When Oprah announced a whirlwind tour of Iowa, South Carolina and New Hampshire with Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, the long knives came out.
Oh, sure there were the typical comments and blog postings along the lines of, "This will HURT Barack Obama," and "I won't be told how to vote by a celebrity."
Those are to be expected. Folks who favor other candidates will try to downplay the value of celebrity endorsements, usually for good reason: Celebrity endorsements rarely sway voters. (The jury is still out on the "Oprah effect" in Iowa, South Carolina and New Hampshire.)
So that kind of criticism is no big deal.
But the attacks on Winfrey went well beyond the typical and expected. Oprah and her company, Harpo Productions, were called "virulently anti-union," a damning charge among Democrats.
Where did this potent charge come from? Is it true? And why did it happen?
(Read on...)
First, an anatomy lesson...
So where did the charge that Winfrey is anti-union and "refuses to allow union representation of any sort inside the doors of her studio" come from?
A reliable source? A newspaper? A respected industry or union trade journal?
Nope. It came from a single posting by one, Robert Basilisky, in a local Chicago production rag, REEL CHICAGO, wherein Mr. Basilisky responds to an article on the effects of the WGA strike on Chicago film production. The article appeared November 9, but Mr. Basilisky's response is not dated.
[NOTE: I was unable to find any listing in the Chicago area for Mr. Basilisky, even by last name only.]
Here is the key portion of Mr. Basilisky's missive:
In the case of Oprah, she belongs to three different craft unions herself (as a performer), yet refuses to allow union representation of any sort inside the doors of her studio, instead paying substandard wages and benefits to non-union crews. It is a travesty that Oprah feels no responsibility to those who helped her create her billions in profit, but that’s the way things are and it’s part of the reason union representation is so vital in this industry.
digby must have done some digging, because on December 7, shortly before the Oprah-Obama tour began, digby posted this offhand reference, citing Mr. Basilisky's comment:
digby at Hullabaloo
Time stamp: 12/07/2007 06:33:00 PM
Now lest anyone think this back-handed anti-union behavior is confined to Clinton associates like Lehane and Mark Penn, Obama and Oprah are appearing at a non-union venue (apparently blessed by the locals) and Oprah herself runs a non-union shop:
[Basilinsky piece from REEL CHICAGO site]
That was all noted Hillary-o-phile, Taylor Marsh, needed as she added her own nasty spin to the report:
Taylor Marsh
Time stamp: 12.08.2007 00:01 am
Mr. Obama having Oprah in will put him right up there with the worst of them. Ms. Winfrey could care less if they appear in a union house or not. Oprah runs a non union house of her own.
[Basilinsky piece from REEL CHICAGO site]
This has been under wraps for a long time. Nobody has ever questioned the queen of talk, because she's always flown underneath the radar. Not anymore. This from a woman who makes billions while freezing out unions on her show. As I've said before, scrutiny sucks.
"Under wraps for a long time?" According to what sources?
Of course, the comments of Mr.Basilisky (through Marsh's and digby's posts) then took on a life of their own among Obama detractors, showing up on MyDD, democraticunderground, here at Daily Kos, all across the blogosphere, and slipped into a comment thread at Firedoglake:
An anonymous post to Firedoglake
Time stamp: December 9th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Just as an aside I am reliably informed that Ms. Wunnerful Oprah runs a virulently non-union shop, it’s one of the reasons she has her own production company, which is good you see because that means that Senator ‘Hope’ don’t gotta cross no picket lines to hang with her.
All from a comment made by a single poster -- who may or may not exist -- to a little production rag in Chicago. So much for sourcing. And this sloppy work from bloggers who are so often taking mainstream media to task for laziness.
Is it true that Winfrey "refuses to allow union representation of any sort inside the doors of her studio?"
Doesn't look like it. Meet 74-year-old Delores Olofson, an SEIU member profiled in the SEIU newsletter, Stronger Together [WARNING: pdf], from the Summer of 2005:
Olofson works part-time in Guest Services at the Harpo Studios, where Oprah is taped. Her main responsibilities are checking guests' i.d.'s and hanging their coats. She has been a Local 1 member for more than a decade and a steward for eight years.
Now, I don't know how many other unions are working inside Harpo Studios, and I don't know if unions are trying to organize at Harpo, but I do know that if Winfrey was blocking, or in any way impeding, employees from unionizing, it would be big news here in Chicago. Remember, the claim is that she does not allow unions to work for Harpo. That is demonstrably false as is proven with Dolores Olofson.
And is Harpo really "paying substandard wages and benefits to non-union crews," as Mr. Basilisky asserts and well-known bloggers repeat? Beyond Basilisky's post, do any of the bloggers or their echoes offer even a shred of proof of such a claim?
I don't know. But I doubt it. I could not find a single article or cite to support such a charge, nor have I personally heard such a charge leveled against Winfrey. In fact, I have heard that she pays her crews and staff exceedingly well. They work hard and are well-compensated.
A couple of Winfrey bashers cited a rightwing blog post about a staff member who worked an average of 87 hours a week during production season. The implication was that Winfrey was a taskmaster.
But an article about the employee in The Chicago Sun-Times notes the real reason the story came to light: the woman in question was paid a lump sum of $32,000 in overtime pay for her hard work.
A news report last week said Carla Bird, a key assistant to Winfrey's co-executive producer Lisa Erspamer, collected that huge sum for a seemingly improbable 800 hours of overtime worked over 17 weeks between January and April of this year.
...
A former high-ranking Harpo staff member, who requested anonymity, confirmed the fact Bird "very likely did work those 800 hours of overtime. . . . In fact, it is that tough schedule that often leads people, like me, to leave. It is very hard to have a life outside of Harpo.
"Oprah pays top dollar -- across the board -- but you're paid well for a reason. You are expected to deliver, and often working unbelievably long days -- and weeks -- are what come with those big salaries."
But the "anti-union" charges against Winfrey and Harpo didn't end there. A poster here who has written some virulently anti-Obama screeds such as this gem and this recent beauty had a busy day posting and reposting this initial smear along with an additional smear. Namely, that a casting call for contestants for a new reality television series being produced by Harpo proves that Oprah and her shop block unions.
The poster cites (yet another) blog post, this one from democraticunderground, as proof. (I urge folks to read the entire du thread to which this post is attached. Another poster makes it clear that, in fact, Harpo has plenty of union workers inside and outside the studio.)
The open casting call for Harpo's new program, "The Big Give - America's Greatest Unknown Philanthropist," includes the following notation:
THE BIG GIVE (Television)
Employer: Profiles Television Production
Location: Cities in USA
Duration: 6 weeks, starts March 2007
Non-Union. Director: TBD. "The Big Give" OPEN CALL Are you America?s Greatest Unknown Philanthropist? Are you the type of person who makes things happen and will do what ever it takes? Do you have a big personality and lots of charisma? Are ready to pay it forward?
The Daily Kos poster thinks he or she has discovered the Holy Grail of Winfrey's anti-unionism and proceeds to post it and the initial lie at least 14 times just yesterday: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14.
Here's the problem with this "proof." It proves no such thing. I have been a member of the relevant union on this issue, AFTRA (American Federation of Television and Radio Actors), for nearly 20 years. I know and understand the union rules governing reality television series.
Contestants in reality television series -- who are not considered "performers" -- are currently, and have been, considered non-union talent. As an example, "American Idol" contestants are considered "performers" and the finalists in that program are paid union scale. Those on "Survivor" are not. The current delineation has to do with working from scripted material:
AFTRA does not consider on-screen participants on shows such as "The Apprentice," "Fear Factor," and "Survivor" to be performers. Instead, they are seen as contestants who vie for prize money in the same way they do on game shows.
"We get calls from people wanting to know if (reality shows) are union," said Joan Weise, AFTRA's national director of entertainment programming. "We do not consider what they are doing to be performing."
[I also note that AFTRA's position on this issue is a continuing bone of contention between it and SAG (Screen Actors Guild) which would like to organize reality TV contestants. But that is an inter-union battle that has nothing to do with production companies.]
So it's not that Harpo is seeking non-union talent. It is simply notifying prospective cast members -- those who may seek an audition -- that it is a non-union gig. That is important because AFTRA members are urged (required, actually, but the enforcement of the rule is only sporadically invoked) to not participate in non-union productions.
Here is a typical casting call list for new reality television shows. Note that each call specifies "non-union." This is simply a notice to union talent.
I am saddened but not surprised to find a few folks here cheering on the perpetuation of these lies about Winfrey and Harpo. (Note the recommendations on the poster in question's many posts, even after the poster was notified that s/he was incorrect.)
The relative value of Winfrey's endorsement is certainly fair game. But dragging her name as a third party through the mud with blatant falsehoods that damage her reputation and her business just because she endorsed an opposing candidate is patently unfair to Winfrey.
The problem, of course, is that it's primary season and most believe that "anything goes."
But this is far different than the typical candidate smearing that goes on here everyday. These are serious charges against a third party who is not running for any office.
These false attacks are out bounds.
As Taylor Marsh wrote, "Scrutiny sucks." And once again, the attack squad brings a bazooka to squash a fly and looks foolish in the process.
Update [2007-12-12 14:29:25 by Bob Johnson]:
A number of posters have asked if I've found out if the rest of Oprah's union-eligible employees are unionized. I have forwarded this post to Harpo and am awaiting a response. I'll post a response if I receive one.
In the link I provide, above, to democraticunderground for the Harpo reality production casting call, the thread includes the following post which suggests that her program and her shop are, in fact, union:
Show me ONE instance where Local 714 did not load or unload freight at her studio.
Show me ONE instance where Local 2 is not installing/dismantling stage sets.
Show me ONE instance where her camera crews are not part of Local 22.
Now, her producers very well may not be unionized - there is NO "producers" union. That is up to her producers to organize a union,
if they so desire.
But show me ONE, just ONE instance where she does not employ members of these locals on her show.
crickets
The reason I didn't post this originally is because it would be me simply relying on a post on a blog to write what I can't support. And that's how these false attacks got started.
I will post any reply I receive from Harpo.
Update [2007-12-13 1:39:47 by Bob Johnson]: UPDATE 2
I just read digby's comments and I am wondering if digby even bothered to read my post. Where to begin?
First, digby claims she is being "slammed" and "condemned" for "linking to an unsubstantiated article that claimed she pays sub-standard wages and benefits."
No, digby. The article you link claims that Oprah will not allow unions in her shop. Period. That is patently untrue.
Next, digby attempts to pass the sloppiness off with this (bold mine):
First of all, this kind of thing happens all the time in blogging.
So much for all the ragging on the media for being lazy and citing biased or vetted sources.
digby continues:
We link to articles as a matter of course, and sometimes they are wrong. The way we normally deal with it is to write a note to the blogger and ask them to correct the error rather than write a DKos diary calling him or her a lazy smear artist based upon a four word error and a link to an article. But this is primary time and people are not especially courteous about anything so I won't take it personally.
This diary wasn't just about you, digby. It was about how a lie spreads. You were a very small part of this diary, in fact. And I note in my post that you comment offhandedly. Why the defensivenes? There is a bigger picture. You merely put it out there in the liberal blogosphere. It was Taylor Marsh who dressed it up and sent it on its way.
Okay, so one would think that at this point, an intelligent and respected blogger would do a little homework before making additional comments. No such luck:
I can state, however, (and knew with absolute certainty before I wrote the post) that she runs a non-WGA shop and it might behoove people, before they condemn me, to take a look at my post and see that it was about the WGA strike and was written in response to the news that the the studios had hired Chris Lehane. The thrust of it was that anti-union and big money interests in the entertainment industry had influence over the Democratic party in ways that were detrimental to progressivism. Clinton's association with Lehane and Mark Penn were mentioned as well as Winfrey's union issues. And I still maintain that is an important thing for progressives to think about --- especially netroots progressives for whom an open media environment and a strong union movement are essential.
Perhaps Oprah has a contract with her writers that gives them residual rights and all the other union benefits that writers already get and the new ones they are fighting for in the strike. Likewise, if she isn't unionized, I hope her other below-the-line workers get the same kind of protections that the entertainment craft unions would offer them. It's not as good as unionization, of course, since she is still in production and therefore making money at the expense of others who are observing the strike, but it's certainly better than exploiting your own workers.
Even a cursory reading of my diary and the comments would explain why Winfrey doesn't have WGA writers on her show: daytime talk doesn't use union writers because these shows are considered unscripted. "Ellen" is the exception because she opens her program with a monologue like Letterman or Leno. It's not that Winfrey is non-union. It is that her program conforms to the rules that govern daytime talk.
In addition, Winfrey has positive working relationships with all relevant unions, as a number of comments in the diary noted.
Next, I have no idea where this comes from:
And although Bob Johnson explains that reality show performers, such as those being sought for Oprah's new non-union reality show, haven't been allowed guild membership because they stand to win big bucks if they make it to the finals, I'm not sure why we should support that. Reality show writers for instance, desperately want to be represented by the writer's guild. (Read this from United Hollywood.) I don't know if Oprah's writers (or whatever her production company is is calling them) for this new reality show will be union or not, but I do know that they should be.
Huh? Where did I write any such thing? Please reread my diary. Reality show contestants are not considered "performers" under AFTRA rules, unless they actually perform scripted material (as in "American Idol").
It's not about Winfrey or Harpo making the rules. It's about AFTRA rules. And I note the current dispute between AFTRA and SAG on this issue. But it has nothing to do with production companies, Winfrey's or otherwise.
digby then writes:
I like Oprah as much as the next person. She's an American icon. And I have written exactly zero criticisms about her political support for Obama. It's perfectly fine with me that celebrities support the candidates of their choice --- they're citizens too. But just as I worry about any powerful rich progressives who show "flexibility" when it comes to applying progressive principles to their own businesses, I also worry that Oprah may be a mixed blessing for the movement as a whole. I don't think that's a smear.
Frankly, I don't give a crap who likes Oprah. Or even Obama. This is about an unfair charge being leveled against a third party who is not running for office that damages that third party's reputation and business. Period. So I don't know where this comes from at all. I don't even have a preferred candidate at this point. I was simply trying to track how an unsubstantiated smear gets started and takes on a life of its own.
Then, back to the "Oprah runs a non-WGA shop.":
To sum up: from what I learned today on DKos, the article I excerpted is inaccurate or at least unsubstantiated in asserting that she pays substandard wages. (It appears that while she works her staff members extremely long hours, she does pay them overtime for it.) I will append a correction to the original post. I also do not know that she runs a wholly non-union shop, only that she runs a non-WGA shop. I will also append that clarification. (If it turns out that she does not hire union workers in other areas, I will update with that as well.)
But my larger point still stands. All progressives should support unions, especially incredibly wealthy progressives like Oprah Winfrey. She is not a WGA signatory and is not supporting the strike.
As stated previously, yes, she runs a non-WGA shop. And that is true for nearly all daytime talkers as prescribed by union rules.
Finally, there's this non sequitur:
And we should all be on the lookout for what promises members of the entertainment industrial complex are extracting from our politicians for their support. If you care about our new participatory democracy, it's important. Money has a way of making even the most passionate progressive get greedy.
Sure, but let's not single out the "entertainment industrial complex." Lets include industry lobbyists of every type including those from the military-industrial complex, the pharma giants, etc.
digby closes with this:
And btw, if I wanted to smear Oprah, there are some truly kooky whacked out allegations out there on this subject that I could have used. I linked to the article I did because I'd read a lot about her being non-union in the context of the WGA strike. There wasn't anything more to it than that.
That's fine. But understanding WHY she is not WGA affiliated would have helped, too.
Sorry if you felt put upon, digby. But I really didn't intend for this post to be "all about digby." You took it that way, but that's not what it was.