Hell yes! Who needs writers, when you've got Jay Leno! Jay! Jay! Jay!

What?

Also, "funny" rules.

Did anyone see Conan last night? It was a tad awkward. And not just because he grew a beard, which just doesn't look right. He looked downright uncomfortable.

I'm so confused. What exactly was the deal WGA made with these folks?

Were they just allowed to be back on the air but only if they were completely silent?

That would have made a very interesting couple of days of television, anyway. I would have actually tuned in.

Wait til John Stewart and Stephen Colbert return, also unable to write their own material. Maybe just go heavy on clips of Bush et al being assholes? Depressing.

On tonight's show: a cameo by Hillary Swank, the Victor L. Berger dancers, and Jay's strike beard.

@kakapo:

It's more like:

"You're only allowed to go back on the air if you suck hard enough to justify our bargaining position."

Here's the thing, guys: there is a REASON why we have Viacom, Time Warner, BMG, or content distribution networks generally in the first place. They determine the suitability and quality of content for us.

FYI: creative types need this. They need to be reined in, told what to write, instructed to place products, and forced to appear amidst advertisements. This is because writers, sadly, don't understand how to monetize their own creations. And even if they learned to do that, even if they had a YouTube or the intertron in some other form to distribute their content through, they wouldn't do so in a satisfying manner. They'd use different formats. They'd deny money from advertisers they didn't like. They'd generate foul, unfunny, avante-garde, or trite content and get it out there.

Artists are in this position because they suck at making business decisions. Guess what! The strike is another bad business decision! Have fun with that!

@magneticfields:

Or, conversely, made a better show.

Tough to justify your high salary then, writerman!

@magneticfields: I am dreading it. It will be terrible. And what actor will cross the picket line to go on?

@TheDismalScience: You're an laissez-faire, market-loving Capitalist. We get it .

@TheDismalScience: Actually, you're quite right. As an LA native with third generation ties to the acting side of "the talent," I'm concerned that this strike could finally break the Guild if it goes on much longer. Since the last big walk-out ('88? '89?) there have been so many changes in technology that writers are even less important than they used to be, which reminds me of a joke my grandmother used to tell about the starlet who was so stupid she slept with the writer instead of the producer. (Bah dum Bah.)

@PandoraSpocks:

That is exactly what will happen. As someone with associates in the industry, I'm also keenly aware that this is exactly what they are all secretly worried about. Until they've had a few.

@SinisterRouge:

So learn the lessons!

@SinisterRouge: So I asked myself the question, who would be willing to go on Jon Stewart's show, and JA immediately sprang to mind. I couldn't help it! Aghhhhh! (clonk)

@TheDismalScience:

Oh, for the love of...

Now I'm irritated and still a bit confused.

@kakapo:

It's like this. Everyone can go back on the air - if they do so in a manner that makes the public aware that:

1.) There is a writer's strike
2.) It's hurting the quality of the show

Last night was a worst-case scenario. It was funny, writer-free, and devoted minimal time to the strike. The whole guild's bargaining position is predicated on the concept that writers are mission critical to the success of the broadcast. If not...uh oh!

Together, through compromise, concilliation and creativity, we can turn all of entertainment into an inflight magazine.

@KarenUhOh: SkyMall?

@KarenUhOh: "That answer was pageant perfect. I give it 9 out of 10 gold stars. Congratulations, Ms. Gawker-Media 2008!"

Wow, am I the only person who laughed myself silly at Conan and thought that him sitting around bullshitting manages to be funnier than any written material? The line about pulling the string on his Abe Lincoln doll still has me laughing.

@TheDismalScience: You said it, man! Thank you BMG or determining for us that Britney Spears is better than Radiohead!

@i_win_wtf:

They aren't making qualitative judgements; they're making quantitative ones. Britney Spears is vastly more marketable than Radiohead. Ask Nick Denton's wallet if he should run a Britney Spears story or a Thom Yorke story this morning.

Or simply click the logo and scroll down, young padawan, to learn the ways of the world.

@TheDismalScience: You said 'They determine...quality of content for us.', dude. Correct yourself. And go back to work!

@TheDismalScience: oh, and about this site: I don't think making creative and entertaining fun of Britney is the same thing as presenting her music in place of creative entertainment.

@i_win_wtf:

Was speaking in a format/production sense then, but you're right - I am lazy with terminology.

Also, this is how I stay sane, don't hate my lazy! I'll be here all day and all night...

@i_win_wtf:

I don't think you understand - these concepts are related. As they say, the best marketing you don't pay for.

@kakapo: The WGA only made a deal with Letterman (and Fergie). There IS no deal with other shows. But WGA members (like Leno and O'Brien) are supposed to follow the strike rules when they return as hosts, and that includes not doing the "writer" side of their job.

@kakapo: A little further clarification on Carol Gardens comment...Letterman's production company owns Late Night and the Scottish Guy's Show. They broke ranks with the AMPTP (producer's alliance) and signed a separate contract with the WGA that covers only the writers on their shows. It includes an agreement on residual payments for material that is screened online (one of the biggest issues for the WGA).

@TheDismalScience: I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this, but Ronald Reagan is dead.

@Carol Gardens: @crookedE:

Ah, actual clarification. Thank you!

Although, this whole mess is still damned confusing, even, I'm sure, for all who are involved in it. I suppose I could have googled and figured some of this out, but I was very curious about the actual terms of this odd agreement, particularly about the online stuff.

@crookedE: Oh he knows Ronald Reagan is dead, he just assumed we didn't know. 'cause, you know, we don't know 'the ways of the world', since, you know, we all live in our parents basements.

@crookedE: Yet they keep digging him up just to kiss his ass.

He was an old blowhard and somehow he got to Lincoln for these people. I don't get it.

@TheDismalScience: That is bullshit, and seriously irritating the crap out of me.

@kakapo: The WGA did not make ANY deal with anyone but Worldwide Pants (Letterman's production company, which also produces The Late Late Show). Just like Carol Gardens said.

The WGA has not "allowed" anyone to go on the air! (No matter what stupid "conditions" or "concessions" you're claiming they're imposing on the hosts!) The hosts were forced back on the air by their studios under threat of *everyone* losing their jobs. The hosts, while members of the WGA, are also members of other guilds -- which are still under contract with the studios! The hosts were therefore in breach of those contracts by staying off the air during the strike.

The studios are most certainly using this as a bargaining tactic. And the shows most definitely need their writers.

I really can't believe that anyone could seriously be arguing otherwise.

@kakapo: As a further clarification, the WGA has said in their official statement that WWP accepted the deal that the WGA "was prepared" to present to the AMPTP last month. I don't know exactly what that means, either (heh!), but they seem to be spinning it as "we got exactly what we've been asking for" (particularly in the area of on-line content).

The big wrinkle comes, however, with the AMPTP's claims that WWP doesn't actually own all (or any?) of the rights to the shows' on-line content. WWP seems to be claiming that it does, of course. But if WWP didn't really have anything at stake in terms of the major sticking points of the negotiation, this deal isn't quite as important/precedential as a lot of folks hope.

I still think it's good, though!

(Whew! I am long-winded today!)

@crookedE: That reminds me of what I thought was one of the funnier lines from the Christmas episode of 30 Rock (yes, I know, there were so many funny lines in that episode), when Alec Baldwin remarks (and I paraphrase), "Oh right, he lives in a world where Ronald Reagan is still President. Lucky bastard!"

@TheDismalScience: Yeah...this is when the producers learn they need content. Because they aren't as funny as those writers they always control with golden handcuffs.

I don't write with brass handcuffs. Gold only.

@DorothyMantooth: Of course the shows need their writers. But, I think there is some merit to Dismal Science's point that writers need the business folks just as badly as the business folks need the writers. That is what is so difficult about this strike. They both have a point.

@KarenUhOh: Very funny and poignant comment. But the in-flight magazine that plays to the great un-washed masses pays the bills so the writers can do the really good stuff (and sometimes not so good, trite stuff) for the smaller masses who understand and appreciate it.

@Fritzpeterson: I certainly agree with you there. I'm not sure I would go as far in making that point as Dismal did, though. And I still bristle at his intimation that the writers are somehow "allowing" folks to go back on the air -- if! they say some stuff about how they support the strike. That's some AMPTP-sounding crap right there.

@DorothyMantooth: Agreed!!

@DorothyMantooth:

Why in the world wouldn't they? If you're not going to negotiate with your knives in your hands, you're going to negotiate with knives in you. As they (I) say. Night talk show hosts changes minds - did you miss the presidential candidates on their shows last night? Why wouldn't you leverage your relationships there?

If you don't feel that way, if you think that's evil, it's just more evidence that you guys are going to lose. Your opponents will not hesitate.

When I ran through Defamer's extended clip from Leno's monologue, I noticed his odd interpretation, but I also had to wonder about Kevin Eubank's quip. Perhaps he meant that he understood the rules, but it also kind of sounded like he may have stopped himself from delivering a line conceived by someone else. I really couldn't tell.

Look, I find Jay Leno as offensively bland as the next person, but sue me for actually being impressed that his own self-written material was objectively funnier than Dave Letterman's WGA-reinforced monologue. They both suck, but there's a certain pride Jay can take (granted, the only part of his dignity left) in manning the ship alone and doing a competent job.

Ugh. All late night talk shows suck, really, and flounder along the minimum threshold of "just funny enough not to change the channel." At least we can thank the strike that the awards shows will know they suck this year.

@TheDismalScience: Totally unrelated, who is that in your avatar? I don't recognize who it is. I would have thought based on your handle it would be Thomas Carlyle, but it's not. Just curious.

@TheDismalScience: Hmmm... I hate to sound like a dim bulb here, but why would who not do what? The WGA not "make" the hosts say something "in exchange" for "allowing" them to go on the air? 'Cause, um, the WGA has utterly no control over whether the shows come back on the air or not! Not in any way, shape or form.

All the WGA can say is: we will allow your writing staff to come back to your show if you make an independent deal with us. Exactly what happened with Letterman. Now, the rest of the hosts don't have their own production companies. And the networks are refusing to break AMPTP party lines and negotiate separately.

I'm not sure what sort of "tough stance" by the WGA you're advocating here, either. They're picketing the shows. (And effing Jimmy Kimmel seemed mightily pissed off by that fact last night.*) They're getting the word out about the status of negotiations (or lack thereof) and the AMPTP's hard-assedness as much as they possibly can through their own web sites and videos. What else do you suggest they do? Start firebombing the studios?

*I feel the need to clarify that I don't actually watch that piece of shit show, but read about his pissiness about the pickets this morning.

@procrastinator, esq.: No, no, they don't all suck. Am I the only one that finds the Scottish guy funny?

@Fritzpeterson: He's totally charming!

@Fritzpeterson:

Malthus

In order of funny for last night:
-Leno
-Ferguson
-Letterman
-The look on Helio Castroneves' face when Andy Dick decided to get up on the coffee table and tap dance his way out to the end of commercial segment on Jimmy Kimmel.
-Conan was just painful to watch, similar to Letterman in '88.

The meta point here isn't the level of entertainment these late night shows give us, either with or without the writing staff. All it does is showcase the level of skill of the host himself. Leno, like him or hate him, is a pro. Conan is a toad.

The WGA shouldn't fold based on the level of funny of Leno, nor should it take heart when Conan looks like a deer in the headlights without writers. Over the last month, NBC reminded us how bad Leno's old shows used to be -- nobody will ever want to see them on the internet or DVD. Leno's show will never be like Johnny Carson's -- there are no "Tea Time" skits that are at risk of earning money for some producer without compensation to the writers.

The issues the WGA has to focus on involve primetime TV and feature films. The late night wars are merely a distraction, unless the WGA uses them for their own means -- replace Letterman's "Know Your Staff" segment with "Know Your Striking WGA Writers" and get Nora Ephron back on there for a short chat (and a different writer every other night) and you'll have something that might shake up the strike talks like Leno did with Schwarzenegger and the California governor's race. Granted, Letterman might not want to do that, but you can bet your bottom dollar that the AMPTP wouldn't want to see that, either...

I believe Leno knew exactly what he was doing, and simply accepted that he would be fined or given a slap on the wrist. He made it clear that he wrote the monologue so A) America would be enamored with his deft writing abilities and B) There would be no inquiry into whether his - obviously written and rehearsed - material had been the product of scabs.

After all, better to break the rules during the premiere and have to change his game later than disappoint millions of viewers on his first night back with an abysmal show.

But the abysmal shows will follow....

I love a good Eugene V Debs joke!