Just finished watching Razor (excellent, by the way), our last dose of Galactica until March or April, when Sci-Fi will start giving us the first half of season four. As for the second half, it remains to be seen whether it’ll ever get made; the writers’ strike has placed the show’s continuation in jeopardy. (See the story here; for background from Ron Moore see here, here, and here.)
Or at least that’s how everyone online seems to be describing it – even those sympathetic to the strike. But how is this situation supposed to be specifically the writers’ doing, or the strike’s doing?
Yes, it’s true that the writers could quickly get BSG out of danger by cancelling their strike. But it’s equally true that the media companies could quickly get BSG out of danger by giving in to the writers’s demands. It takes two sides to make an impasse; the fact that responsibility for the impasse is being assigned one-sidedly, to the writers, shows how pervasive is the assumption that whatever the employers want is the default reality. That fact by itself is presumptive reason to support the writers’ side; when one side in a dispute has acquired that kind of default status, that’s evidence that it has been enjoying an unfair power imbalance in its favour.
P.S. – Galactica fans will know why I picked this particular photo to illustrate this post ….