Like sands through the hourglass, so go the soaps of our lives.

This month ABC killed off "One Life to Live" and "All My Children." All eyes were on the obvious suspect, ABC Daytime president Brian Frons, who joined a long line of CBS and NBC execs who have been bumping off shows like "As the World Turns," "Guiding Light" and "Another World." He told Deadline.com he "pre-entered the witness protection program" before bringing down the ax.

Read more: http://www.nypost.co...L#ixzz1KTuwoTJf

Typical anti-union right-wing bullshit from the NY Post.

I do find blaming the unions to be a very ridiculous assertion. If they were the issues, soaps would have been out of business years ago.

So now the rabid soap fans attack the unions. Trust Rupert Murdoch to incite class warfare upon the working class whenever he sees the opportunity.

So now the rabid soap fans attack the unions. Trust Rupert Murdoch to incite class warfare upon the working class whenever he sees the opportunity.

Yep, but it's always, curiously, class warfare among people of the same class that he incites

On the other hand, he looks negatively at people complaining about CEO's salaries, or the bailed-out billionaire bankers.

But those awful teachers? String them up!!!

So now the rabid soap fans attack the unions. Trust Rupert Murdoch to incite class warfare upon the working class whenever he sees the opportunity.

Have any fans blamed unions? The first time I've ever seen any of this mentioned was in this article.

As for the article, IMO this is a warning shot against all scripted programming, not just soaps. The networks have tried before to cut most of their scripted programming (NBC a few years ago) and they will try again. The only thing stopping them is the public's rejection.

Edited April 24, 201114 yr by CarlD2

Have any fans blamed unions? The first time I've ever seen any of this mentioned was in this article.

I think Ann is just speculating that an article such as this would spur the more rabid soap fans to pursue yet another pointless target.

I think Ann is just speculating that an article such as this would spur the more rabid soap fans to pursue yet another pointless target.

I don't think that will happen. It's too complicated compared to writing a company or a celebrity, and there's also no solution, because no matter how much unions cut costs, The The will always be cheaper.

$35,000 a week for a headwriter? Does anyone find that figure a little exaggerated? If it's true its quite an amount considering wht some of these hacks get away with.

No mention of people like Frons who are also paid a fortune and rewarded even though their decisions result in lower ratings,cancellations and smaller profits.

I think Ann is just speculating that an article such as this would spur the more rabid soap fans to pursue yet another pointless target.

This was my point. Thanks.

I don't think that will happen. It's too complicated compared to writing a company or a celebrity, and there's also no solution, because no matter how much unions cut costs, The The will always be cheaper.

I wouldn't put it past them to find out who the union's leaders are and start harassing them.

Edited April 24, 201114 yr by Ann_SS

I wouldn't put it past them to find out who the union's leaders are and start harassing them.

I know that could happen, but I think this type of article is more of an open letter to the networks to go against scripted programming and start putting more of a squeeze on unions.

I'm surprised this wasn't in the Wall Street Journal.

I know that could happen, but I think this type of article is more of an open letter to the networks to go against scripted programming and start putting more of a squeeze on unions.

I'm surprised this wasn't in the Wall Street Journal.

But the networks don't need this letter. Murdoch is already their ally in their war on the unions. This is more like Murdoch taking another opportunity to attack the unions and set the "general public" against them.

Edited April 24, 201114 yr by Ann_SS

The NY Post is owned by Rupert Murdoch. It is a notorious right wing rag that is great on sports and gossip (and even there their gossip pages attack people like Keith Olbermann), but pathetic on anything that has to do with politics or economics.

They would never do an article for instance on the virtues of publicly funded TV and how Eastenders in the UK was allowed to thrive because it did not have to target demographics and sponsors.

But the networks don't need this letter. Murdoch is already their ally in their war on the unions. This is more like Murdoch taking another opportunity to attack the unions and set the "general public" against them.

If the networks see this in the press it may make them more confident that they will have support - I've never seen an article like this in the press before, off the top of my head, so it comes across to me like opening a new front.

I know it could also be about trying to rally the public, but I think it's too inside for the public to care about. I also don't think the public is as invested in this anti-union stuff when it comes to entertainment, because it doesn't directly impact their lives.

Edited April 24, 201114 yr by CarlD2

Typical anti-union right-wing bullshit from the NY Post.

+1

I didn't realize that Gov. Walker (WI) wrote for the Australian. The public has pushed back on the union-busters' crusade in the states where it's been forced on them without their consent. They won't buy it this time. Why on earth would Robin Strasser allow herself to be prominently featured in a blatantly anti-union article? She had to have known how the Australian would use her quotes. That "reporter" makes it sound like she agrees with blaming unions (which she belongs to) for her own soap being cancelled.