- Feb 24, 2006
- 4,103
- 1
- 0
Can someone explain this to me. My best example is Jon Stewart. In the beginning of the strike, he was willing to pay them for their work. Ok, good enough, he supports them and he says he still supports them while they figure things out. But now all of the sudden the talk shows and whatnot have decided to go on air without them. As in they are coming up with their own stuff without the writers. They still say they support them, yet they are going on without them. Does that not kill the whole effect of the strike? Isn't just moving on without them not good for the strike, especially if you support the strike? Would if producers realize that they can pull of a talk show without the writers and just say "Feck em, we don't need em"...? This has left me crazy.