So your position is that the news organizations are Disney's parent and legal guardian - and just looking out for their health and well being? Or less literall

So your position is that the news organizations are Disney's parent and legal guardian - and just looking out for their health and well being? Or less literally, you think the news organizations simply had to threaten Disney with potentially billions (nix that, it's actually just hundreds of millions) of dollars of lost revenue by being excluded from the awards ceremonies in order to restore LA Times access to pre-screenings. It doesn't concern you at all that they would collectively make that threat / wield that might? And this is all going on the assumption that the original LA Times reporting on Disney shenanigans in Anaheim was rock-solid and beyond reproach. Which of course I'm sure it was. Even still I remain suspicious when the MSM bands together to effectively threaten losses of hundreds of millions in revenue [1] to a company which they think is misbehaving. P.S. I feel like I'm in a weird rhetorical bubble here... I'd actually love it for someone to tell me exactly why I'm wrong without lobbing logical fallacies at me! [1] - http://www.businessinsider.com/oscarnomics-2013-how-much-is-oscar-really-worth-2013-2 http://www.businessinsider.com/oscarnomics-2013-how-much-is-...