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 14:56:07 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 74
Message-ID: <ou2bsm$qfk$>
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 19:56:06 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info:; posting-host="1032089a7f7f62f6c21c83512c2910f0";
logging-data="27124"; mail-complaints-to="";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/zTqn2/xBJsyKzlTK/3myE"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
In-Reply-To: <5a04b23d$0$60756$b1db1813$>
Content-Language: en-US
Cancel-Lock: sha1:vxEty2UHpDt41Vca9c7F3oLq6Gk=
Print Article
Forward Article
On 11/9/2017 2:53 PM, moviePig wrote:
> 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.

I'll agree with that...though it is often hard to see past the vested 
corporate interests that the press increasingly has itself these days.