From: RichA <>
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
Full headers:
X-Received: by with SMTP id e1mr2205726itb.0.1510153336131;
Wed, 08 Nov 2017 07:02:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by with SMTP id y8mr107039otg.1.1510153335767; Wed,
08 Nov 2017 07:02:15 -0800 (PST)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 07:02:15 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <otsrn8$hbp$>
Injection-Info:; posting-host=; posting-account=mgMFTQoAAAA7JuQcTxBDpNp0J46ohxME
References: <otsfd6$77k$> <>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
From: RichA <>
Injection-Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2017 15:02:16 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 51
Print Article
Forward Article
On Tuesday, November 7, 2017 at 12:49:31 PM UTC-5, Obveeus wrote:
> 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.

Acceding to blackmail.  Disney demands "X" tax-breaks over 100 years or they build elsewhere. 
Politicians often don't care about the long-term outlook, only that they appear to be doing
something right in the short-term.  Which explains horrific levels of public debt most politicians
are now willing to assume.