Disney shuts off LA Times from advance screenings over Disney business coverage

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

They were from critics organizations. They felt that they were basically attacking a free press by attempting to influence business coverage by punishing a different part of the news organization. Imagine something like ESPN reporters being blocked because of some investigative report by 20/20. Here's how the Boston Critics association stated their case:

http://www.bostonfilmcritics.org/content/disney-year-end-consideration-ban
Nov. 7, 2017 — The members of the Los Angeles Film Critics Association, the New York Film Critics Circle, the Boston Society of Film Critics and the National Society of Film Critics jointly denounce the Walt Disney Company’s media blackout of the Los Angeles Times. Furthermore, all four critics’ organizations have voted to disqualify Disney’s films from year-end awards consideration until said blackout is publicly rescinded.

On Nov. 3, The Times published a statement that its writers and editors had been blocked from attending advance screenings of Disney films, in response to The Times’ news coverage of Disney’s business arrangements with the City of Anaheim. Disney’s actions, which include an indefinite ban on any interaction with The Times, are antithetical to the principles of a free press and set a dangerous precedent in a time of already heightened hostility toward journalists.

It is admittedly extraordinary for a critics’ group, let alone four critics’ groups, to take any action that might penalize film artists for decisions beyond their control. But Disney brought forth this action when it chose to punish The Times’ journalists rather than express its disagreement with a business story via ongoing public discussion. Disney’s response should gravely concern all who believe in the importance of a free press, artists included.​

Freedom of the press doesn't include the right to free advance screenings of movies. It's a perk. Not a right. And if they're so concerned about someone trying to influence the free press, why aren't they concerned about getting free advance screenings when nobody else does? Isn't that in effect trying to influence them?

 

[bcla]

What Disney did wasn't a first amendment violation.

It may not have been a First Amendment violation per se, but it was a bad precedent for a free press - which many parts of Disney need in order to operate. Disney would need to be careful since their divisions are involved in all sorts of investigative reporting similar to that which Disney cited as the reason for blocking the Los Angeles Times. Imagine an unflattering piece on ESPN's E:60 or ABC's 20/20 biting them in the butt when a company decides to freeze out anything Disney/ABC/ESPN. Or perhaps something like NBC/Universal freezing out reporters from ABC and its local TV/radio affiliates out of solidarity.

Disney backed off of this really quickly because they knew it could turn into a war of retribution.

 

[bcla]

Freedom of the press doesn't include the right to free advance screenings of movies. It's a perk. Not a right. And if they're so concerned about someone trying to influence the free press, why aren't they concerned about getting free advance screenings when nobody else does? Isn't that in effect trying to influence them?

It doesn't, but then again ABC and its local affiliates don't have the rights to it either. The system of these screenings works because every legitimate news organization gets in and nobody gets frozen out.

 

[diznygirl]

Proximity to LA is better than not having it. Outside of going to DL, what does one even do in Anaheim? Visit the Nixon library?

It might have been a bedroom community of estate homes. Who knows? It would have developed differently without Disneyland, but it wouldn't be empty. That's just silly.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

'Movie awards' and 'credibility' rarely are seen in the same sentence.

I see the point. The critics already have nothing to lose. It's Disney with more to lose.

 

[bcla]

I see the point. The critics already have nothing to lose. It's Disney with more to lose.

Exactly. Disney was starting to feel the retribution for this ham-handed response. For instance, the Washington Post's pop culture critic stated that she would refuse to attend advanced screenings of Disney films until they reversed this ban on the LA Times.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...st-jedi-or-any-other-disney-movie-in-advance/
But I’m making a seemingly counter-intuitive decision, and I wanted to explain it to all of you in advance. For the foreseeable future, I won’t be going to advance screenings of Disney movies, including films from its subsidiaries Lucasfilm and Marvel, and I won’t be writing about those movies before everyone else can see them in theaters. This pains me, as someone who is extremely excited to see “Star Wars: The Last Jedi” and Marvel’s “Black Panther,” which is directed by Ryan Coogler, one of my favorite directors currently working. But as long as Disney is blocking the critics from the Los Angeles Times from press screenings, I can’t in good conscience attend similar showings or write reviews in advance (the Los Angeles Times news broke after I had been to a press screening of “Thor: Ragnarok,” which is why I reviewed it).​

 

[Pacolovestacos]

It might have been a bedroom community of estate homes. Who knows? It would have developed differently without Disneyland, but it wouldn't be empty. That's just silly.

I haven't seen anyone say it would be empty. Just not as populated as it is now.

 

[bcla]

I haven't seen anyone say it would be empty. Just not as populated as it is now.

It would be difficult to truly know. Housing development certainly got a boost because of Disneyland, but it's hard to say there would be fewer people. Orange County is pretty well developed and I can't really see a lack of Disneyland changing that. I don't see there being a Major League Baseball team, and NFL team, or an NHL team being in Anaheim without Disney's presence.

The type of housing could have been different, but there's no way to know.

 

[bookgirl]

What Disney did wasn't a first amendment violation.

Attempting to punish a paper for expressing an opinion/story is a matter of freedom of the press or at least close enough to blur the line. But since that debate would push into the political I'm going to refrain from the argument.

 

[Pacolovestacos]

Attempting to punish a paper for expressing an opinion/story is a matter of freedom of the press or at least close enough to blur the line.

No, no it doesn't. A private company can do as they please. Just like NFL teams can tell their players to stand during the national anthem and there is no first amendment violation either.

 

[bcla]

Attempting to punish a paper for expressing an opinion/story is a matter of freedom of the press or at least close enough to blur the line. But since that debate would push into the political I'm going to refrain from the argument.

It's not a partisan political discussion - that's for sure. That politicians are involved in the issue at hand is more a matter of the relationship between the City of Anaheim and the Walt Disney Company.

Certainly attempting to muzzle a large, well-respected news organization over its business coverage sets a bad precedent. The Walt Disney Company certainly doesn't want to go through possible retribution towards its own news divisions (including ABC, local ABC affiliates, and ESPN), and they were squarely looking at that.

 

[bcla]

No, no it doesn't. A private company can do as they please. Just like NFL teams can tell their players to stand during the national anthem and there is no first amendment violation either.

There's a distinction between First Amendment issues and freedom of the press. It may not be illegal, but it's bad precedent. It opens one up to retribution in an environment where Disney has divisions that rely on the concept of a free press. Can you imagine what might have happened if ESPN had some scathing article on the business relationship between the Atlanta Braves and Cobb County, and their owner (Liberty Media) retaliated by refusing to screen Disney movies or even drop all Disney-owned channels (Disney Channel, ESPN, ABC, A&E) from its cable lineup?

 

[Pacolovestacos]

There's a distinction between First Amendment issues and freedom of the press. It may not be illegal, but it's bad precedent. It opens one up to retribution in an environment where Disney has divisions that rely on the concept of a free press. Can you imagine what might have happened if ESPN had some scathing article on the business relationship between the Atlanta Braves and Cobb County, and their owner (Liberty Media) retaliated by refusing to screen Disney movies or even drop all Disney-owned channels (Disney Channel, ESPN, ABC, A&E) from its cable lineup?

The initial post I responded to was a post that cited the "first amendment." If people want to move the goalposts, then so be it.

And I'm not saying that Disney is doing the right thing. Only that it's not a first amendment violation, as someone suggested earlier.

 

[bcla]

The initial post I responded to was a post that cited the "first amendment." If people want to move the goalposts, then so be it.

And I'm not saying that Disney is doing the right thing. Only that it's not a first amendment violation, as someone suggested earlier.

Nobody has said it was a First Amendment violation. The only things I've seen was a post claiming to be a First Amendment supporter. The rest of the post wasn't about the First Amendment but about the consequences for such an attack on a free press.

 

[soccerdad72]

The initial post I responded to was a post that cited the "first amendment." If people want to move the goalposts, then so be it.

And I'm not saying that Disney is doing the right thing. Only that it's not a first amendment violation, as someone suggested earlier.

The post you quoted never claimed it was a first amendment violation.

 

[Pacolovestacos]

Nobody has said it was a First Amendment violation. The only things I've seen was a post claiming to be a First Amendment supporter. The rest of the post wasn't about the First Amendment but about the consequences for such an attack on a free press.

They started off their response by saying "I'm a big first amendment supporter." That clearly implies there is a first amendment issue at play otherwise there would be no reason to even state that.

 

[soccerdad72]

They started off their response by saying "I'm a big first amendment supporter." That clearly implies there is a first amendment issue at play otherwise there would be no reason to even state that.

And they concluded with 'it's their right to do so'

 

[bcla]

They started off their response by saying "I'm a big first amendment supporter." That clearly implies there is a first amendment issue at play otherwise there would be no reason to even state that.

You can read the entire post and get the full context.

I am a big 1st Amendment supporter so I think it was the wrong move by Disney and I would have thought less of them as a Brand, however if they had continued the ban it would have been their choice and as long as they were willing to take the consequences they have a right to grant or limit access to their press releases or screenings.​

Where does it say that this is an issue of a 1st Amendment violation? What I get out of it is the premise that the First Amendment is useless if one media organization prevents another from exercising it. That post went on to say that it was Disney's choice but that there might be consequences for it.

Private censorship is related to the First Amendment even if it isn't a violation of it.

 

[Pacolovestacos]

I am a big 1st Amendment supporter so I think it was the wrong move by Disney

Focus on that part. But I've already said it so I don't wish to beat the dead horse any longer.

 

[flatlandcycle]

It's the money Disney sent to the PACs of Disney friendly candidates for city council that gives me pause. At some point, they may get their act together and their candidates might actually win. Reedy Creek is even more perverse; the voting population must be approved by Disney to live there. It's a political ouroboros.