Disney refuses to let LA Times critics see movies - They're mad about Disneyland/Anaheim coverage

Holiday movie preview 2017: 'Justice League,' 'I, Tonya,' 'Mudbound' and more

Times note on Disney blackout

The annual Holiday Movie Sneaks section published by the Los Angeles Times typically includes features on movies from all major studios, reflecting the diversity of films Hollywood offers during the holidays, one of the busiest box-office periods of the year. This year, Walt Disney Co. studios declined to offer The Times advance screenings, citing what it called unfair coverage of its business ties with Anaheim. The Times will continue to review and cover Disney movies and programs when they are available to the public.
​

 

For your convenience, here are the articles they're mad about. Read 'em, and pass 'em around!

Is Disney paying its share in Anaheim? The money battle outside the Happiest Place on Earth
How one election changed Disneyland's relationship with its hometown
Disney spent heavily to sway an election in Anaheim — did it pay off?

 

The problem with news outlets today is that we are filled to the brim with perspective. They are mostly full-on editorials or factual articles written in a biased and persuasive manner. It takes on a propaganda feel. It's kind of like on tv news when they read a small portion of the news and follow it with 20 minutes of panel discussion and opinion. I think most of us are starting to see through it all. If I were in charge at Disney, I'd cut them out too....That's my perspective.

 

So, is there anything in those articles ... ANYTHING ... that you claim is incorrect?

 

I'm just making an observation and stating the obvious that these "news" articles are written from a perspective and their main purpose is to attempt to persuade the reader rather than inform.

The first two links are, I suppose, part one and two, written by the same guy. They are lengthy pieces and are not written as editorials. Yet, everything about them screams of persuasive speech. As one small example, look at the titles and the enlarged highlighted quotes littered throughout. They use this technique because they know a lot of people aren’t going to actually read the entire article. At least the author can make his point by highlighting the gist of what he wants the reader to walk away with:

Title: “Is Disney paying its share in Anaheim?
The money battle outside the Happiest Place on Earth.” --Kind of suggests that it’s not a happy place outside of Disneyland.
His highlighted quotes in the margins: “A lot of these things aren’t a natural, normal thing for any city to do.” “There would be no tourism here without Disney.” “They use strong-arm tactics in order to get the things they want from local government.”


Title: “How one election changed Disneyland’s relationship with its Hometown.
Disney got decades of deals from Anaheim. Now the city is pushing back.” --The hometown is going to heals against the corporate monster.
Large highlighted quotes: “We’ve invested billions, really, in the children of tourists.” “Disney is the crown jewel of Anaheim. But we would want them to be responsive to the needs of our community.” “It’s not an anti-Disney approach. It’s an anti-greed approach.” “It’s almost as if Mickey Mouse went and wrote checks for campaign funding. I think it is a contradictory image that hits people in the wrong way.” — Jeff Kurtti, former Disney executive.

 

So, is there anything in those articles ... ANYTHING ... that you claim is incorrect?

 

You have to remember that the Mayor and one of board members are anti-disney and will block anything just because it came from Disney. You also have to remember the huge bed tax that Disney pays. They definitely pay more than their fair share. I've read huge threads in other places that pretty much conclude this.

 

I second what @Marlin Perkins states about the perspectives being written. As an ex-journalist you can report the facts all you want to, but it's the editors that decide how to tweak quotes/content in order to change their meanings. Reporters have it rough...it sucks to have your work editorialized when you're trying to share facts.

@phruby also makes a solid point. I have read some of those other threads as well.

 

And this got them elected by the citizens of Anaheim.

As in, more than the other Anaheim hotels? I don't think that would be true. Link?

 

While I agree that there's nothing in those articles that's not true (at least nothing I was able to pick up on), I also agree that they were pretty biased and intentionally written to make Disney look bad. Just because everything written is true does not mean that it fully captures the full picture of the situation

Why were they written, if not to make Disney look bad? There's nothing in them that's particularly timely to this moment, rather than a month or year ago. They just discuss the way the company's relationship with the city has evolved, and how the city is trying to use their sway more these days. I can't fault the city for asking for more for themself, but I also can't fault Disney for trying to find the best deal for themselves either

What exactly does the author want? It's clear that he doesn't think Disney pays enough, but given that more than 40% of the general fund comes from Disney (and Disney's costs to the city are pretty minor, compared to the services that residents require) I struggle to think they're not being fair. Both sides have their own interests and need to fight for them; it seems like in the past the city may not have fought as hard as they should have, but that's not Disney's fault.

 

Somehow I think my first post is getting lost in all of this. Because they didn't like these articles about Anaheim, Disney has shut out the LA Times movie critics from advance screenings of their movies.

 

I'm sorry, I guess that was my fault. If you want my opinion, I think Disney has every right in the world to deny The Times advanced screening. Why not? It seems like they have been picking on Disney and trying to make them look like the Big Bad Wolf.
If you personally invited someone to all of your parties, and every time you did they went around town afterwards bad-mouthing you and saying you're a big ol' jerk (even though they had a lovely time at your home), would you keep asking them to come over? I sure wouldn't.

BTW there is another perspective on this election; the board member who was elected was backed by the ACLU because they wanted to increase representation of Latinos. Which, if you ask me, makes sense. There is a large population of Hispanics and Latinos in Anaheim. So, did all the people vote for him simply because they are against Disney?
And, this whole anti-Disney thing just doesn't make sense. Sure, they need to be kept in balance, but how many businesses that were built--in fact, crowded outside of the Disney walls since 1955, now require the lifeblood of the DLR in order to keep their own doors open? Many of them have been panicked because of this parking/bridge. What would they do if--and I can't ever see it happening--Disneyland in Anaheim were to close its doors entirely? The politicians, etc, can say they aren't really against Disney, but it sure sounds like they are.

 

Sure, but to what end? How many people actually go to the LA Times for movie reviews, rather than looking at aggregator sites like Rotten Tomatoes or MetaCritic? Aside from the publicized spat, would anybody even realize if there were no Times review of a certain film prior to its opening? Yes, it's one of the more-frequently used reviews (along with Hollywood-specific groups like Variety), but it's part of a big enough group that the average movie-goer wouldn't notice its absence

Disney knows that its films aren't exactly Oscar-bait, so they have little to lose by antagonizing the critics. If the LA Times really cares, they can post their review after the films open to the general public, or they can use one of the other Tribune Company's reviewers in another city to print something pre-opening

Yes, Disney comes off looking petty from all this, but it doesn't make the Times look great either. Outside the immediate LA area, nobody particularly cares about the Times; as ridiculous as they look in the process, Disney seems to be winning this fight

 

So we're now in favor of giant corporations blacklisting local media? Because Disney? This is how you get President Trump.

So you think the movie critic wrote the articles about the Disneyland Resort? And again ... where is the badmouthing? What in the articles is inaccurate?

Um .... this doesn't invalidate the results of the election.

I think this is the entire point. Disney has been taking so much advantage of Anaheim for so long, that some feel - and I'm not saying that I'm one of them because I don't know, but that's what's going on here - that in the end, Anaheim would be better off without them. Which is, on the face of it, pretty amazing, but there you have it.

You think this is going to stop with the LA Times? cartoonbrew.com would like a word with you.

What if they just blacklist every reviewer who works for a publication that publishes an article that Iger doesn't like? "Cars 19" - 100% Certified Fresh! Because that's where this leads. Oligarchy in action. Dissent stifled by money. FerretAfros, I can't believe you're taking their side on this!

Except that one of them is the free press that we count on to inform us - you know, the anti-fake-news guys, and the other is one of the 5 - oops I guess it's about to be 4 now - media companies that control the entire industry.

 

But they're not blocking them from ever reviewing the movie, they're just not allowing them early access. The review will be in Saturday's paper instead of Thursday or Friday's. Stage shows don't get reviewed until after their official opening (even though people pay good money for the out-of-town trials); concert tours don't get reviewed until after the first show. Heck, sports don't even get reviewed until after it's too late to buy a ticket to that night's matchup. I struggle to see why cinema needs to have pre-arranged review periods. Studios sometimes do media-wide embargoes on certain films (usually the stinkers), yet those still get reviewed by anybody and everybody who wants to

I personally rarely go to the movie theater (maybe 2-3 times a year, if that), so this really has no impact on me. If I go to see something, chances are that it's already been out for several weeks and it has positive word-of-mouth reviews; I honestly can't think of a single time I've gone to the theater to see something simply because the critics liked it in their early reviews

I agree that it's childish and petty (seems like a textbook Iger move), but I really don't see the issue of wider implications here. If the movie industry wants to move so that nobody reviews their films until after they're released to the public, so be it

Edit: I guess I should add that Disney has been doing this for many many years (on a smaller scale) with fan sites and mommy bloggers, picking and choosing who is invited to certain events, so there's really no shock to me that they're doing it with the big dogs too now

 

Boom. Washington Post.

Opinion | Why I won’t be reviewing ‘The Last Jedi,’ or any other Disney movie, in advance

Is this the end-all, be-all of journalistic crises? Probably not. It’s not as if Disney can prevent critics at the Times, or any other human being, from buying a ticket to its movies, taking notes and writing up what they’ve seen. Phones may be increasingly verboten in movie theaters (as they should be), but pen and paper are still perfectly legitimate things to use while a film is playing.

The bigger issue is that the later a critic’s review of a movie goes up, the harder it can be for that review to land a coveted spot among the Google search results that guarantee a solid chunk of traffic to a piece. There’s a reason that all of your favorite critics rush to, say, get “Game of Thrones” reviews up as soon as possible after an episode ends, even if that means fast-forwarding to the end of the episode in HBO Go and writing that up (this is not something I personally do, but I’m aware that some outlets do it). The spike of readers from Google can help sustain our jobs. For movies, the race is less intense, but there’s still a real advantage to being able to post a review once an embargo lifts, or, as was the case for the Los Angeles Times, to include a film in a holiday-season wrap-up. These aren’t things that it’s possible to do without access to an advance screening.​

 

Disney didn't attempt to end the Times' ability to print articles. And, as I've mentioned, it is one thing to report facts and yet another to give a singular perspective. Saying it is fake news isn't exactly accurate; It is limited and persuasive information. So, if you really want to be informed by someone else, wouldn't you prefer simply having the facts so you can draw your own conclusion? To me, when they try to persuade readers it comes across as being kind of creepy.

 

I should start posting Darkbeer1's articles here.

 

Darkbeer1:
"Look, the LA Times selectively edited the Disney article to "prove" that Disney is evil, and that Tait/Moreno are the saviors to the city. Disney is upset that the article left out a lot of facts, including the true identities of people they quoted. (aka Union Reps), just like the one sided video CNN aired.

I do find it interesting that the LA Times complained about the company wining and dining politicians, but no complaining they aren't get special treatment in covering events.

And I have attended some of the "political" events the parks host, there is something called the "Friends of..." lists, which consists of park supporters, including preferred vendors, politicians and others. (not Media). Sometimes the events get combined, the Friends list gets the nice meal and gifts (mementos), while the press gets a waiting area, and maybe a small amount of basic snacks and soft drinks. Sometimes, I had both credentials, which confused some folks, but after a quick explanation, was taken care of.

At one event (I started the day in Istanbul, Turkey and flew to LAX) and had dinner that night, was specifically seated with a State Assemblyperson and their family to talk about the event and the story behind it. The event was not covered by the Media. I was an invited guest before the request and got a free Hotel Room on property as a Thank You for honoring the seating request.

These are real world ways of doing business."


"Do you know who is the number one group that lobbies the California Legislators?

I think most folks will be surprised, but it does make sense, since it is the group that gets the most from the state..

Political Road Map: No one spends more on lobbying in Sacramento than local governments

So everyone lobbies, the government lobbies companies like Amazon and Disney to get them to build and employ in their jurisdictions. Companies lobby back for the best deal they can get.

That is what happened in the 1990's, Long Beach and Anaheim offered the best deals to get Disney to build a new park, and Disney did use that to get both cities to make better deals. And Anaheim, at the time, decided that to get Disney and other major businesses in the area to increase the TOT taxes, and get a bond that helped the city expand its moneymaker, the Convention Center, plus gave Disney a perk, all paid for by tourists (not residents) was a win, as shown by the city's own press release."

I really need to get him to post here again. He has just recovered from some major illness.

 

I guess I have different expectations of the media from yours. It's ludicrous to expect any article from anywhere to be devoid of conclusions - and deliberately naive to think that an article you disagree with is guilty of editorializing.

Still sounds to me like you're yelling "fake news" solely because you don't like the slant of the article. And you're deliberately ignoring the bigger picture of a giant corporation using its power to stamp out negative reporting on its activities.