
LA Times barred from Disney movies after report on corporate welfare - adamnemecek
https://boingboing.net/2017/11/05/bob-iger-vs-the-press.html
======
hammock
Seems like everyone is using the comments to throw shade on Disney, but I'd
like to praise the LA Times for publishing good reporting under pressure not
to.

Despite not technically being an independent paper (Are there any anymore?) I
have long admired the LA Times as one of, if not the only, US paper left that
does what seems like independent journalism and is not afraid to call out
stories everyone else is ignoring.

~~~
bovermyer
The Minneapolis Star Tribune has a single owner, Glenn Taylor.

Source: I work for the Star Tribune.

~~~
njarboe
The Washington Post also has a single owner, Jeff Bezos.

------
hxegon
Classic Streisand effect. I wouldn't have heard of this had Disney not tried
to "punish" the person who brought it to light.

~~~
williamle8300
Many times people don't have the "star power" to meet the threshold for the
Streisand effect inflect.

~~~
thaumasiotes
I would suggest that Disney is even more famous than Barbra Streisand.

------
IvyMike
If I were the LA Times, every Disney movie review would be replaced by text
saying "Disney has blacklisted us from early screenings as a retaliation for
an article we published on them. When our reviewer has a chance to attend a
normal screening we will place the review here, until then, please enjoy this
reprint of the original article".

~~~
munk-a
I would also urge the LA Times to consider submitting 1 star reviews to
various review aggregators (metacritic/rotten tomatoes) due to being unable to
view early screenings. I think the critic industry should stand up to this
sort of strong arming.

It'd be fitting if the stink of this move clung to their creative productions.

~~~
Jtsummers
That would muddy the waters. A review of any sort of something they haven't
seen due to Disney's behavior would be unnecessarily vindictive. It would also
far more negatively impact the people involved in the movie (outside corporate
Disney) than necessary.

Point out why there isn't a review the opening day, with a reference to the
original article and Disney's dispute. And then post a real review (or don't
bother reviewing at all) once they can see it. That is far more responsible
and professional.

------
eduren
> _Disney CEO Bob Iger is said to have ordered the retaliatory measure against
> the LA Times, and is also thought to be considering a 2020 presidential bid,
> which augurs poorly for his approach to the free press._

Wow, I hadn't heard this was a possibility until now. I sure am looking
forward to seeing which of the many {m/b}illionaires ends up winning the
presidency in 2020! How about we just cut out the middlemen and make it a big
national bidding war. Most money offered gets to be president.

~~~
rs999gti
> Most money offered gets to be president.

But even that doesn't work. In 2016 for the US presidency, Hillary Clinton's
campaign had $790M USD versus Donald Trump's $408M USD.

She had double the money 'to buy the presidency' and she still lost.

[https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16](https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16)

~~~
s73ver_
Does that count the amount of free press Trump received during the campaign?

~~~
anonacct37
Don't know why you're getting downvoted. Trump was the best thing that ever
happened to the media and they didn't stop talking about his antics for the
entire election.

He made them alot of money in clicks, and that's what journalism is about.

Ultimate responsibility maybe lies somewhere else, but there's plenty of blame
to go around and they emphatically deserve some of it.

~~~
WalterBright
> they didn't stop talking about his antics

They still haven't. Whenever I tune into CNN, all they ever talk about is
Trump. I watch NBC instead.

------
banku_brougham
These stories of malfeasance by elected officials, where the representatives
act so clearly against their office and the public good, present a conundrum.
The campaign contributions even at a national level simply aren’t enough money
to incentivize the given level of corruption.

I really want to know: what are the incentives? Are there secret payments?

I remember Alaska Senator Ted Stevens was convicted for receiving porch
renovations, and his legislative actions were worth billions to the industry
providing gifts in kind. It doesn’t make sense, perhaps we are not discovering
the true payments.

~~~
azernik
For the politician being bribed, the relevant calculus isn't the size of the
service done for the briber - it's their perceived risk of discovery and
punishment, which is already low enough before taking into account the human
tendency to undervalue low-probability risks.

~~~
banku_brougham
This implies that the moral cost of corruption (knowing you are responsible
for banrupting the city you represent for example) means absolutely nothing to
the elected official.

~~~
azernik
There exist officials for whom that is true, even if that's not the norm.

------
polutropos
Disney reversed this decision and LA Times critics will be invited to
screeners again.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/business/disney-la-
times....](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/business/disney-la-
times.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0)

------
the_gastropod
I'm glad corporate influence on local politics is getting as much attention as
it is, between this story and Amazon's second headquarters bid war. I hope
these stories garner enough attention to call citizens to action. At the very
least, we need to elect officials that will prioritize oversight of these
public/private deals.

------
Udo_Schmitz
Curious how much headwind this will generate. Other critics and award groups
already boycotting Disney screenings in solidarity:

[http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/journalists-boycott-
di...](http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/journalists-boycott-disney-films-
la-times-snub-1055338)

[https://www.thewrap.com/critics-denounce-disney-blackout-
la-...](https://www.thewrap.com/critics-denounce-disney-blackout-la-times-
disqualify-awards/)

~~~
guelo
Below I've linked a few more. It's a bit of a prisoner's dilemma: whichever
media outlets don't participate in the boycott will have a competitive
advantage when they put out early reviews, but it hurts all outlets if Disney
is able to pull off the intimidation power play.

[http://flavorwire.com/611229/an-editorial-note-re-disney-
and...](http://flavorwire.com/611229/an-editorial-note-re-disney-and-the-los-
angeles-times)

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act-
four/wp/2017/11/06/w...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act-
four/wp/2017/11/06/why-i-wont-be-reviewing-the-last-jedi-or-any-other-disney-
movie-in-advance/?utm_term=.3d961333dc69)

[https://www.avclub.com/the-a-v-club-will-no-longer-attend-
di...](https://www.avclub.com/the-a-v-club-will-no-longer-attend-disney-press-
screen-1820195604?rev=1510009209652&utm_content=Main&utm_campaign=SF&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=SocialMarketing)

~~~
adamnemecek
Implying people go out of their way to read Disney movie reviews. People who
go see these movies are probably parents with children. Your average 5-yo
doesn't make the decision whether or not to see "German fairy tales 5: Snow
white harder" based on the review in Hollywood Tribune.

~~~
toast0
Disney puts out a lot of films, many through subsidiaries. Certainly Disney
Children's Animated Film is going to get a lot of ticket sales regardless of
reviews, but Marvel Comic Book Movie: The Comic Book We All Forgot About is
something I'd like to check a review for -- especially if I'm considering
bringing my child, I want to have some idea of what lines its crossing.

~~~
adamnemecek
Good point. Idk how I forgot about that.

------
kelukelugames
Aren't all video game review sites like this? All AAA games get inflated
scores to not offend the studios.

~~~
adamnemecek
The main difference is that gamers are much better connected than movie goers
I think. This sort of behavior might not have as many repercussions for movie
studios as it does for gaming studios.

~~~
eregorn
"better" doesn't seem a good description for the gaming community's connection
to studios. In many cases, gamers themselves might even strong-arm media
outlets for studios with or without permission, hence the inflated scores. The
recent fake review on Mario Odyssey comes to mind.

~~~
cholantesh
The Jim Sterling one?

------
matt_wulfeck
For a company that has aspirations for a streaming service, they sure are
digging in their heels with the traditional theater/award model.

~~~
ProAm
Never leave money on the table.

------
logfromblammo
I think companies need to fail every once in a while, to teach them humility.
Companies that are too big to fail learn only pride and arrogance. As we
should know from the history of theater, hubris is the one thing that
telegraphs more than other that the character is headed for some dramatic
comeuppance.

Four critics' groups have already declared a boycott on Disney with respect to
their awards presentations, explicitly citing the LA Times ban as their
reason.

------
grandalf
We do not have an adversarial press in the US anymore. There is virtually no
investigative journalism from major outlets that threatens the status quo at
all.

BTW TFA caused my laptop to heat up with all the ads.

------
cabaalis
So let's assume the people who run Anaheim are not idiots. My question would
be did they run the cost analysis of these tax breaks for Disney versus the
expected boon to the city from other incomes? If the income from externalities
is greater than the actual income would have been from Disney, it seems like
it would have been a decent decision. This is of course ignoring political
principles of fair taxation.

~~~
wutbrodo
Being an "idiot" is not the only or even the most probable reason for making a
bad political decision (if this is one). You're committing the common fallacy
of oversimplifying by assuming that the principal and the agent are identical,
which is never true in government,by definition. Anaheim is not a person who
makes its own decisions: there are politicians who make decisions on behalf of
the city of Anaheim (and its constituents). Those politicians, as separate
entities, have their own incentives. It's entirely rational (and unethical,
but not "idiotic") for them to make choices that benefit themselves to the
detriment of their constituents. For example, FTA:

> Support for various deals benefiting Disney has come from Anaheim City
> Council members who have received generous campaign contributions through a
> byzantine network of political action committees funded by the company

Now I'm not saying that this definitely _is_ bad policy, but your assumption
that they must be "idiots" to make the wrong decision for the city isn't a
well-founded one. It could easily just be garden variety corruption.

~~~
MyneOutside
Well said.

On a related note on of my most memorable classes in college was Philosophy of
Business Ethics. One of the many takeaways I had was that business do not make
decisions. People (agents) in the business make the decisions. Disney did
that, Disney decided this, what's best for Disney is, etc. But in reality
people are making these decisions, not some nebulous company concept. Same
concept as you are pointing out.

------
turc1656
"Anaheim has made a number of seemingly inexplicable decisions that offered
millions in direct subsidy to Disney: for example, the city spent $108.2m to
build Disneyland's new parking garage (where visitors pay between $20 and
$35/day to park), and charges the company $1/year to lease it. The garage was
financed with bonds that will pay out $1.1B in interest, and when they are
paid off, the company will own the garage."

Wow. That's infuriating. The people of Anaheim should be irate. A total of
$1.2 billion essentially donated to Disney over however many years those bonds
are for. I wonder if anyone violated any laws to make that deal happen...

------
michaelt
This is similar to the tactic used by Harvey Weinstein to discourage
newspapers from reporting on rape allegations against him.

Journalists that participated in the cover-up got access to his film
premieres, parties at award ceremonies, interviews with celebrities and so on.
Turns out that was enough to get every entertainment journalist to cover up
his crimes for years.

Apparently people in Hollywood don't see any problem with this!

~~~
bsder
> Apparently people in Hollywood don't see any problem with this!

I suspect the bigger problem is that there are so few honest people involved
in the business that you would have to shut down if you broke off association
with everybody doing shady things in Hollywood.

While I'm pleased to see Weinstein going down, I keep scratching my head about
"We know that there are people in Hollywood doing far worse things. Why the
focus on Weinstein in particular? Something smells kind of fishy ..."

~~~
pault
I wonder if the child sex abuse problem in hollywood will ever be blown wide
open like this current scandal was. I imagine it is comparably widespread and
it's a /much/ greater threat to the reputations of those involved, so really
any measures to keep it covered up would seem justifiable those on the inside.

------
PatientTrades
Government should not be picking winners and losers. Giving tax breaks and
subsidies to Disney so they can stay afloat is horrible. Hats off to the LA
times for exposing this, the people are waking up and are tired of big
government and corporate America robbing the poor and middle class blind.

------
rurban
So this what the serious movie reviewers do in such cases:

They ignore it. Sometimes it's fun to take down a bad movies, such as the
usual big warmongering patriotic Hollywood blockbusters or the latest fascist
superhero fad or genocidal fanfare. Sometimes it's necessary education. But
mostly you ignore it.

Those blockbuster movies only live by the advance hype and star power. After
the first weekend and the first serious reviews are in, they usually go down
very fast, that's why they take the Spielberg/Jaws route, starting in >3000
theaters, best worldwide, and leave them after the first or 2nd week.

If it's really bad, no advance screenings to the previews are allowed for
certain movies when they don’t expect the reviews to be very positive.
Although studios often give the flimsy excuse that a particular movie was
intended only to please the fans, rather than snooty critics, most of the time
this is a strong indication that a movie is a piece of crap. They just want to
give themselves a chance to make money on the opening weekend before word gets
out about how bad it really is. Disney is one of the worst offenders in the
business, besides the Weinsteins, Relativity and New Line Cinema.

This is also the best sign to check if it's worthwhile. When there's only
marketing hype or official press clippings but no serious review, the movie is
mostly crap. No one writes about it.

------
Friedduck
Disney has reversed its LA Times ban after backlash by other media outlets.
Apologies if this was updated before and I missed it.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/business/disney-la-
times....](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/business/disney-la-
times.html?mwrsm=Email)

------
petraeus
Am I the only one who DID forsee Donald Trump becoming president? He is the
most accurate reflection of what America has become.

~~~
jazoom
Yes. You are the only one.

------
adamnemecek
I feel like things like this are a fundamental social problem. How can this be
prevented?

~~~
mullen
Pass a Constitutional amendment that states that corporations are not people.
Then start passing laws that restrict the free speech of corporations and then
pass more laws stating that money is speech. Then there can be fine tuned laws
stating the max that a person can give to a candidate and start forcing all
organizations that have anything to do with politics to register and state who
is giving them money. Eliminate all anonymous donations.

It is highly unlikely this is going to happen.

~~~
bjt
> Pass a Constitutional amendment that states that corporations are not
> people.

No one claims they're people. The law lets them stand in as people so society
can function. The whole "corporations aren't people" meme is myopically
fixated on campaign finance, ignoring the much larger issues around this legal
doctrine.

Can a corporation own property?

Can it own patents? Copyrights? Trademarks?

Can it be sued in court?

Can it file lawsuits itself?

Can it make contracts?

I don't think any of us would like the result of answering "no" to all those
questions, yet those are the questions that the legal fiction of corporate
personhood was invented to answer.

Should corporations have the same free speech rights as people? I can see an
argument for answering that "no", as rich corporations may speak
disproportionately powerfully. I can also see an argument for answering it
"yes", in the sense that corporations are just people acting together, and
collective speech should be just as protected as individual speech.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood)

Remember that whatever constraints you put on EvilCorp's speech are going to
apply just as well to the Sierra Club, a labor union, or the NAACP. I honestly
don't know if that's a tradeoff work making. Maybe it is.

I agree with your point about transparency.

------
pnutjam
Another day, another despicable act by our political elites.

~~~
pnutjam
haha, wrong thread, but it kind of fits...

------
L_Rahman
This post seems to have brought the concentration of corporate power /
regulatory capture HN critics out of the woodwork.

I am so happy to see and read all of you.

------
dingo_bat
Private company does not invite random media outlet to movie screening. How is
this news?

~~~
dawnbreez
Private company is also spending suspicious amounts of money on political
action committees, and receiving suspicious favors from local government; and
the news outlet reported on this before being barred from screenings.

------
inestyne
I think municipalities should be free to make the best deal they can with
large employers like this. Chips fall where they may. They are all elected
officials so therefore directly accountable. Seems like the system is working
just fine here.

Doesn't seem like this is anyone else's business.

~~~
1_2__4
Are you paid for this opinion? I have to imagine yes.

~~~
SmellyGeekBoy
I don't agree with the parent either, but this growing trend of accusing
everyone you disagree with on the internet of being a paid shill is just
getting absurd.

~~~
xenihn
It's not so absurd when you are good friends with people who run astroturfing
companies.

~~~
inestyne
It's an attempt to nullify the speaker rather than responding to the
statement. It's become quite the thing these days.

No I am not a paid shill, try again,

~~~
xenihn
Ok, but it's not absurd.

