So I am noticing that as technology advances, many shows are moving to story producers and story editors are now working on editing systems and doing string outs as opposed to making a paper cut. This looks like the wave of the future as it takes less time and also gets a head start on editing. Would we cover them? Should we cover them? Considering there are a lot of them who get abused far worse than editors,and they were shafted by the WGA, I think this could be something that we could use to our advantage. discuss.

Edited: 02/12/2008 at 12:19 PM by dangofett

Interesting topic. One one hand, it would put us in the same spot as the WGA (who in essence refuses to call these folks by the name "writer" which would therefore officially recognize "reality" as a genre for them). We would have to consider for ourselves at what point is an embryo an editor?

On the other hand, worth considering to galvanize our position, and I'm really intrigued by the sheer irony of it considering the WGA's previous campaign to bring editors into their fold. Great storyline...I'd be interested to hear what others think, too.

-------------------------
Because America Needs Her Reality, Dammit.

To me, doing string-outs is clearly Assistant Editor work and we should certainly be looking to cover them (as well as others who are doing proportionately more Assistant Editor work -- call them Lead AE, Night AE, whatever....)

-------------------------
Tris Carpenter, National Organizer
MPEG, IATSE Local 700
323-876-4770 x244
tcarpenter@editorsguild.com

Well, string outs from a script is assistant editor work. A string out that IS the script is something completely different. I just wonder in this new model where is the line drawn between story and editorial when we are all working on the same machine? Should they be considered part of editorial?

These people can be included in a unit appropriate for collective bargaining. That is the strategic issue. Tactically, every potential campaign generally requires a specific assessment.

Ron, then by all means invite these people into the tent! (But think up a cooler title than "assistant editor." It'll just offend them from the get-go.)

Doesn't MPEG already cover the position of story analyst? There shouldn't be a problem covering story editors, especially those that "write" on Avid of FCP. Management can blur the line between writers and editors all they want, as long as nobody falls for it.

I've worked with editors that wrote their own VO. They'd write it in the title tool for rough cuts. Then it'd be copied to a script and emailed to the talent in NY, where they'd record it and email those audio files back to us where I'd cut them into the show. So neither union should be shocked when an editor does some writing, nor should they be stunned when a show throws their writers behind an Avid.

Organizing efforts shouldn't be derailed by installing Avid Xpress onto the laptops of your story editors.

If you cut, you should have the right to be protected by MPEG.

Well, yes, MPEG does cover Story Analysts. But the work of a union story analyst (writing coverage of scripts for studio execs) isn't quite the same as doing a string-out, or writing a script.

That said, as Ron (rgkutak) pointed out, it's more about the given situation.

-------------------------
Tris Carpenter, National Organizer
MPEG, IATSE Local 700
323-876-4770 x244
tcarpenter@editorsguild.com