13 ms·
LA Times barred from Disney movies after report on corporate welfare
- matt_wulfeck 9y agoFor a company that has aspirations for a streaming service, they sure are digging in their heels with the traditional theater/award model.
- ProAm 9y agoNever leave money on the table.
- pnutjam 9y agoAnother day, another despicable act by our political elites.
- pnutjam 9y agohaha, wrong thread, but it kind of fits...
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- eduren 9y ago>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.
- rplnt 9y agoAnd only the bidders who lost will have to pay!
- _jal 9y agoLet's just start selling the role outright. It would be more efficient, most likely lead to the same result, and avoiding the grating, bullshit horserace coverage for a year would make everyone's live better.
- stale2002 9y agoThis is a funny joke, but empirically not true as of this last election. Hillary massively out spent Trump.
- mullen 9y agoTrump got several billion dollars in free coverage. No one would care about Trump if he was not Trump.
- thaumaturgy 9y agoYou are correct. He didn't spend a single dollar on television (or radio) advertising (http://fortune.com/2016/08/09/donald-trump-tv-ads-clinton/ http://fortune.com/2016/08/09/donald-trump-tv-ads-clinton/). He relied on tweets, controversial statements, and third parties for all of his advertising. This was mentioned several times by at least NPR near the end of the 2016 campaign cycle, as I recall.
- magicalist 9y ago> He didn't spend a single dollar on television (or radio) advertising Before that August. He started spending after that.
- Shivetya 9y agothe vast majority negative. what it really shows that it takes an incredible level of personal wealth and fame to beat the two party system and even then he had to usurp one of parties to do it. I have no problem with his wealth and fame, I have a problem of it being an example of how much it takes to break the stranglehold those two parties have on our system. worse they use people and wealth like his as the means to implement rules to prevent outsiders from rising
- logfromblammo 9y agoI 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.
- hxegon 9y agoClassic Streisand effect. I wouldn't have heard of this had Disney not tried to "punish" the person who brought it to light.
- zitterbewegung 9y agoAlso, LA Times gets free advertising!
- williamle8300 9y agoMany times people don't have the "star power" to meet the threshold for the Streisand effect inflect.
- thaumasiotes 9y agoI would suggest that Disney is even more famous than Barbra Streisand.
- libria 9y agoWell, not really. Reading between lines, I'm assuming they're discouraging any future bad press articles from LA Times and all other news outlets, not necessarily suppressing a single article. Whether it's effective in the long run will be hard to determine as we can't measure future unpublished articles we never hear about.
- the_gastropod 9y agoI'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.
- cabaalis 9y agoSo 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.
- nothis 9y ago>This is of course ignoring political principles of fair taxation. Of course.
- wutbrodo 9y agoBeing 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 9y agoWell 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.
- Udo_Schmitz 9y agoCurious how much headwind this will generate. Other critics and award groups already boycotting Disney screenings in solidarity: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/journalists-boycott-disney-films-la-times-snub-1055338 http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/journalists-boycott-di... https://www.thewrap.com/critics-denounce-disney-blackout-la-times-disqualify-awards/ https://www.thewrap.com/critics-denounce-disney-blackout-la-...
- guelo 9y agoBelow 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-the-los-angeles-times http://flavorwire.com/611229/an-editorial-note-re-disney-and... 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.washingtonpost.com/news/act-four/wp/2017/11/06/w... 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 https://www.avclub.com/the-a-v-club-will-no-longer-attend-di...
- adamnemecek 9y agoImplying 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.
- adamnemecek 9y agoI feel like things like this are a fundamental social problem. How can this be prevented?
- mullen 9y agoPass 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.
- adamnemecek 9y agoRight but there's a bigger problem and that is that law making is detached from law making.
- eru 9y agoUnlikely to work, if it were to happen. Addings more laws tends to help the people who can afford lawyers. You could look at simplifications instead, eg change the voting system from first-past-the-post to something like range voting, and candidate behaviour (and thus reacting to incentives) would completely change.
- BearGoesChirp 9y agoI'm a billionaire. I buy a couple local news companies and tell them to run what ever content I want. How do you stop this without limiting free speech of the individual as well?
- bjt 9y ago> 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.
- IvyMike 9y agoIf 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".
- oddevan 9y agoThey actually did release an article in place of a _Thor: Ragnarok_ review that mentioned the original article. [edit: here's the note: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-holiday-movie-preview-2017-times-note-on-disney-1509668978-htmlstory.html http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-holiday-movie-pre... ]
- clairity 9y agolarry mantle on airtalk is actually talking about the LA times & disney conflict right now: https://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/ https://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/ they also talked about the blacklisting on friday as well on filmweek: http://www.scpr.org/programs/filmweek/ http://www.scpr.org/programs/filmweek/
- munk-a 9y agoI 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 9y agoThat 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.
- PatientTrades 9y agoGovernment 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.
- dingo_bat 9y agoPrivate company does not invite random media outlet to movie screening. How is this news?
- mikestew 9y agoYeesh, even if you only read the headline, you should be able to figure out that there’s more to it than that.
- dawnbreez 9y agoPrivate 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.
- darkarmani 9y agoThe private company in question depends on a squeaky clean image. So, finding evidence of them interacting with corrupt politicians is news. Then it turns out that they are so made that they throw a tantrum that makes them look even worse.
- banku_brougham 9y agoThese 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.
- s73ver_ 9y agoJobs after you're done in office?
- azernik 9y agoFor 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 9y agoThis 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 9y agoThere exist officials for whom that is true, even if that's not the norm.
- inestyne 9y agoI 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 9y agoAre you paid for this opinion? I have to imagine yes.
- inestyne 9y agoAre you serious? Wow
- tzakrajs 9y agoI paid him like $10, totally worth it.
- SmellyGeekBoy 9y agoI 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.
- kelukelugames 9y agoAren't all video game review sites like this? All AAA games get inflated scores to not offend the studios.
- adamnemecek 9y agoThe 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 9y ago"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 9y agoThe Jim Sterling one?
- steinuil 9y agoThat's not necessarily true, lots of gamers are just casual gamers who will only buy the blockbusters, just as with movies, and will probably not go beyond checking the metacritic score before buying, or even worse they will preorder it before the reviews are even out. I think the main difference is that AAA games are much more expensive than a movie ticket, so the percentage of people who do this is lower.
- mrguyorama 9y agoThis behavior has near zero repercussions for gaming studios. Despite companies like Ubisoft blacklisting and badmouthing critics who gave honest opinions of arguably poor game design choices, these companies have never been richer
- c0nducktr 9y ago
- michaelt 9y agoThis 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 9y ago> 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 9y agoI 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.
- notyourday 9y agoHollywood still defends Polanski. Hollywood still attacks RMG. Hollywood still defends Ben Afflec. Hollywood still has not kicked Tarantino/Clooney/Matt Daemon out for covering it up. Netflix/Amazon/HBO still has not dropped everything that Harvey the Stain makes money off from its catalogs. House of Cards has been canceled but not pulled. It is simply posturing.
- praneshp 9y ago> Netflix/Amazon/HBO still has not dropped everything that Harvey the Stain makes money off from its catalogs. For what? Hasn't being fired from his company, etc, stopped Harvey the Stain from making money anyway? If not, make that happen. It's stupid to drop all movies he produced; I'd probably cancel Netflix if they did that.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- 23443463453 9y agoAnd people keep pushing back against the notion that the government shouldn't be giving out money to anyone other than for core governmental services like administrating and servicing the three branches of government and equipping the military. The government shouldn't be in the business of supporting Disney any more than it should support some deadbeat, nor Silicon Valley, let alone foreigners or foreign governments.
- grandalf 9y agoWe 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.
- hammock 9y agoSeems 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.
- Wiscoman 9y agoDisney's been increasingly evil.
- turc1656 9y ago"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...
- L_Rahman 9y agoThis 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.
- petraeus 9y agoAm I the only one who DID forsee Donald Trump becoming president? He is the most accurate reflection of what America has become.
- jazoom 9y agoYes. You are the only one.
- polutropos 9y agoDisney reversed this decision and LA Times critics will be invited to screeners again. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/business/disney-la-times.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/business/disney-la-times....
- rurban 9y agoSo 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 9y agoDisney 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.html?mwrsm=Email https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/business/disney-la-times....