I'm working on BBC's Doctors

So, I finally have some work news and it's a whopper: I have just gotten a place on BBC One's Doctors, following completion of their writers scheme. Basically, it was a trial to write on the long running drama about a medical practice in Birmingham. The series follows the lives of several GPs and staff at the Mill Health Centre. There's love, there's laughs, there's loss and always a new patient with some new problem every day of the working week! 

 

As I succeeded to the script editor's satisfaction with said practice episode, now I get the real deal: pitching (and hopefully then scripting) my first broadcast drama credit.

 

 

 

It's been quite a trek to get here, having tried to get on the scheme two years ago, and not landing it. (On the flip side, it's a reminder to be gracious, as that script editor went onto become a producer and put me forward this time when I showed him a new, and better, script). I do intend to do a full post on the scheme and how the process to develop a Doctors episode works, but sufficed to say, do not let the quaintness fool you: this is a tough and demanding gig.

 

However, I'm really excited to get cracking on the real deal in the coming weeks, and big, big thanks to Mary Flanigan (no J, as she made very clear!) and Simon Curtis, for giving me this opportunity, as well as Michelle Goode of Writersofluid, whose notes helped polish the drama script that got me onto the trial in the first place. And in true awards tradition, not forgetting my friends and family, who've cheered me on through not just this, but last year and a bit as I've navigated a turbulent industry and media landscape.

HOW DO I GET AN AGENT? - Screenwriter's Survival Kit

The big question that every writer has. The age-old dream that the agent is a wondrous wizard who, upon choosing you, will grant your deepest wishes and get you all the jobs and all the monies. You go from a  nobody to champagne at the BAFTAs and royally rolling in residuals dough. Oh Saints be praised!

Well, I can tell you right now, that's a crock.

I love my agent to be clear, he's a cool guy, but he's not a miracle worker. No agent is, and I think writers think about agents in a way which is harmful to both their development, as well as to the potential relationship they could have when they find one. Agents cannot guarantee you consistent work, and they cannot guarantee you will always make money between big gigs. Companies, broadcasters and even studios can only buy so much material, and the UK doesn't exactly have the same resources as Hollywood.

What they are is middle men, the guys who get you past the gatekeepers and put you in rooms with people who may have the money and work. They're a stamp of legitimacy that says 'this writer is not a crazy person who will stalk you for not reading their script'. They take care of contracts and other paperwork, enabling you to focus on writing the best material you can and not fret so much about networking.

Can you get work without one? Yes, I did a whole article about that. However, if you are getting to a point where you need one, I'll offer up two things for you: the standard wisdom on how to get one, and then how I did it.

HOW TO GET AN AGENT (CLASSIC STYLE):

• RESEARCH: Look up the writers you admire and want to be like. Look who represents them and where they are. Some of the classic names include Curtis Brown, The Agency, Valerie Hoskins, Knight Hall Agency and Independent Talent, but that's just the surface. A great tool here is The Writers and Artists Yearbook, full of names of places looking for submissions.
• REFINE: Get that script, if not several (actually, make it several) as good as you can. I would really advise you take your time and have two, or three, in sharp shape. One is not enough - you need to show range and that you're not a one trick pony.
• REFERRAL: Exactly what it sounds like - get someone in the business to read your script and, if they like it, ask them to act as a referral, an industry recommendation. I touch on a way to do this in another piece.
  
• QUERYING: The most daunting part - actually asking for a read. Usually, agency have a submissions guideline on the website, which you MUST follow. DO NOT, I repeat, DO NOT DUMP SCRIPTS ON PEOPLE. If you blind-send, or worse, spam send to everybody at once, you will crash before you've even started. It makes you look like a cynical huckster out for a fast buck, instead of someone building a professional relationship. As for the query itself, much like the networking article I wrote, there are some standards: a succinct introduction to your self; why you'd like this agent to rep you, and a quick pitch of the script you'd like to send. Be tight and to the point.
  

HOW I GOT AN AGENT

I did the above and got good responses from several places, but no firm yeses. Big or small, the size of the agency made little difference (but don't lose faith if you're waiting. It's a slow game.) However, I did, through my networking, send a script off to a development person at Dancing Ledge, who passed it onto Andrew Roach, an agent specializing in disabled talent, who passed it onto my current agent, Andy Townsend at the Galton Agency (who work with Roach's clients on screen projects). This was the power of a referral in action, and then some.

Andy read my stuff, liked it and we had a meeting. We got on well and he asked to read some more stuff, so I sent it over. In total, he read four scripts, counting the one from Dancing Ledge. Satisfied, he offered me the contract and I signed. Since then, we've done catch up meetings once a month, discussing projects and places to submit to. It's been a pretty easy-going thing, all told, and he has never pressured me to do something I wasn't happy with.

I hope this has been of use - the big thing is not to stress. Like writing itself, it's a long process and there will be mistakes and failures. So long as you understand this, you'll manage fine.

Jack Thorne's MacTaggart lecture: why 'Best Person for the Job' isn't an answer

Jack Thorne is a UK film and TV powerhouse (too much to list here) and staunch ally of disabled creatives. At this year's Edinburgh TV Festival, a major industry event, he handled the much-coveted MacTaggart to deliver a damning indictment of how the industry has time and again failed disabled people. As an audience, as creators behind the camera and as performers in front of it. Go watch it and come back here after.

So, pretty tough listening isn't it? And sadly, all too true. Speaking as an autistic screenwriter, though I can't claim to speak for all disabled creators (running all the way from the physical to the mental, with each have its own traits and challenges), it's mind numbing how little progress has been made, and how the success stories have made no difference to how shows are made, or how talent is reared and supported. I even commend Thorne for admitting his own blindspots (though obviously he didn't have the final say on casting in Wonder, as one of several writers on a Fox movie, to be fair) and glad to see his partnering up with more disabled creators like Genevieve Barr and Ruth Madeley. 

While reception has been overwhelmingly positive, because this is about representation, there were the usual crabs-in-a-bucket with the same tired, boring, intellectually empty points: 'Acting is about pretending to be someone you're not', 'representation doesn't matter', 'best person for the job, background is irrelevant', 'meritocracy' and of course, splitting hairs about 'um ackshually, 20% of the UK population is not disabled because blah blah blah' from people who suddenly became expert data scientists. And next-to-none of whom are in the industry.

I've talked about representation in the past on here, as well as my experience on Cbeebies' Pablo, but this time I wanted to really zero in on why this attitude is a problem, the culture it creates, and where the audience has a role to play as well.

To begin, I get it: It's unrealistic to expect your average audience member to have the same in-depth knowledge of how film and TV works as an insider. From a certain POV, they shouldn't need to - fans are there to consume and talk about the content when its done, not engaging with broader production questions. The problem is the internet, and in particular social media, has broken down a lot of the walls. Now, talking to creators and companies has never been easier - the problem then becomes audiences are not used to a lot of industry chatter and so, wind up in discussions they, technically, have no business being involved. Big problems in the industry, whether it's the UK or US, Disney or BBC, relating to issues around outdated structures that artificially impede the career progression of people from a number of minority groups, seem like sudden changes to newcomers (even with multiple surveys and reports, like the ones Thorne cites in the lecture, showing how long this has been going on).

Because audiences don't have, or sadly in some cases, don't care, about all that background and don't understand when a creator is talking about issues with, say, more disabled characters in TV, it's easy to mistake a plea to fix a longstanding problem with some kind of sinister demand or entitlement. When you don't understand how hard it is for, say, a disabled writer to get the same shot, or at least the same amount of opporunity, as their able-bodied peer, it's easy to just say 'best person for the job' or 'I don't see disability, just the person'. How many times do you think these creators have been told that and not only not seen that sentiment lead to change, but now have it be used to tell them to, basically, 'shut up and be grateful' by people who don't even work in the arts at all?

And speaking of that, it's also tiring as a creator to see our achievements get blown aside in an instant when one of these types tries to tell our stories and royally bungles it. You may have heard of Sia's directorial debut, Music. The title refers to an Autistic girl, played by Maddie Ziegler, who is placed in the care of her drug dealer sister. With a premise like that, you can guess where it goes, but what's important is that A) Neither Sia nor Ziegler are autistic, B ) Autistic actors are not in the film, even in background roles, C) No Autistic expert or group was consulted during development, save for some brief interactions with the notoriously controversial Autism Speaks, widely condemned for treating Autism as a disease. As counter examples, Atypical and Pablo (Hey, that's a-me) all involved autistics in creative roles: yet, when Music became a hot topic, with discourse raging about its portrayal of the condition, were any of these shows mentioned? Did anyone cite that a show like Pablo, effectively, disproved both Sia's choice and, indeed, the very methodology of Music's development, treating actual autistic voices as tertiary? Nope. 105 episodes, airing on major channels, a worldwide fanbase and a much publicized selling point (a pretty good sign of a job well done. The BEST kind, if you will)... and it might as well have not existed.

However unintended, the message is clear: autistic creators are not to be given chances on larger projects, precisely the kind that can change the narrative, because a highly successful musician said so, and all the previous autistic movies and shows don't amount to a 'valid' counterargument. See how that applies to what Thorne is talking about here? How the disabled shows he was able to make were done on breadcrumbs, and even when they got acclaim, and he went on to work on big properties, still nothing changed. How broken is that metric where success doesn't equal 'make more'? The one thing that the film and TV industry can be reliably called on to do, and this is the exception? Because of that, I wrestle with creating autism-based scripts and often wonder if my mentioning it limits my job prospects. Why should it be like that though? Why should a script, that's been worked hard on, proofed, run by other peers and thought good quality, be arbitrarily denied a chance for something unrelated to merit?

As an additional point, I do also think there is a blind spot in Thorne's lecture: staffing. He alludes to Silent Witness and Liz Carr's battles, but I feel this needed more hammering home from a writer/director angle. It's not enough just to greenlight disabled stories, as vital as that is: it's about getting disabled creators the experience and credits needed to not just get those shows in front of commissioners, but also to pay their bills and put food on the table. Disabled artists don't just want to talk about themselves: they're fans of shows like you are. They have dream jobs too, whether that's Eastenders, Casualty, Hollyoaks, Doctor Who or Call the Midwife. We need to ensure they have the same shot as anyone else on getting on this shows, and not just for 'the disabled story' but because they are professionals who can tell good stories period. As long as just blindly parroting 'best person for the job' is seen as the default response, this will not happen because it others disabled people as somehow 'not the best'.

This is as personal as I've ever gotten on this blog, but I need to say it: I am tired of having to fight for my basic dignity, and I've seen plenty of other disabled people share the same: tired of justifying ourselves, tired of asking to be treated like the thinking, feeling adults we are. Tired of being written off or insulted by quacks, anti-vaxxers and religious hypocrites who claim we are a 'mistake', a 'problem' that needs to be fixed or cured. Tired of constantly having to deal with nonsense about 'diversity hires' and 'affirmative action' being the reasons why we achieve anything, instead of y'know, hard work and our pure determination. We are people. We are human.

And at the end of this, what I think we have is a tale of two faults: the industry and the audience. A wealth of great talent is there, ripe for picking, and through them, exciting, funny or stirring stories. If we want to move the needle, then every level needs to address how we treat creatives from backgrounds outside the standard. Commissioners who will fight for change, and audiences who will be willing to take a chance and have empathy, or if they like what has been made, demand more. Otherwise, the cycle continues and benefits no one. Not talent, not the audience and not culture, and if we got the Snyder Cut and redesigned Movie Sonic through pressure, why can't we get this?

''Does Fanfiction count as a writing sample?'' Going from Fan to Professional

The long and short answer, most of the time, is no. Professional producers in any sector of media (film, TV, comics, radio, audio, novels, games etc.) want to see your vision, your voice, what you bring to a project. They want you. Fanfiction won't do you a lot of favours and is almost never advised as a proper writing sample: it's legally in a grey area, you're working with characters you don't have a legal license to use and it doesn't do enough to sell you as a writer in your own right. Plus, most of your favourite properties already have the agented writers banging on their doors: you will simply raise the odds against yourself.

There is ONE major exception, which I will come onto in a few paragraphs.

Is that to say fanfics are worthless? Not necessarily: Anywhere you can train up and build up experience is always handy when it comes to writing. Refining your craft is what counts, not where you do it. You don't have to worry about budget concerns or exec notes, so only your imagination is your limit. However, a balance with original work is vital if you actually want to make the jump from amateur to pro.

I do not believe the practice of working with other properties, unlicensed, is useless either in craft: not just because of the upcoming 'exception', but because adaptation is one f the bread-and-butter gigs, whatever field you get into. Working with others' materials is something you will come across, and getting some practice in without producers breathing down your neck, capturing another style and voice, can be handy.

Here's a five point plan I've cooked up if that's your game:

1) What is your goal? Do you want to be a working writer, or just writing one property? While that may sound arbitrary, it's important to consider because they each need different things: if all you want is just to write Who stories and nothing else, you're better off sticking to fanfiction sites as the grind exceeds what you really need. It may not be canon, but if you enjoy writing in that universe, that shouldn't matter. 

If, however, x or y franchise is just 'a goal' and you want to have a full career, beyond that, then that's a whole other kaboodle. Do you have favourite genres? What style do you like to write? What subjects or themes interest you? Do you have weird or funny memories, friends or relatives that could provide a great basis for a story? Write those and give yourself plenty of time: no one will ever thank you for giving them rushed work.

2) Being realistic. Getting to any dream is slow, and this doubly true for writing. The addage is 'it takes 10 years to break in', which is a good metric (though many have done so in half the time) to avoid disappointment and losing your passion. Treat nothing like a guarantee and be ready for a lot of unreplied emails and non-answers as you build a body of work. It's just the reality of the entertainment business.

3) Learn learn and learn: invest in your education. Read scripts and prose, learn drama theory, take classes/workshops and join writing groups. Sharpen those skills and be open-minded. Always refine your work and approach, which thanks to the internet, has never been easier to do. Youtube is awash with free writing tutorials, lecture and seminars, if you're really tight on cash. It's also great as it's flexible to suit your current lifestyle. Learn what pitches, loglines, treatments and beat sheets are - they are a necessity in professional media production.

4) Build the CV. Much fun as fanfiction is, it won't count for much for a track record of professional work that proves you can work on that level. Good news is there are plenty of opps out there: online theatres and podcasts that will perform short audio plays, sketches and monologues, which is good for building up work. Same with physical theatres - scratch nights are always great for putting on short bits of new (original) writing. BBC Writersroom, London Playwrights Blog, Writers Services, theatre websites are full of opps. Do you have prose? Submit short stories to magazines, websites and collections - they will usually provide submission details on there too. Pay can be dicey so make sure they are transparent about that.

5) Network - meet people in the business. Producers, script editors, development assistants. Even if you don't/can't go to in person events like festivals, you can find personal websites and emails pretty easily online. Here, I did a whole article about how to network and make contacts. You're welcome.

And now, for the exception: in the American TV system, you can submit fanfics. Kind of. They're called spec scripts, meaning you write a hypothetical script for an existing show, though you will never submit to that specific show, but to ones like it. If you wrote an Law & Order, it'd get sent to The Rookie or Bosch, for example. I did an entire piece on that here, so go check that out as there's a lot to chew on.

 

 

But above all else, just remember to have fun. Don't drive yourself crazy trying to reach an arbitrary goal - learn and enjoy the process, because that love will show on the page.

The Fake Script Book Epidemic on Amazon

It's one of the most duplicitous things done to aspiring writers... and isn't a dodgy contest for a change. In an age where companies are really anal about copyright, it's bizarre to think that not only are these allowed, but there are new ones being uploaded all the time!

What am I talking about? Up on Amazon, there's a deluge of supposed 'script books' from hit movies, and often for knock down prices. A bargain for new writers who are constantly told to 'read read read' if they want to improve and understand screen storytelling. They even come on Kindle, so no worries about shelf space, right? 

 

Nope - it's just someone uploading a transcript, not a proper screenplay. Not formatted in anything resembling an industry standard, usually next-to no action lines or slug lines: it might as well just be a collection of the DVD subtitles. The audacity makes it almost not qualify as theft, as theft implies some kind of effort - this is the lowest, laziest type of screenwriting-related literature I've seen in the near-decade I've been involved with this scene.

 

How can you spot them and not be conned out? Sometimes, it's super easy as they'll use generic Createspace covers with ugly word art, but over time, they've gotten more savvy and use official images and art from the movie. Instead, here's some ways: 

 

1) If the author is not the actual screenwriter. In the example below, the book is credited to one Charlene Kiser, but Changing Lanes was actually written by Chap Taylor & Michael Tolkin. 

 

 

2) Its publisher is Amazon and not a proper publisher or studio affiliate. Some of the real guys include Picador, Faber & Faber and HarperCollins among others. 

 

3) Check the title: if it doesn't something akin to 'Official Script/Screenplay of the Movie', or if the release date is years, or decades, after it was released and its not marked as an anniversary edition, those are red flags.

 

 

Hope that was useful as this is something that has been grinding my gears for some years now and it's an insidious way that writers are being preyed on. Not to mention, y'know, you're profiting off of something YOU DON'T OWN. If you want screenplays, you can find the real ones, often for free online. Here's a handy list of them:

• http://www.bbc.co.uk/writersroom/scripts
• https://indiefilmhustle.com/free-screenplays-download/
• http://www.simplyscripts.com/movie-scripts.html
• http://www.la-screenwriter.com/script-index/
• http://www.imsdb.com/
• https://www.scriptslug.com/
• http://www.script-o-rama.com/table.shtml
• http://www.moviescriptsandscreenplays.com/
• https://sfy.ru/

Writers already deal with enough in trying to make a go of a career - don't make the learning process more difficult too.

Tokarev (2014); OR, Subversion for Subversion's Sake

The 2010s are an incredibly odd era when it comes to Nicholas Cage's filmography: from indie king in the 90s, to major star in the 00s, this decade was schizophrenic and lacked a consistent identity. One minute, he's your regular Hollywood lead (Ghost Rider Spirit of Vengeance); the next he's a quirky character actor (Into the Spiderverse) and then there's the headliner of low budget genre fare. Some are madly experimental (Mandy, Color Out of Space); others just lower grade versions of studio movies (Dying of The Light, Trespass), and then there's Tokarev (aka Rage in the US).

From the outside, it's cut-and-dry: it's Cage-Taken, a badass dad out to get his daughter back from villains. However, Tokarev makes a couple of key choices to set itself apart from both the Neeson franchise, as well as other B-Grade revenge flicks. In turn, I think there are some valuable screenwriting lessons to be learnt (outside of the usual shortcomings of these types film i.e. the two-dimensional characters, the well-trodden premise, predictable arcs etc.)

Naturally, there will be SPOILERS, so you are warned. Tokarev is free on Amazon Prime, if you want to watch it.

Tokarev starts out simple: Cage plays Paul, a reformed crook, now construction bigshot. He's a good husband and devoted to his teenage daughter Caitlin. However, Caitlin is abducted while he's out to dinner. With no ransom demand, Paul turns to his old criminal buddies to help get her back. Alas, a few beatdowns are not enough and she's found dead, having been shot by the titular Soviet weapon. 

This freaks out Paul, as he and his two friends had stolen cash from the Russian mob as young crooks, swearing the theft to secrecy. Paul becomes convinced this is all a revenge plot, goes on the offensive against the Russians, and even suspects someone ratted him out. All pretty standard.

Tokarev then throws out its big curveball: it turns out it was Caitlin's boyfriend who killed her. How? Because she and him got drunk and took out Paul's old gear which, surprise surprise, included the Tokarev he had taken years earlier. She gets accidentally shot and so he concocts a fake kidnapping to mask what he did. Realizing that he's brought hell down for no reason, getting his friends killed in the process, Paul lets the Russians kill him, consumed by his past sin.

I kind of like the twist, at least in concept: it's unexpected, you do get small hints that, to Paul and his fellow criminals, something seems off and it serves as dramatic irony. It even mirrors Paul's own life-altering choice with the Russians and how taking a life changed him. Tokarev plays less like a Diet-Taken, and more like the tragedy of a man who, in trying to hide his crimes, is destroyed by them. Paul's not a bad guy: he values family and friendship and he has, by and large, left that life behind. Even his drive to get revenge comes from a genuine place: he values his daughter above all else and saw her as the embodiment of his new way.

For a film of this calibre, this is more thought than one might expect. Screenwriters Agnew and Keller's experience in genre B Movies means they know the tropes inside and out, and can find ways to play with those to create something with more depth. Toying with formula and genre expectations can lead to fresh and exciting new experiences (Knives Out, Mad Max, The Lego Movie). However, this decision has huge knock-on effects on the rest of the film that open up many holes and undercut what, even among negative reviews, has been called a genuinely strong element. Tokarev would make for a perfect case study in set up and payoff, and how to correctly subvert expectations to deliver a payoff that's not only more original, but more satisfying.

Tokarev reminds so much of one of the classic beginner's screenwriter's mistake - stapling on a twist to an, otherwise, bog standard story. Just write something that's identical to something else, thinking it'll be an easy sell, but then throw in a last minute wrench to catch the potential producer off guard and have them leaving going 'Wow, what an ending!'

Mashing up what I would describe as Taken and Carlito's Way, however, leads to a film with a confused identity: characters are not deep or textured enough to work as a searing drama that meditates on redemption, but there's also not enough action sequences to be a proper action film. A twist like this only works if the rest of the narrative supports: the best twists make subsequent viewings more enriching (think of say, The Sixth Sense). It's like jamming a peanut into a half-melted chocolate bar and calling it peanut butter chocolate - doesn't work.

The main offender, naturally, is the protagonist. Paul is presented, throughout the film, as too much of a nice guy for this twist to land. The film is too earnest in his 'new' self for it to feel justified: he shows remorse, he does have second thoughts, he does doubt why he's doing what he's doing and he does feel powerless. The film makes his quest for revenge palatable to the audience, so when it turns out he was going after the wrong people all along and it was his own gun that killed Caitlin, it feels awkward. Sudden.

If he was more turning more monstrous and become more willing to let innocents get hurt as he tears up the city, the irony of him being, in essence, his daughter's killer would work a lot better. On rewatch, it would make his choices feel more pathetic and tragic, now that we know. Maybe if the film had challenged his 'nice guy' image more, it could add another layer to his character and have us, as the audience, question more who he truly is: did he ever really change? Was his daughter the only thing holding him back from becoming a monster again? As the text stands, Paul is presented in a way that that doesn't match the intended effect of the narrative he's being taken through. Imagine if Othello 'killed' Desdemona but it wasn't him, just some soldier under his command who did it for reasons unrelated to Othello himself or Iago. It's tragic, but the meaning is completely different and less potent.

The fact that the boyfriend, the real culprit, is barely in the film and has no real dynamic with Paul compounds this problem: how much harder would it hit if they had begun bonding in their grief, had gotten closer, only for the bombshell to drop? Would he egg on Paul, maybe get involved as a means to save his own skin, or would he try to pull Paul back as some attempt to atone for his own crime? What vein of rich, ironic drama could be mined there?

The other major problem is that, with its current execution, the twist leaves us as an audience with no sense of closure to the plot, cheating us out of catharsis. Think about it: the Russians still rule the city; Paul's wife is left without her husband or step daughter, and the real killer is still free. This invites so many questions and makes Paul looks ineffective as a protagonist. By not making the tragedy hit harder, and using it as a means to tie everything up, Tokarev ends up, as a story, unfinished. The mob boss doesn't even get the final showdown or come to kill Paul himself: it's just a squad of faceless goons. Had he finished the job himself, it would've acted as a mirror to Paul's own past.

Tokarev, in every way, is a perfect example of how much payoff matters in writing a compelling story. It's also an example of how great ideas, alone, cannot salvage something that doesn't try hard enough everywhere else.

HOW DO I STAY INFORMED? - Screenwriter's Survival Kit

WE'RE BACK, and with a big one. 

 In past posts, I discussed that it is important to chase up your network every few months. On top of that, to know what’s happening means you need to follow the news in the industry. These places will often announce new shows coming out, if shows have been recommissioned for another series, or who is working with who. Often times, they will also include the names of the development team behind the show, who are people you can contact and the companies making them (companies which have development people, very important that.

Now, where are the places you need to keep up with? Well, here's a few:

• SOCIAL MEDIA

Follow production companies on their social medias pages to stay up-to-date. Facebook and Twitter are the main ones where they will post news about projects, commissions and other bits of business. Mentioning these developments in your catch up email will show whoever the relevant contact is you are keeping informed and interested in them.

If you are interested in a specific show, they do often have dedicated, official (always double-check) pages on these websites, where they keep fans up to date on what's going on. 

• INDUSTRY PRESS/THE 'TRADES'
  

These are websites and magazine all about what’s going on in the business. If you don’t want to, or can’t afford, a physical subscription (which can get pricey, if you follow multiple publications), you can also follow them on social media and visit their websites every couple of weeks.

    •    VARIETY
    •    DEADLINE HOLLYWOOD
    •    BROADCAST NOW - this is the big one for UK TV.
    •    SCREEN DAILY
    •    SCREEN INTERNATIONAL

 

Another good, if not vital one if you want to go into children's or animation, is Kidscreen, which is exactly what it sounds like – news on kids content. 

• ASK SOMEONE
  

When you are in meetings and talking to people, don't be afraid to ask ''So, what are you working on?'' Not all projects, especially newer ones, get announced and, well, you never what one might be setting up a writer's room in the future.

Short this piece, but sweet. Knowledge is power. Go get some and become an industry He-Man (or She-Ra, entirely up to you).