12 minutes ago, j swift said:

Rauch went on to executive produce One Life to Live for another five years after Guiding Light.

 

Rauch never returned to OLTL after leaving Guiding Light. 

Yes, @TheyStartedOnSoaps absolutely—and you're correct, here’s the timeline for Paul Rauch:

He served as Executive Producer of Guiding Light from November 1996 to December 24, 2002 

After that, he went on to work as an executive consultant in Russia on the period drama Bednaya Nastya from 2003 to 2005.

From 2008 to 2011, he was co-executive producer of The Young and the Restless.

So yes, he swiftly found new high-profile roles after Guiding Light. That clearly challenges the idea that his reputation was damaged in any way by this decision. TV networks continued to hire him based on his experience and track record.

I appreciate your support in helping to prove: The claim that Paul Rauch and Dwyer-Dobbins’ reputations are “in the toilet” isn’t just irrelevant to the argument, it’s factually wrong and historically inaccurate

Edited July 15Jul 15 by j swift

In looking for articles about Michael Zaslow, I came across information about how an accountant had embezzled money from him. It written about in the New York Times. I've included a link to the article. It should be a free read as I used one of my free gift links: Zaslow/Accountant

Edited July 16Jul 16 by chrisml

1 hour ago, j swift said:

The claim that Paul Rauch and Dwyer-Dobbins’ reputations are “in the toilet” isn’t just irrelevant to the argument, it’s factually wrong and historically inaccurate

If you want to spend your time defending the indefensible, go for it. However, remember that the number of people on the Soap Opera Network Board who share your point of view on Rauch and MADD's conduct regarding Michael Zaslow is so small that they could fit in a phone booth.

1 hour ago, TheyStartedOnSoaps said:

If you want to spend your time defending the indefensible, go for it. However, remember that the number of people on the Soap Opera Network Board who share your point of view on Rauch and MADD's conduct regarding Michael Zaslow is so small that they could fit in a phone booth.

I count myself among those who disapprove of their behavior, as well as those who want to discuss fact, not fan fiction about real events.  However, it still holds that your original point about Rauch and MADD trying to avoid making GL look bad is irrelevant to the contractual issues being discussed.   

When Zaslow writes in the memoir (that you have quoted) that “restrictions were placed upon me,” he’s not describing some punitive act of sabotage by P&G or a personal grudge from Paul Rauch. He’s referring to the legal framework of arbitration—which only applies if the original contract is still considered active. If he had accepted new work—especially at a rival network—it could have been interpreted as him walking away from or voiding that contract. And if the contract was no longer in effect, he’d lose access to arbitration, which is a contract-based remedy. So those “restrictions” were essentially: don’t breach or supersede your old contract while you’re still trying to enforce your rights under it. That’s standard legal logic. Nothing sneaky. Nothing soap-operatic. Just legal cause and effect.

I have always valued SON as a forum for discussing ideas, not trying to prove who is correct.  You persist in only correcting the record, to distract from being contextually inaccurate. That’s the difference between someone invested in truth and someone invested in being right.

I apologize for taking up too much time or space, as you clearly have no interest in an exchange of ideas with me.  I hope you will forgive me for trying to explain an issue that you have misunderstood for 28 years.  I was trying to be helpful, and you've mistaken my efforts. 

Edited July 16Jul 16 by j swift

@soapsuds That is a awesome find.  What was the relationship with Alan and India like? It still amazed me that the only time India and Roger had interaction was in 1990!

I just watched the famous February 4, 1980 episode where Roger kidnaps Rita and takes her to the cabin.  Then it reminded me of when Dinah drove Roger to the house he bought for Holly/Peter/Hart. He was actually more menacing when Dinah took him. LOL

54 minutes ago, chrisml said:

In looking for articles about Michael Zaslow, I came across information about how an account had embezzled money from him. It written about in the New York Times. I've included a link to the article. It should be a free read as I used one of my free gift links: Zaslow/Accountant

I read something referring to that but didn't know it happened in 1993!  It was one of the reasons Michael continued on Guiding Light though.  That and his daughters. 

So many heartbreaking things happened to Michael. His life was a soap opera, IMO!

37 minutes ago, TheyStartedOnSoaps said:

If you want to spend your time defending the indefensible, go for it. However, remember that the number of people on the Soap Opera Network Board who share your point of view on Rauch and MADD's conduct regarding Michael Zaslow is so small that they could fit in a phone booth.

Technically aren't phone booths historically anachronisms? When was the last time you actually saw a phone booth? But, I don't suppose that affects your point, demonstrably. IOW, your point still stands. 

I want to thank everyone for posting information about what happened to Michael Zaslow. This discussion has been very interesting, while also heartbreaking too. At the time that the situation unfolded, I wasn't on message boards. The only sources of information I had was what was printed in publications like TV Guide and Soap Opera Digest. 

To this day, I still can't believe what Mary Alice Dwyer-Dobbin said about him, and in print no less. There are many ways that a point can be conveyed without resorting to such cruelty. I imagine if this same situation happened today, the public backlash would simply be too great to withstand and MADD would be fired. 

Annette

 

 

Edited July 16Jul 16 by GL Oldtimer

59 minutes ago, MLH said:

So many heartbreaking things happened to Michael. His life was a soap opera, IMO!

Poor Jane Alexander was taken for a million dollars, and the thief stole from sweet Kate Collins too.

@MLH @j swiftP&G and CBS would have known about the lawsuit against the accountant and what happened to Zaslow, so they knew his finances were not what they should have been at the time of his illness. They might have thought they could run out the process in the hopes that Zaslow would not have the financial resources to continue a lawsuit against them. 

1 hour ago, MLH said:

@soapsuds That is a awesome find.  What was the relationship with Alan and India like? It still amazed me that the only time India and Roger had interaction was in 1990!

I love the cover, too! Oh, what might have been, if TPTB had had the sense to take advantage of their chemistry. Instead, they were adversarial "friends"/co-conspirators. I think that is the best way to describe their relationship.

My last words about the Zaslow situation (for now):

Logan is a soap opera magazine writer. I don't mean it as a put down, but let's face it: his bread and butter depended on having access to the soaps, which could have been taken away at any time if the network/sponsor didn't like his reporting. 

It is an absolute FACT that soap opera magazines hid things happening BTS of soap operas if they were detrimental to the shows/networks. It's why soap magazines didn't out gay actors, for instance, and why it was rare that they reported actors having affairs, outside maybe a blind item. It's somewhat different now, but that's because these things have become less stigmatized. Definitely, the rise of social media changed a lot of things because it became easier for backstage stories to circulate among fans.

I'll bet they knew about Maeve Kinkead's accusations against Rauch. Was it reported at the time? Not to my recollection. (How different from the incident at Y&R a few years ago, where the actors themselves talked about it on SM before the story officially broke). They went along with covering up the real reason Chris Bernau exited GL. They kept quiet about Kate Mulgrew being pregnant and putting her child up for adoption while she was on Ryan's Hope. It wasn't the soap magazines that broke the story. It was Rona Barrett, a gossip columnist whose livelihood did not depend on access to soap operas. Even after she did that, the soap magazines still didn't report it.

So I am taking Logan's summation of events with a grain of salt. I don't think that's at all unreasonable.

18 minutes ago, chrisml said:

P&G and CBS would have known about the lawsuit against the accountant and what happened to Zaslow, so they knew his finances were not what they should have been at the time of his illness. They might have thought they could run out the process in the hopes that Zaslow would not have the financial resources to continue a lawsuit against them. 

Excellent point and quite likely the case.

Edited July 16Jul 16 by DeeVee

@chrisml  That’s an interesting angle, and I agree that Zaslow’s financial position would’ve shaped his options. One added layer is that because this was an AFTRA case, he would’ve had union backing—so while personal resources surely mattered, the legal weight didn’t fall entirely on him alone. That might explain why the process moved forward despite the financial hit from the accountant.

In civil arbitration cases involving workplace discrimination, especially those backed by unions like AFTRA, it’s quite common for legal counsel to work on a contingency basis or with institutional support. That means they get paid from any eventual settlement, not necessarily upfront. Plus, AFTRA’s legal infrastructure would’ve supported Zaslow’s claim, especially given its implications for industry precedent

@DeeVee  I hear you on general soap media trends, but in this case Logan's story cut against the institution, not in defense of it.  It could also be interpreted as pretty risky for Logan to publish a quote by MADD that was so incendiary.  

Edited July 16Jul 16 by j swift

31 minutes ago, GL Oldtimer said:

I want to thank everyone for posting information about what happened to Michael Zaslow. This discussion has been very interesting. At the time that the situation unfolded, I wasn't on message boards. The only sources of information I had was what was printed in publications like TV Guide and Soap Opera Digest. 

To this day, I still can't believe what Mary Alice Dwyer-Dobbin said about him, and in print no less. There are many ways that a point can be conveyed without restoring to such cruelty. I imagine if this same situation happened today, MADD would be fired and the public backlash would simply be too great to withstand. 

Annette, I specifically posted to you, to your confusion & seeming to be frustration, which I could certainly understand. Despite some nonsense that who-what-when-where is solid information, not exclusive to me but repeated by numerous fans over the years. The thing to me about her awful quote is that she said it twice & the second time was for publication, which tells me she was proud of it, which is just the most disgusting thing if you ask me. I personally think it was a huge mistake for P&G to do away with that position, Exec in Charge of Production & I cannot help but wonder if any of this crapola about Zas is why they decided to do away with a position that had served them well for many decades. But that is speculation & likely we will never have any intel to support or deny it, either way. 

13 minutes ago, j swift said:

I hear you on general soap media trends, but in this case Logan's story cut against the institution, not in defense of it.  It could also be interpreted as pretty risky for Logan to publish a quote by MADD that was so incendiary.

You know, I thought of that, too, but I'm chalking that up to pure arrogance on her part. I'm assuming she thought fans would agree with her.