From: Obveeus <>
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
Full headers:
From: Obveeus <>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 12:49:28 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <otsrn8$hbp$>
References: <otsfd6$77k$>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 17:49:28 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info:; posting-host="09ee7a51a36d7ffe1776f1ba82307738";
logging-data="17785"; mail-complaints-to="";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+94i9FKMrLDCJ4lYqfBbNZ"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Language: en-US
Cancel-Lock: sha1:s70lXFOGN9y+XuOkpLB0QQ/2ug4=
Print Article
Forward Article
On 11/7/2017 12:23 PM, RichA wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 7, 2017 at 9:19:21 AM UTC-5, Obveeus wrote:
>> To sum it up:
>> The Los Angeles Times wrote a story about Anaheim not benefiting from
>> the tax credits given to Disney's Park system.
>> Disney has retaliated by denying Los Angeles Times reporters access to
>> advance screenings of Disney films like THOR RAGNAROK.
>> In counter-retaliation, the National Society of Film Critics, the Los
>> Angeles Film Critics Association, The New York Film Critics Circle, and
>> the Boston Society of Film Critics have banned all Disney films from
>> their award eligibility.
>> The writer of this article claims that banning a Los Angeles film critic
>> from advanced screenings of the film is a violation of the First
>> Amendment.  You'd think that journalists would have at least some
>> understanding of what the First Amendment is about...and as a hint, it
>> isn't about a journalist's 'right' to see movies before the rest of the
>> public can see them.
> Many of these mega-corporations do not benefit communities by being there.  Their jobs often come
at HUGE cost, often outstripping the value of the job itself and their tax-concessions (granted by
desperate towns/cities) mean they are operating as corporate welfare-babies in whatever city they
settle in. Politicians bent on pretending they are "creating lots of jobs" are to blame for this.

I can somewhat understand why politicians use tax 
credits/breaks/incentives to lure companies into their district, but I'm 
not sure I understand the incentive to make those tax situations ongoing 
in perpetuity.  In this case specifically, what is Disney going to do 
exactly?  Are they going to pick up their park and move it to a new city 
if the tax breaks are phased out?  It seems to me that Disneyland is 
even less mobile than NFL teams.