand-wringing about it back then.
I will say; as someone who has mostly stopped reading the comments on Avclub because of how one sided and hysterical they have become… I came on here ready to see a lot of belligerence and mind numbing comments that ignore all nuance invovled with this industry (and the reprocussions of the strike)…Instead, I was pleasantly surprised that there are a lot of really well thought out and diverse opinions below; on both Bill Maher and the state of the industry.I’m a fan of Bill, but I think you guys have put forth pretty good arguments both ways for why he’s not thought of as highly as he used to be- and why the issue of the strike and all that it affects (I’m also in the entertainment industry) are not so cut and dry.Kudos to you all. This site (in general) needs better, more moderate and more nuanced discussion.When you have the writers hitting you over the head with their one dimensional stance so eagerly in the articles themselves… it’s nice to see that it’s not always just an echo chamber, in here.
I hate Bill Maher. Full stop.
New rule: if you’re in a line of work that relies heavily on writers and you say something to the effect of ‘writers are not owed a living’ – during a writer’s strike – maybe, consider a new line of work.Caption: Dope and Glory
Of course. Billy definitely dont a give a shieet what the woketards think