Classic Conversation Thread

[Cmasterclay]

Hot take: Companies with the size and power of Disney should not exist in anything resembling a fair or democratic society. Sorry Tele. *changes avatar to that picture of Che Guevera* 

[AndyLL]

1 minute ago, Squadron Leader Tele said:

^^ Isn't this basically the same argument as public financing for stadiums?

Stadiums.  Shopping centers.  Housing developments.  Convention centers.  Airport area development. ect.

 

There are a host of private development that benefits from public infrastructure and/or tax subsidies.   Each one needs to be evaluated on its own on if they benefit the community long term.

 

I'm not arguing that Anaheim should or should not be giving tax subsidies to businesses around the Disney Resort area.

 

I just ask that the paper present the facts fairly.  One of those facts would be that Wyndham benefits more than Disney on the luxury hotel subsidy which the article conveniently leaves out.  If I remember correctly the article only mentions the total amount of tax it loses over 20 years.  Not 1) that it does receive a share of the bed tax and 2) that the subsidy is going to both Disney and Wyndham and could have gone to any business that wanted to invest a 1/2 billion in building a hotel.  Instead it does an apples to oranges comparison to non-Disney hotels that were given smaller subsidies a decade ago in the Garden Grove district. 

 

 

 

 

[filmlover]

I mean, I doubt Disney cares about not winning critics awards. They just deserve all the flack they're getting for abusing their power in an attempt to censor and control the media.

[AniNate]

15 minutes ago, Cmasterclay said:

Hot take: Companies with the size and power of Disney should not exist in anything resembling a fair or democratic society. Sorry Tele. *changes avatar to that picture of Che Guevera* 

 

Perhaps, but Disney is only ranked 52 on the domestic Fortune 500. There are a lot bigger fish to fry.

[Cmasterclay]

Just now, tribefan695 said:

 

Perhaps, but Disney is only ranked 52 on the domestic Fortune 500. There are a lot bigger fish to fry.

Oh I agree but still I am always going to side with journalists over a company of this magnitude. 

[AndyLL]

1 minute ago, Cmasterclay said:

Oh I agree but still I am always going to side with journalists over a company of this magnitude. 

So journalists can lie, have biases and promote an agenda and its ok as long as its against a large corporation?

 

okkk...

[filmlover]

Was there any evidence that there was a decrease in Disney park numbers after the article was published?

[Cmasterclay]

2 minutes ago, AndyLL said:

So journalists can lie, have biases and promote an agenda and its ok as long as its against a large corporation?

 

okkk...

I don't believe they are necessarily lying or promoting an agenda *shrugs* it just seems, like Tele said, the same corporate line given whenever it comes to questions about stadiums or other large developments. And yes obviously I don't believe journalists should outright lie or attack corporations for no reason, but I meant I will believe a credible journalist over corporate PR most of the time, yes. 

[cannastop]

 

[Deja23]

I do agree that it’s a ridiculous overreaction from Disney and they’re punishing a journalist who had nothing to do with the Anaheim piece. Why not sue if it’s non-factual? I hope they reconsider their stance on this, because the issue will just continue to grow the longer they do nothing. Most people wouldn’t even know about the article if they hadn’t banned the LA Times from screenings.

[AndyLL]

2 minutes ago, filmlover said:

Was there any evidence that there was a decrease in Disney park numbers after the article was published?

Not sure how that is relevant? 

Just now, Cmasterclay said:

I don't believe they are necessarily lying or promoting an agenda *shrugs* it just seems, like Tele said, the same corporate line given whenever it comes to questions about stadiums or other large developments. And yes obviously I don't believe journalists should outright lie or attack corporations for no reason, but I meant I will believe a credible journalist over corporate PR most of the time, yes. 

They were in this case.

 

I certainly believe every tax subsidy given to companies should be scrutinized and not automatically passed off as 'good for the community'

 

Just like everyone should not automatically believe a companies PR they should not also automatically believe an article. Just from the tone of the article you could tell it was written with a bias.

 

I wonder how many people here commenting here actually read the article much less some of the other articles disputing the 'facts'.  Not to mention talking a look at some of the specific issues raised by the article?

[Cmasterclay]

1 minute ago, AndyLL said:

Not sure how that is relevant? 

They were in this case.

 

I certainly believe every tax subsidy given to companies should be scrutinized and not automatically passed off as 'good for the community'

 

Just like everyone should not automatically believe a companies PR they should not also automatically believe an article. Just from the tone of the article you could tell it was written with a bias.

 

I wonder how many people here commenting here actually read the article much less some of the other articles disputing the 'facts'.  Not to mention talking a look at some of the specific issues raised by the article?

Even if all you say is true, and I may not agree, but let's say it is: that STILL does not give Disney an excuse to deny access like some third world dictatorship.

[Plain Old Tele]

30 minutes ago, AndyLL said:

Stadiums.  Shopping centers.  Housing developments.  Convention centers.  Airport area development. ect.

 

There are a host of private development that benefits from public infrastructure and/or tax subsidies.   Each one needs to be evaluated on its own on if they benefit the community long term.

 

I'm not arguing that Anaheim should or should not be giving tax subsidies to businesses around the Disney Resort area.

 

I just ask that the paper present the facts fairly.  One of those facts would be that Wyndham benefits more than Disney on the luxury hotel subsidy which the article conveniently leaves out.  If I remember correctly the article only mentions the total amount of tax it loses over 20 years.  Not 1) that it does receive a share of the bed tax and 2) that the subsidy is going to both Disney and Wyndham and could have gone to any business that wanted to invest a 1/2 billion in building a hotel.  Instead it does an apples to oranges comparison to non-Disney hotels that were given smaller subsidies a decade ago in the Garden Grove district. 

 

I'm all for Disney responding, if they felt the story was false or misleading -- but IMO the way to do that is either directly refute it or to provide their own rebuttal through another outlet. Shutting out one division of a paper because you're angry at something another division did is very sketchy, especially when they chose not to comment on the original story.

[Noctis]

What Disney is doing is extremely dangerous for society. It's the epitome of crony capitalism.

Edited November 7, 2017 by Noctis

[cannastop]

1 minute ago, AndyLL said:

Not sure how that is relevant? 

They were in this case.

 

I certainly believe every tax subsidy given to companies should be scrutinized and not automatically passed off as 'good for the community'

 

Just like everyone should not automatically believe a companies PR they should not also automatically believe an article. Just from the tone of the article you could tell it was written with a bias.

 

I wonder how many people here commenting here actually read the article much less some of the other articles disputing the 'facts'.  Not to mention talking a look at some of the specific issues raised by the article?

Honestly, I don't care about the article. I don't think anything they could have said would justify the chilling effect Disney wants to have on the free press.

 

I actually would like to read the article, but unless it says something like "Bob Iger rapes donkies", I don't think Disney's in the right.

[Goffe]

People shouldn’t be shifting the conversation to the merits of investigative reporting. It’s not about that. 

 

It’s about a powerful corporation retaliating against journalists because they wrote bad things about them. It opens a terrible, terrible precedent.

 

NSFC statement sums it up perfectly:

It is admittedly extraordinary for a critics’ group, let alone four critics’ groups, to take any action that might penalize film artists for decisions beyond their control. But Disney brought forth this action when it chose to punish The Times’ journalists

rather than express its disagreement with a business story via ongoing public discussion.

[filmlover]

4 minutes ago, cannastop said:

Honestly, I don't care about the article. I don't think anything they could have said would justify the chilling effect Disney wants to have on the free press.

 

I actually would like to read the article, but unless it says something like "Bob Iger rapes donkies", I don't think Disney's in the right.

The article: http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-disney-anaheim-deals/

[TwoMisfits]

Disney has to be careful...I hear they have a movie out DOM in 3 weeks that only has 14 reviews so far...and may end up being VERY dependent on those future reviews to spur folks into theaters, since initial presales haven't immediately taken off and have been kinda tepid for a Pixar film...if you were leaning right in the middle for your ranking or just barely fresh (like 6/7 out of 10), wouldn't take much for you to put a rotten instead of a fresh...I mean, you can't hurt Thor or Star Wars, not really, but they are not all of Disney's releases in the near term...

[Water Bottle]

9 minutes ago, Cmasterclay said:

Even if all you say is true, and I may not agree, but let's say it is: that STILL does not give Disney an excuse to deny access like some third world dictatorship.

 

There's a huge difference between a corporation not giving a critic access to a movie screening and a third world dictatorship cracking down on journalists. For one thing, nobody's getting tortured, killed, or imprisoned.

[Cmasterclay]

1 minute ago, Water Bottle said:

 

There's a huge difference between a corporation not giving a critic access to a movie screening and a third world dictatorship cracking down on journalists. For one thing, nobody's getting tortured, killed, or imprisoned.

Yea I mean obviously, but when corporations set a precedent that they can suppress any organization that writes against them is banned, then that leads to terrible things.