Zoren: Back writers and actors strike, but OK with return of talk shows

Editor’s note: This column was written before Drew Barrymore on Sunday posted on Instagram that she was not going to bring back her show until the writers and actors strike is settled.

While I support the strikes by the Writers Guild of America (WGA) and the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) because of artificial intelligence (AI), streaming, and the likelihood that work written and performed now might be used for decades to come, I also support Drew Barrymore and Bill Maher in their decisions to resume production of their talk shows in spite of the strike.

Barrymore, who ended the 2022-23 television season with momentum that demonstrated the greatest growth of any syndicated talk show, returns to Channel 3 today with new programs.

Her decision to present fresh shows is controversial because “The Drew Barrymore Show,” a product of CBS and seen mostly on CBS stations, employs three writers who are striking with the WGA.

The presumption is Barrymore, or someone, will be turning out scripts in lieu of those writers.

Of course, there’s also the possibility of ad libbing.

Except for introductions and some side material, such as information about where a guest might be seen or where to find out more topics Drew explores, such as menopause, talk shows can easily be done on the cuff.

Jotting down a note or two to jog memory or assure accuracy is not the same as writing.

Even if it was, Drew Barrymore is entitled to act as an individual as much as WGA and SAG members are entitled to act as a group. Drew may draw fire from fellow actors such as Debra Messing, Alyssa Milano, and Bradley Whitford, but SAG members who are hosts of other talk shows, such as “The View’s” Whoopi Goldberg and syndication’s Sherri Shepherd have been given dispensation to continue their shows.

The difference is “The View,” Shepherd’s skein, “Sherri,” and other programs such as “Live with Kelly and Mark” and “Tamron Hall” have no WGA writers on their staffs and therefore are labelled “not in violation” by the striking unions.

The situation is thorny.

Several joined with Milano in saying Barrymore and Bill Maher, whose “Real Time” on HBO also begins a new season with new shows, are guilty of moral malfeasance by broadcasting new material without their writers.

I disagree.

I think Barrymore and Maher have the right to resume if that is their choice.

Their decisions will not come without consequences.

Barrymore has already bowed out of being the host of the upcoming MTV Awards and was asked to step down as host of the National Book Awards presentation later this fall.

The idea of someone being emcee of a writer’s event while overriding a writer’s strike would be a tad ironic.

Barrymore issued an explanation/apology for her choice, but she took it down when critics such as Messing, who once caused controversy by saying, absurdly in my view, actors should know other actors’ personal politics before working with them, denigrated or ridiculed it.

Anything political, especially these days, is bound to cause reaction. Drew Barrymore prefers to work. Her show will go on. And it should.

Especially if “The View,” Kelly Ripa and Mark Consuelos, Sherri Shepherd, and Tamron Hall have a free pass.

Yeah, yeah, I understand their writers are not in the union, but if solidarity is the standard, their proceeding does not really vary much from what Barrymore and Maher are doing.

Others may argue it does, union dispensation and all, but double standard has always been the creed of the activist, so such arguments rate a mere shrug.

As for Bill Maher, he and “Real Time” are being consistent. From the beginning of the WGA and SAG strikes, Maher has been in opposition saying they are unnecessary and more deleterious than constructive.

Besides, I want Bill Maher on the air.

I may not always agree with him, and I often question his grasp on history, but he is the lone person on any air — “The Simpsons” and “The Family Guy” as possible exceptions — that challenge both political extremes equally.

Maher’s “Lord what fools these mortals be” approach to political discussion, and his knack for moderating intelligent, entertaining dialogue, as opposed to staging the shouting matches among the biased on Fox News Channel or MSNBC, is one of the last avenues of honest television.

Maybe the only avenue of it.

It is fitting for Maher to stick to his principles and produce new shows given his oft-stated attitude and stance.

A couple of questions, which will be answered quickly, remain.

One is guests.

Will Drew Barrymore be able to generate enough guests to maintain the momentum in popularity mentioned at the beginning?

The WGA/SAG stance on members who accept guest slots on “Sherri” or “Kelly and Mark” is they may tell anecdotes or talk about personal achievements, such as a book being published or support for a charity, but they may not promote any upcoming movies or television series even if they were completed before the strike.

Personally, I see that restriction falling under the category of “Fat Chance,” especially as Oscar contenders release in droves, but is the set standard. Whether SAG members who feel comfortable appearing with the accepted Kelly and Mark will agree to appear with Drew Barrymore remains to be seen.

Also, “The Drew Barrymore Show” has numerous recurring feature spots. Barrymore can increase and expand them if guests refuse in legion.

The other question, and the more interesting one to me, is whether viewers will care either way.

If “Drew Barrymore” fans continue to support the program, it shows the strike and whatever controversy Barrymore’s decision roused mean nothing to the average person watching television.

If audience decreases, it could indicate concern and make Barrymore’s opting to go on look foolish.

I haven’t heard any calls to boycott Barrymore’s program. I would dismiss them if I did.

In my experience, which covers half a century, the people who ask for boycotts or say they are tuning out in outrage have never watched the show they’re blathering about anyhow.

Meanwhile, in other strike events involving talk hosts, emcees from five of the biggest nighttime programs have banded together to do a regular podcast on Spotify.

It’s been running since late August.

Jimmy Kimmel, Jimmy Fallon, Stephen Colbert, Seth Meyers, and “Last Week Tonight’s” John Oliver, who were already sharing Zoom sessions, have gathered together.

Called “Strike Force Five,” the podcast airs weekly with a different late night host taking the lead on each edition.

Buncha agitators

Molehills posing as mountains continue to proliferate on news and talk programs.

On Thursday, veteran sports announcer Al Michaels, calling the Eagles-Vikings game, mentioned being back at Veteran’s Stadium.

It was an obvious slip of the tongue and no reflection on Michaels’s age or acuity, yet commentators in print and on radio reacted as if the gaffe was a sign Michaels should unplug his mic and enjoy football games from the stands.

Ridiculous.

A week ago, much was made of President Joe Biden allegedly saying he was at his vacation home in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware because he “had no place else to go.”

Headlines and commentary made fun of the president and added his allusion to homelessness to their list of mutterings that indicate Mr. Biden is “out of touch.”

Watching the video of what Mr. Biden said, on Fox News Channel no less, it was clear the president was saying his regular home near Wilmington was undergoing repairs mandated by the Secret Service.

In no way could any rational listener interpret what Biden said claiming he was “homeless” or couldn’t head to the White House, Camp David, or any number of places he bloody well pleased.

Bidenspeak is not always direct, but any reporter or commentator who couldn’t hear that the president was saying he might prefer to be in Wilmington, but he was relegated to Rehoboth because of security-related renovations to the north is an idiot.

And worse, a misleader.

My point isn’t to defend Michaels or Biden. It’s to give examples of the absence of proportion and perspective so rampant in so-called news reporting today.

The larger point is if I find such exaggeration, misinterpretation, and penchant to denigrate in two stories, I wonder how I can believe any story.

In the matter of football commentary, rather than pick on Michaels, I am surprised no one chided ESPN/ABC Monday night announcers Joe Buck and Troy Aikman for never once speaking about how porous the New York Jets offensive line was against relentless blitzers from the Buffalo Bills.

In every down commanded by Jets quarterback Aaron Rodgers, the Bills penetrated the Jets protection which led, on the fourth snap of his first game as a Jet, to Rodgers injuring his Achilles tendon and being relegated to the sidelines for the remainder of this NFL season.

Buck and Aikman deserve criticism for incomplete reporting.

Those chiding Al Michaels and President Biden are more a pot-stirring problem than they are astute commentators.

Theater around town

Fans of “Everybody Loves Raymond” take note that Delaware County native Monica Horan, who played Ray Barone’s sister-in-law Amy McDougall in the series, is appearing live at the Philadelphia’s Arden Theatre in “Assassins,” a Stephen Sondheim musical about people who have assaulted U.S. presidents and killed four of them.

Horan plays Sara Jane Moore, one of two women who took aim at President Gerald Ford.

“Assassins” opens tomorrow with a top-flight local cast joining Horan on stage.

In Princeton, Eisa Davis, who as an actress played the psychologist Kate Winslet’s Mare consults in “Mare of Easttown,” shows her playwriting mettle as the author of “Bulrusher,” set in the California Redlands of the 1950s, at McCarter Theatre through Oct. 7.

Jordan Tyler, who played the title role, was seen opposite Sandra Oh in Netflix’s “The Chair.”