From: moviePig <>
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
Full headers:
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
References: <otsfd6$77k$>
From: moviePig <>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 14:53:31 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <ou1q6p$adr$>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 71
Message-ID: <5a04b23d$0$60756$b1db1813$>
Organization: Unlimited download news at
X-Trace: DXC=P61jbQJnUmDI]J2Y9=AF]JL?0kYOcDh@JGARo@BaC^6GH]QmEl^j9]J6mn:8ZD;]_LOeVCDoJ<H1E_4C62j=]g8MJEY5`_m@61Be;<U3`DH`6N
Print Article
Forward Article
On 11/9/2017 9:54 AM, Obveeus wrote:
> 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.

I don't doubt that multi-directional abuses occur, but I think the 
presumption of impartiality is always with the press rather than with, 
say, vested corporate interests.


- - - - - - - -
   YOUR taste at work...