From: Obveeus <Obveeus@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Obveeus <Obveeus@aol.com>
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$3@dont-email.me>
References: <otsfd6$77k$1@dont-email.me>
<5a03224b$0$18141$b1db1813$e2fc663e@news.astraweb.com>
<8833893b-3631-4561-a58c-03af59d06b8c@googlegroups.com>
<5a032bef$0$33612$b1db1813$b1165489@news.astraweb.com>
<137561359.531859799.215523.address_is-invalid.invalid@news.giganews.com>
<slrnp07804.1gvq.g.kreme@snow.local>
<HIqdnRrgcvDVQ57HnZ2dnUU7-IHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<5a046596$0$50471$b1db1813$d8d38339@news.astraweb.com>
<ou1q6p$adr$1@dont-email.me>
<5a04b23d$0$60756$b1db1813$d06edd96@news.astraweb.com>
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: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="1032089a7f7f62f6c21c83512c2910f0";
logging-data="27124"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/zTqn2/xBJsyKzlTK/3myE"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.4.0
In-Reply-To: <5a04b23d$0$60756$b1db1813$d06edd96@news.astraweb.com>
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<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>>>>> In message
>>>>><137561359.531859799.215523.address_is-invalid.invalid@news.giganews.co 
>>>>>
>>>>>> BTR1701<address_is@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> moviePig<pwallace@moviepig.com> 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.