> Prev
From: Obveeus <Obveeus@aol.com>
Subject: Disney vs. LA Times
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Obveeus <Obveeus@aol.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
Subject: Disney vs. LA Times
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 09:19:17 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <otsfd6$77k$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 14:19:19 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="09ee7a51a36d7ffe1776f1ba82307738";
logging-data="7412"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19eP2XqAVzOX7ZlfzwxZ8UN"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.4.0
Content-Language: en-US
X-Mozilla-News-Host: news://reader80.eternal-september.org:80
Cancel-Lock: sha1:HdphkNMv0YqCTVMBuF+Io5iFqLI=
Print Article
Forward Article
http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/movies/ct-mov-disney-cr...

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. 

	
From: RichA <rander3127@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
Full headers:
X-Received: by 10.36.57.203 with SMTP id l194mr10173879ita.41.1510075416853;
Tue, 07 Nov 2017 09:23:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.157.20.173 with SMTP id d42mr735811ote.3.1510075416774; Tue,
07 Nov 2017 09:23:36 -0800 (PST)
Path: news.netfront.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!k70no554723itk.0!news-out.google.com!193ni851iti.0!nntp.google.com!k70no554717itk.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 09:23:36 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <otsfd6$77k$1@dont-email.me>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=65.95.1.163; posting-account=mgMFTQoAAAA7JuQcTxBDpNp0J46ohxME
NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.95.1.163
References: <otsfd6$77k$1@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <0ee3058c-ff16-4976-9453-9cfea52033bb@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
From: RichA <rander3127@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2017 17:23:36 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 32
Print Article
Forward Article
On Tuesday, November 7, 2017 at 9:19:21 AM UTC-5, Obveeus wrote:
>
http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/movies/ct-mov-disney-cr...
> 
> 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. 

	
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!news.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: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 12:49:28 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <otsrn8$hbp$1@dont-email.me>
References: <otsfd6$77k$1@dont-email.me>
<0ee3058c-ff16-4976-9453-9cfea52033bb@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 17:49:28 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="09ee7a51a36d7ffe1776f1ba82307738";
logging-data="17785"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+94i9FKMrLDCJ4lYqfBbNZ"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.4.0
In-Reply-To: <0ee3058c-ff16-4976-9453-9cfea52033bb@googlegroups.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Cancel-Lock: sha1:s70lXFOGN9y+XuOkpLB0QQ/2ug4=
Print Article
Forward Article
On 11/7/2017 12:23 PM, RichA wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 7, 2017 at 9:19:21 AM UTC-5, Obveeus wrote:
>>
http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/movies/ct-mov-disney-cr...
>>
>> 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. 

	
From: RichA <rander3127@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
Full headers:
X-Received: by 10.36.85.1 with SMTP id e1mr2205726itb.0.1510153336131;
Wed, 08 Nov 2017 07:02:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.157.81.136 with SMTP id y8mr107039otg.1.1510153335767; Wed,
08 Nov 2017 07:02:15 -0800 (PST)
Path: news.netfront.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!l196no1199599itl.0!news-out.google.com!193ni2108iti.0!nntp.google.com!l196no1199597itl.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 07:02:15 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <otsrn8$hbp$1@dont-email.me>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=65.95.1.163; posting-account=mgMFTQoAAAA7JuQcTxBDpNp0J46ohxME
NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.95.1.163
References: <otsfd6$77k$1@dont-email.me> <0ee3058c-ff16-4976-9453-9cfea52033bb@googlegroups.com>
<otsrn8$hbp$1@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <66283601-2816-483c-9c3f-97c42bba9283@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
From: RichA <rander3127@gmail.com>
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:
> >>
http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/movies/ct-mov-disney-cr...
> >>
> >> 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. 

	
From: Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news.albasani.net!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 05:26:20 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: albasani.net
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <otu4hs$ih8$1@news.albasani.net>
References: <otsfd6$77k$1@dont-email.me>
X-Trace: news.albasani.net Be18egLiUfMYVdT32io7TG6FwQgatG2IA9WYuf6jburpnb5pfmkZyDjkP37erAT9RTjxjBfD0wgz9pILI9WDqcICXZHWnvPQkVHNIFxhHqmQpF6WWdaOMifXJ4nmNNwY
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 05:26:20 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: news.albasani.net; logging-data="gs53+OvtNHsitlQpt08fiei1tQ51DymQRLeUVJlGYSz0FEV0OeDrvLvqxuXgHi8f8nnPxsprw/SOZ6LqP4p8ieL8EHlxo/dyBUA64UtRR9xPW5vuSVL+j4x8tjyyhCFb"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@albasani.net"
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:FnJ+glzTu6TgDHRbHz3v7H4R1xk=
Print Article
Forward Article
Obveeus<Obveeus@aol.com> wrote:

>http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/movies/ct-mov-disney-cr...

>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.

obveeus misrepresented what the writer wrote; you can read it for
yourself. Michael Phillips is Trib's film critic and was co-host of At The
Movies from 2006-2010, produced by Disney. There was no "First Amendment"
comment, but two mentions of "free press" in the statement issued by the
national critics' association. Perhaps obveeus might learn to distinguish
"free press", a concept, from "First Amendment", which protects the civil
right of freedom to publish from Congress but not from Disney.

Phillips pointed out that Disney didn't interfere with reviews offered
on the tv show.

In any event, Disney has backed down. LA Times will no longer be
barred from film screenings. 

	
From: moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.alt.net!news.astraweb.com!border5.newsrouter.astraweb.com!not-for-mail
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
References: <otsfd6$77k$1@dont-email.me>
From: moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 10:24:32 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <otsfd6$77k$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <5a03224b$0$18141$b1db1813$e2fc663e@news.astraweb.com>
Organization: Unlimited download news at news.astraweb.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 3fadd708.news.astraweb.com
X-Trace: DXC=7emHT6?2HNjJRZZkg^aP1jL?0kYOcDh@jYkk[:k07I@k?^LZa[SVc^e6[[j\00_4>nOeVCDoJ<H1e_4C62j=]g8m0_IE_Ki_JemiZkK5V;eOoe
Print Article
Forward Article
On 11/7/2017 9:19 AM, Obveeus wrote:
>
http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/movies/ct-mov-disney-cr... 
> 
> 
> 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.

Well, it does sound like a violation of the *spirit* of the First 
Amendment.  Generally, press-events ought not hand-pick the press.

-- 

- - - - - - - -
   YOUR taste at work...
     http://www.moviepig.com 

	
From: william ahearn <wlahearn@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
Full headers:
X-Received: by 10.36.190.143 with SMTP id i137mr2233994itf.43.1510155756637;
Wed, 08 Nov 2017 07:42:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.157.1.161 with SMTP id e30mr111413ote.2.1510155756531; Wed,
08 Nov 2017 07:42:36 -0800 (PST)
Path: news.netfront.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!l196no1222668itl.0!news-out.google.com!193ni2108iti.0!nntp.google.com!l196no1222664itl.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 07:42:36 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <5a03224b$0$18141$b1db1813$e2fc663e@news.astraweb.com>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=74.64.94.216; posting-account=4C3ScwoAAAA2wbWb7EB6D20HjAcd2OwZ
NNTP-Posting-Host: 74.64.94.216
References: <otsfd6$77k$1@dont-email.me> <5a03224b$0$18141$b1db1813$e2fc663e@news.astraweb.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <8833893b-3631-4561-a58c-03af59d06b8c@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
From: william ahearn <wlahearn@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2017 15:42:36 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 5
Print Article
Forward Article
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. 

	
From: moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
Full headers:
X-Received: by 10.36.55.144 with SMTP id r138mr2254923itr.11.1510157296538;
Wed, 08 Nov 2017 08:08:16 -0800 (PST)
Path: news.netfront.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!l196no1237668itl.0!news-out.google.com!193ni1828iti.0!nntp.google.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news.alt.net!news.astraweb.com!border5.newsrouter.astraweb.com!not-for-mail
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
References: <otsfd6$77k$1@dont-email.me>
<5a03224b$0$18141$b1db1813$e2fc663e@news.astraweb.com>
<8833893b-3631-4561-a58c-03af59d06b8c@googlegroups.com>
From: moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 11:08:14 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <8833893b-3631-4561-a58c-03af59d06b8c@googlegroups.com>
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <5a032bef$0$33612$b1db1813$b1165489@news.astraweb.com>
Organization: Unlimited download news at news.astraweb.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 0fb7ac64.news.astraweb.com
X-Trace: DXC=913e<UAF4E;hZ4>`7BGPo4L?0kYOcDh@:VjW]G5LN^R;bE6Eg`kT^W0DECe\=Jg[8:>To2Z?E?3j:_9Nie2[21m6=;nad<A`lV1
X-Received-Bytes: 1879
X-Received-Body-CRC: 1147897303
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Print Article
Forward Article
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.  While it seems 
(somewhat) reasonable that studios may occasionally cherry-pick certain 
reviewers for an *extra*-advanced screening, the usual press-only 
Monday(?) screenings seem more subject to the aforementioned "spirit".

-- 

- - - - - - - -
   YOUR taste at work...
     http://www.moviepig.com 

	
From: william ahearn <wlahearn@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
Full headers:
X-Received: by 10.36.190.143 with SMTP id i137mr2321215itf.43.1510158351766;
Wed, 08 Nov 2017 08:25:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.157.51.119 with SMTP id u52mr116078otd.6.1510158351676; Wed,
08 Nov 2017 08:25:51 -0800 (PST)
Path: news.netfront.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!l196no1247460itl.0!news-out.google.com!x87ni1597ita.0!nntp.google.com!186no316052itu.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 08:25:51 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <5a032bef$0$33612$b1db1813$b1165489@news.astraweb.com>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=74.64.94.216; posting-account=4C3ScwoAAAA2wbWb7EB6D20HjAcd2OwZ
NNTP-Posting-Host: 74.64.94.216
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>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <5d73cfe2-9898-4669-b280-bf22fb7a5d9a@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
From: william ahearn <wlahearn@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2017 16:25:51 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 17
Print Article
Forward Article
On Wednesday, November 8, 2017 at 11:08:18 AM UTC-5, moviePig wrote:

> 
> 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.  While it seems 
> (somewhat) reasonable that studios may occasionally cherry-pick certain 
> reviewers for an *extra*-advanced screening, the usual press-only 
> Monday(?) screenings seem more subject to the aforementioned "spirit".
> 
Absolute rubbish. What if the studio doesn't have a press screening? Does that become a supreme
court case? A movie opening is in the "public interest"? That's crazy. It's commerce plain and
simple and has no first amendment protection. You're way in the weeds, mPig. 

	
From: Obveeus <Obveeus@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news.albasani.net!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Obveeus <Obveeus@aol.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 12:00:02 -0500
Organization: albasani.net
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <otvd6j$947$1@news.albasani.net>
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>
<5d73cfe2-9898-4669-b280-bf22fb7a5d9a@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: news.albasani.net lFS9UBjampXJiXS4ofhlsacf/0KRrxFvqxSHNF4y2+DxGz4TWlcb2rdNBjEVvmB78qdAmCHbBPXD+17KJyIsGg==
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 17:00:03 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: news.albasani.net; logging-data="Wp6uqzAgVlMuLTuSVQYtXjprndXDWLT2+AX04OoHziHnJoTFrspaZ2f1mJUE+JOZxDvmm++D0pK0APiXTKgmMMW4xaD8qwylZGDRhT5JpGDWt4AcR146wZ5z0mKY/x9r"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@albasani.net"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.4.0
In-Reply-To: <5d73cfe2-9898-4669-b280-bf22fb7a5d9a@googlegroups.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Cancel-Lock: sha1:E2rIpPw1oWRXNo7YCy2uNl6wz8Q=
Print Article
Forward Article
On 11/8/2017 11:25 AM, william ahearn wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 8, 2017 at 11:08:18 AM UTC-5, moviePig wrote:
> 
>>
>> 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.  While it seems
>> (somewhat) reasonable that studios may occasionally cherry-pick certain
>> reviewers for an *extra*-advanced screening, the usual press-only
>> Monday(?) screenings seem more subject to the aforementioned "spirit".
>>
> Absolute rubbish. What if the studio doesn't have a press screening? Does that become a supreme
court case? A movie opening is in the "public interest"? 

We've certainly seen the entertainment press claim that not having press 
screenings is somehow a violation of their right to review films...and 
those films that avoid advanced press screenings are bashed by reviewers 
once those reviewers do gain access to the films (alongside the rest of 
the public).  It then turns into a chicken and egg argument where we can 
only guess how much of the bad review fervor is based upon the film 
being bad and how much is based upon the backlash of the reviewer being 
denied early access.  Similarly, does a studio avoid the pre-screenings 
to try and get the public opinion in play before the professions 
reviewers can taint the film's image or does a studio only want to get 
as many movie ticket dollars as possible before word of mouth on a film 
spreads? 

	
From: moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin3!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.astraweb.com!border6.newsrouter.astraweb.com!not-for-mail
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
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>
<5d73cfe2-9898-4669-b280-bf22fb7a5d9a@googlegroups.com>
<otvd6j$947$1@news.albasani.net>
From: moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 12:45:31 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <otvd6j$947$1@news.albasani.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <5a0342bc$0$5752$b1db1813$5890f3ee@news.astraweb.com>
Organization: Unlimited download news at news.astraweb.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 321a397d.news.astraweb.com
X-Trace: DXC=5>j3>2Kjho9l=bkA3Hk5C1L?0kYOcDh@:KNoAQd2m[Q4XUI8bb:A\1?V3ALV_USl><E7Fc1cQiAk>]0U5NFR3]O>lR^C@9L80T6
Print Article
Forward Article
On 11/8/2017 12:00 PM, Obveeus wrote:
> On 11/8/2017 11:25 AM, william ahearn wrote:
>> On Wednesday, November 8, 2017 at 11:08:18 AM UTC-5, moviePig wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 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.  While it seems
>>> (somewhat) reasonable that studios may occasionally cherry-pick certain
>>> reviewers for an *extra*-advanced screening, the usual press-only
>>> Monday(?) screenings seem more subject to the aforementioned "spirit".
>>>
>> Absolute rubbish. What if the studio doesn't have a press screening? 
>> Does that become a supreme court case? A movie opening is in the 
>> "public interest"? 
> 
> We've certainly seen the entertainment press claim that not having press 
> screenings is somehow a violation of their right to review films...and 
> those films that avoid advanced press screenings are bashed by reviewers 
> once those reviewers do gain access to the films (alongside the rest of 
> the public).  It then turns into a chicken and egg argument where we can 
> only guess how much of the bad review fervor is based upon the film 
> being bad and how much is based upon the backlash of the reviewer being 
> denied early access.  Similarly, does a studio avoid the pre-screenings 
> to try and get the public opinion in play before the professions 
> reviewers can taint the film's image or does a studio only want to get 
> as many movie ticket dollars as possible before word of mouth on a film 
> spreads?

I'm not arguing the actual Constitutional legality of barring certain 
critics from screenings.  I'm simply claiming that an event that's open 
to most of the press ought to be open to all of it, and that anything 
else is an attempt to compromise the integrity of that press.

Btw, SNAKES ON A PLANE eschewed advance screenings, and was afterwards 
chided by critics as having hid its light under a bushel.  As for 
retaliation against such "cowardice", I'm sure most critics like to 
think their eventual reviews go unaffected -- which could result in 
undeserved positive judgements as easily as negative.

-- 

- - - - - - - -
   YOUR taste at work...
     http://www.moviepig.com 

	
From: william ahearn <wlahearn@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
Full headers:
X-Received: by 10.36.92.132 with SMTP id q126mr1088820itb.27.1510174478656;
Wed, 08 Nov 2017 12:54:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.157.85.8 with SMTP id l8mr143698oth.7.1510174478533; Wed, 08
Nov 2017 12:54:38 -0800 (PST)
Path: news.netfront.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!186no22401itu.0!news-out.google.com!x87ni22ita.0!nntp.google.com!186no22397itu.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 12:54:38 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <otvd6j$947$1@news.albasani.net>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=74.64.94.216; posting-account=4C3ScwoAAAA2wbWb7EB6D20HjAcd2OwZ
NNTP-Posting-Host: 74.64.94.216
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>
<5d73cfe2-9898-4669-b280-bf22fb7a5d9a@googlegroups.com> <otvd6j$947$1@news.albasani.net>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <6f012fe2-882a-4ce9-a052-7aea218ce793@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
From: william ahearn <wlahearn@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2017 20:54:38 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 15
Print Article
Forward Article
On Wednesday, November 8, 2017 at 12:00:07 PM UTC-5, Obveeus wrote:

> We've certainly seen the entertainment press claim that not having press 
> screenings is somehow a violation of their right to review films...and 
> those films that avoid advanced press screenings are bashed by reviewers 
> once those reviewers do gain access to the films (alongside the rest of 
> the public).  It then turns into a chicken and egg argument where we can 
> only guess how much of the bad review fervor is based upon the film 
> being bad and how much is based upon the backlash of the reviewer being 
> denied early access.  Similarly, does a studio avoid the pre-screenings 
> to try and get the public opinion in play before the professions 
> reviewers can taint the film's image or does a studio only want to get 
> as many movie ticket dollars as possible before word of mouth on a film 
> spreads?

Such as Psycho? Alfred Hitchcock saw Michael Powell crucified by the British press when Peeping Tom
was previewed. He decided to forego the press and open wide. 

	
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin3!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2017 12:52:51 -0600
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.1.8 (iPad)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:TvVvzOIMKJkGAx/Q1Lqk4VYJyd4=
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
Message-ID: <137561359.531859799.215523.address_is-invalid.invalid@news.giganews.com>
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: BTR1701 <address_is@invalid.invalid>
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>
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2017 12:52:51 -0600
Lines: 16
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-L3JK+EUjSIhaXPt4gO+46rIUBHldyTJP4mWka0eBbV1uqcYumR2gCP9LGVpFwwufN9zPNdp6mmeFkBS!KlJmunl+50IPbyNYWSqSXMFmXYkQrB73v8XrY12CQNSyvgzNPuUFE12koOWzAV1OhJ6TfOzEspka!29+6kc0aUU9gzRTv39lWAHk2rD23cg==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 2006
Print Article
Forward Article
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. 

	
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news.unit0.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!kreme.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 00:23:32 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: Miskatonic U
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <slrnp07804.1gvq.g.kreme@snow.local>
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>
Injection-Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 00:23:32 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: kreme.eternal-september.org; posting-host="851d98f3bc7d7b10b4fd718006898558";
logging-data="20049"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+sJC6bn1vhv7rIqeMTJHuo"
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.2 (Darwin)
X-Face: )^b5"R:T7U>9~:PEn3YkzMfW*[b1qKeU.fP9C8~8HpU9}lA&6`bH1z
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Sw/jljNoYTDLheaIt0/j62RJM/A=
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
Print Article
Forward Article
In message<137561359.531859799.215523.address_is-invalid.invalid@news.giganews.com> 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.


-- 
Stone circles were common enough everywhere in the mountains. Druids
built them as weather computers, and since it was always cheaper to
build a new 33-Megalith circle than to upgrade an old slow one, there
were generally plenty of ancient ones around --Lords and Ladies 

	
From: william ahearn <wlahearn@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
Full headers:
X-Received: by 10.107.114.17 with SMTP id n17mr2986366ioc.28.1510196901210;
Wed, 08 Nov 2017 19:08:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.157.51.119 with SMTP id u52mr174677otd.6.1510196901123; Wed,
08 Nov 2017 19:08:21 -0800 (PST)
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!feeder.usenetexpress.com!feeder-in1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!l196no168492itl.0!news-out.google.com!193ni310iti.0!nntp.google.com!l196no168488itl.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 19:08:20 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <slrnp07804.1gvq.g.kreme@snow.local>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=74.64.94.216; posting-account=4C3ScwoAAAA2wbWb7EB6D20HjAcd2OwZ
NNTP-Posting-Host: 74.64.94.216
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>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <7dbef669-b275-4172-8c1b-6ec39b558c68@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
From: william ahearn <wlahearn@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2017 03:08:21 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 6
Print Article
Forward Article
On Wednesday, November 8, 2017 at 10:00:08 PM UTC-5, Lewis wrote:

> 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.
> 
That is way different and far from a first amendment issue. 

	
From: BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid>
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2017 22:49:12 -0600
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.2.6 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:O309nFECNS/s0WOhB/SdHgufosY=
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid>
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>
Message-ID: <HIqdnRrgcvDVQ57HnZ2dnUU7-IHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2017 22:49:12 -0600
Lines: 37
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-5VNZvuTFI5pjKspcDjhl9nbg+mJeOSO+e2CSEDvOCnMey+29/3akEOmNIgdIZu/I8tO998b1RcoGzU6!XETxpczs0oCUm0Q1U1dfKp/FOV94WHBHcl8Zs75BiRwoH/oi99nCxYJkaw7DHwoQvO0eMUt1hCg=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 2971
Print Article
Forward Article
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. 

	
From: moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed9.news.xs4all.nl!news.alt.net!news.astraweb.com!border5.newsrouter.astraweb.com!not-for-mail
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
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>
From: moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 09:26:29 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <HIqdnRrgcvDVQ57HnZ2dnUU7-IHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <5a046596$0$50471$b1db1813$d8d38339@news.astraweb.com>
Organization: Unlimited download news at news.astraweb.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 0b9b487a.news.astraweb.com
X-Trace: DXC=K_\G[ZZaKRTI56`<E^G]B^L?0kYOcDh@ZRgC>3k15M[RWm:YORPnLeQ4SY81^Y1GOU>To2Z?E?3jZ_9Nie2[21mV9BU6QZOQR?Q
Print Article
Forward Article
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.

-- 

- - - - - - - -
   YOUR taste at work...
     http://www.moviepig.com 

	
From: Obveeus <Obveeus@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news.unit0.net!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 09:54:18 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 59
Message-ID: <ou1q6p$adr$1@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>
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: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="1032089a7f7f62f6c21c83512c2910f0";
logging-data="10683"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19Ffx1Jt6vB8qJqUgPlcPRV"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.4.0
In-Reply-To: <5a046596$0$50471$b1db1813$d8d38339@news.astraweb.com>
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<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. 

	
From: moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.snarked.org!xmission!news.alt.net!news.astraweb.com!border5.newsrouter.astraweb.com!not-for-mail
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
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$1@dont-email.me>
From: moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 14:53:31 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <ou1q6p$adr$1@dont-email.me>
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$d06edd96@news.astraweb.com>
Organization: Unlimited download news at news.astraweb.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 041d2761.news.astraweb.com
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<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.

-- 

- - - - - - - -
   YOUR taste at work...
     http://www.moviepig.com 

	
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. 

	
From: Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.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: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 15:58:01 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <ou1tu9$8g9$1@dont-email.me>
References: <otsfd6$77k$1@dont-email.me> <5a032bef$0$33612$b1db1813$b1165489@news.astraweb.com> <137561359.531859799.215523.address_is-invalid.invalid@news.giganews.com> <slrnp07804.1gvq.g.kreme@snow.local>
Injection-Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 15:58:01 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="7abf5a35e01cb4dd327272d2188ca9a7";
logging-data="8713"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19AZjgm876dcXPpd4SeKGpbMUW66FljGNw="
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:O1kbVNFLRWzje21L603PMLWWO50=
Print Article
Forward Article
Lewis<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>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.

I'm going to point this out for the second time in this thread:

obveeus MISREPRESENTED what was stated in the original article. obveeus
falsely stated that the article's writer, Michael Phillips, film critic
Chicago Tribune, made a point about the FIRST AMENDMENT. This is not
true. He quoted a press release from the film critics association that
made several points about FREE PRESS.

If you say FIRST AMENDMENT with regard to publishing, then you are
speaking of the civil right. If you say FREE PRESS with respect to the
subject of news coverage interfering with what's published, and the
subject of news coverage is not a governmental actor, then the civil
right doesn't come into play.

Nevertheless, if the subject of news coverage exerts contol over what is
published, the press isn't free.

I would have phased it as a point of journalistic ethics, but I didn't
write the press release.

The concept of the civil right to publish is a subset of freedom of the
press. Not all press restrictions come from government, as illustrated
here.

Did anyone bother to read the L.A. Times' investigative news story on
the subsidies Anaheim provides to Disneyland? It's pretty damning. 

	
From: Obveeus <Obveeus@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news.albasani.net!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Obveeus <Obveeus@aol.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 10:59:24 -0500
Organization: albasani.net
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <otv9kp$f9e$1@news.albasani.net>
References: <otsfd6$77k$1@dont-email.me>
<5a03224b$0$18141$b1db1813$e2fc663e@news.astraweb.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: news.albasani.net K48aTPeTxQBhNMYfsE+G2CbXSD8Uy9xwrRC983acHAEQ8CnUqtvKojCW1sIAkTvJTIHzFkddwjnN+OqcnPLNegbz7A/DWjj8gAj23nC0tzhdzn/6Simz/T4ah6fE0IRK
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 15:59:21 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: news.albasani.net; logging-data="ZgVAjxwsK2oyUyByqkpj85BDlbPCxP95xWI9k/GB0zFxw39JldIKJUuwrAQNDGgYBx20BC5nHl89WtuC6CZZhAPXGjWrrqieGguyOin1JaPkBlQ4kHtS2RW0zFLmRVX5"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@albasani.net"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.4.0
In-Reply-To: <5a03224b$0$18141$b1db1813$e2fc663e@news.astraweb.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Cancel-Lock: sha1:WZXvuQEUeMnDA7LYJYsyvjG2a0I=
Print Article
Forward Article
On 11/8/2017 10:24 AM, moviePig wrote:
> On 11/7/2017 9:19 AM, Obveeus wrote:
>>
http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/movies/ct-mov-disney-cr... 
>>
>>
>> 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.
> 
> Well, it does sound like a violation of the *spirit* of the First 
> Amendment.

No it doesn't.  The First Amendment has to do with government control, 
not private control.  If someone wants to come over to your house and 
watch the movie airing on your TV, you are under no obligation to accept 
them in.

>  Generally, press-events ought not hand-pick the press.

I'm more offended when films getting lousy reviews still find hand 
picked promotable quotes.

Review:  This movie has a stellar level of suckiness!  Not recommended.
   -- Movie Piglet

Movie Promo:  Movie Piglet says this movie is 'Stellar'. 

	
From: Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin3!goblin2!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news.albasani.net!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 18:32:29 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: albasani.net
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <otvijt$rpg$2@news.albasani.net>
References: <otsfd6$77k$1@dont-email.me> <5a03224b$0$18141$b1db1813$e2fc663e@news.astraweb.com>
X-Trace: news.albasani.net cA8ZLTzF1dDJTtp8FS5MIeV2aDjGtwn2pq6pGR5lE8wYQh3xQVyTGRtm0GokrzaARSARbJrXF+E9p79mcxE3/J1J3/VPHUDVHafOUTVJ0exiWXLWlqjrdhQXLW1fKn83
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 18:32:29 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: news.albasani.net; logging-data="Ad8pSlrZNOazPIrV6b+HjF2lUlwmL4WRTOYPbGjaeISzWa+T5O7JLucJY9c3FHFSZgDdpCQfgB0FhMKVuS8w7cIXeO7sIB4yPnmQzOkTcZYRz9k72qjzn3xMmCFgK27w"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@albasani.net"
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:lbXODyqlhYtfh9b9x6xNdovFZfQ=
Print Article
Forward Article
moviePig<pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>On 11/7/2017 9:19 AM, Obveeus wrote:

>>http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/movies/ct-mov-disney-cr... 

>>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.

>Well, it does sound like a violation of the *spirit* of the First 
>Amendment.  Generally, press-events ought not hand-pick the press.

Only to someone who believes he has the write to twist the meanings of
ordinary words in order to make himself sound more profound, without
actually communicating. 

	
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!newsgate.cuhk.edu.hk!goblin1!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!peer03.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2017 12:52:50 -0600
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.1.8 (iPad)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:BrWvmdzlqazTbPD0U/xFIn9iDHI=
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
Message-ID: <250102089.531859657.804651.address_is-invalid.invalid@news.giganews.com>
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: BTR1701 <address_is@invalid.invalid>
References: <otsfd6$77k$1@dont-email.me>
<5a03224b$0$18141$b1db1813$e2fc663e@news.astraweb.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2017 12:52:50 -0600
Lines: 17
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-LksHPsym2qb9D6sP83FMv047Ow0Brsz4ims82SPWS2mCBcrF2gpQ2v+JSgf5EQ6RY6uNHr1CJ4maPMZ!4yF06LY7uAlldRjqk6pU85/Og+mckWNlBKmVW4pcuZl2Kp5iB3hn0P3t0ltpx6FHpo83uL5wz2jC!c0+9lWGjtTPe9tlczAbWpf5hCJGyuQ==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 1998
X-Received-Bytes: 2120
X-Received-Body-CRC: 4285287063
Print Article
Forward Article
moviePig<pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 11/7/2017 9:19 AM, Obveeus wrote:
>> 
>> 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. 

	
Next <
From: jgrove24 <jgrove24@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
Full headers:
X-Received: by 10.107.102.21 with SMTP id a21mr2920591ioc.27.1510190892798;
Wed, 08 Nov 2017 17:28:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.157.94.7 with SMTP id d7mr164871oti.8.1510190892624; Wed, 08
Nov 2017 17:28:12 -0800 (PST)
Path: news.netfront.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!l196no130259itl.0!news-out.google.com!x87ni197ita.0!nntp.google.com!186no134324itu.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 17:28:12 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <otsfd6$77k$1@dont-email.me>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=173.15.38.185;
posting-account=2q6gbAkAAABOirnjaKOh1XLfARAbX4w_
NNTP-Posting-Host: 173.15.38.185
References: <otsfd6$77k$1@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <988b302e-19d2-45e8-9ec4-cea56ccce986@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
From: jgrove24@hotmail.com
Injection-Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2017 01:28:12 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 23
Print Article
Forward Article
On Tuesday, November 7, 2017 at 8:19:21 AM UTC-6, Obveeus wrote:
>
http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/movies/ct-mov-disney-cr...
> 
> 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.

The SoCal critics are always soft on Hollywood films. I have not seen any star-ratings from LA
critics.