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: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 09:54:18 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 59
Message-ID: <ou1q6p$adr$>
References: <otsfd6$77k$>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 14:54:17 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info:; posting-host="1032089a7f7f62f6c21c83512c2910f0";
logging-data="10683"; mail-complaints-to="";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19Ffx1Jt6vB8qJqUgPlcPRV"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
In-Reply-To: <5a046596$0$50471$b1db1813$>
Content-Language: en-US
Cancel-Lock: sha1:AnDOVFQfEBHuBE7uLQZ3dwPj+xI=
Print Article
Forward Article
On 11/9/2017 9:26 AM, moviePig wrote:
> On 11/8/2017 11:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> Lewis<> wrote:
>>> In message
>>>> BTR1701<address_is@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> moviePig<> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/8/2017 10:42 AM, william ahearn wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 8, 2017 at 10:24:39 AM UTC-5, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>>> Well, it does sound like a violation of the *spirit* of the First
>>>>>>> Amendment.  Generally, press-events ought not hand-pick the press.
>>>>>> Not even close. The press has no "right" to attend an activity
>>>>>> sponsored by a corporation.
>>>>> Not if it's a wedding or a vacation holiday. But the impending release
>>>>> of big movies are by definition a matter of public interest, and 
>>>>> timely
>>>>> reporting on them is the livelihood of a press segment.
>>>> The movie industry has no duty to provide reporters a livelihood.
>>> If you think that it's OK for a multi-billion dollar company to try to
>>> pervert the news by punishing the press they don't like then you are
>>> very much mistaken.
>> For all definitions of 'okay' equal to 'legal', no I am not mistaken. 
>> What
>> Disney did by barring the Times from their own private events did not
>> violate any federal, state, county, or local law, statute, regulation or
>> constitutional provision.
>> You may not like it or think it's 'okay', but Disney had every right 
>> to do
>> it.
>> The remedy, of course, is for all the other media outlets to boycott 
>> Disney
>> in return, which is what they did, and which is what induced Disney to 
>> back
>> down.
> The dismay is that Disney's barring the Times is plainly 'not okay' yet 
> this fact was lost upon those controlling a multi-billion dollar public 
> relations industry like Disney.  Their action resonates much too 
> strongly with the modern theme of finding low IQs in high places.

What if those Disney people held a belief that the LA Times reporters 
would simply use the review opportunity to bash the company's product as 
part of a larger/further 'vendetta' to get back at the company for the 
perceived damage they have done to Anaheim?

Side note:  The LA Times review for the latest THOR film is pretty 
tepid...and dismissive in its obsession with THOR's hair.