Disney blocks L.A. Times from 'Thor' coverage after Disneyland story

[embracejg]

As a journalist myself, these tactics always confuse me. It reflects poorly on Disney, attracts more attention to the reporting and fires up the newsroom to more intensely cover the company. And it's not like the L.A. Times will go out of business because it couldn't post a review of "Thor: Ragnarok" today.

Here's the L.A. Times note about the situation: http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...imes-note-on-disney-1509668978-htmlstory.html

And here's the L.A. Times piece which angered Disney: http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-disney-anaheim-deals/

Before anyone gets carried away:

• I never said Disney didn't have the right to do this. I only questioned what it would achieve
• None of my comments are making a political statement

 

[TheMaxRebo]

I am surprised to - the risk doesn't seem worth the potential reward

I guess the hope is that they will change their ways in the future

But in the end just comes off like a pissing contest

 

[dlavender]

As a journalist myself, these tactics always confuse me. It reflects poorly on Disney, attracts more attention to the reporting and fires up the newsroom to more intensely cover the company. And it's not like the L.A. Times will go out of business because it couldn't post a review of "Thor: Ragnarok" today.

Here's the L.A. Times note about the situation: http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...imes-note-on-disney-1509668978-htmlstory.html

And here's the L.A. Times piece which angered Disney: http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-disney-anaheim-deals/

Before anyone gets carried away:

• I never said Disney didn't have the right to do this. I only questioned what it would achieve
• None of my comments are making a political statement

While I'll admit I think the LA Times piece was a bit of a hit job, I agree with your points.

Why bring more attention to it, and almost make them out to be a Martyr?

 

[embracejg]

I am surprised to - the risk doesn't seem worth the potential reward

I guess the hope is that they will change their ways in the future

But in the end just comes off like a pissing contest

If the goal is to get a major newspaper to "change their ways," that's just not going to happen. Its credibility would be hurt if it were seen to back off reporting about a company over not being allowed privileged press access.

 

[TheMaxRebo]

If the goal is to get a major newspaper to "change their ways," that's just not going to happen. Its credibility would be hurt if it were seen to back off reporting about a company over not being allowed privileged press access.

not necessarily changing their ways but may ease off a bit or at least not be as bold

Like in sports during a playoff series when after a game the coach will complain to the media that his star player isn't getting the right foul calls or whatever, and then often the next game you notice calls are being done differently a bit (be it conscious or unconscious)

I don't know - only thing I can think of

 

[HopperFan]

Honestly, does it even matter? Do that many people even read newspaper reviews of movies when there are so many online prominent reviewers like Rotten Tomatoes? I think not.

Disney is letting them know how they feel about what they wrote, LA Times complaining is letting us know how they feel about being excluded - and I would venture most don't care one way or another about either one. Everyone will have forgotten by next week.

 

[rteetz]

Honestly, does it even matter? Do that many people even read newspaper reviews of movies when there are so many online prominent reviewers like Rotten Tomatoes? I think not.

Disney is letting them know how they feel about what they wrote, LA Times complaining is letting us know how they feel about being excluded - and I would venture most don't care one way or another about either one. Everyone will have forgotten by next week.

I think the story here isn’t necessarily that Disney blocked them but that they feel the stories they’ve put out are unfair. It’s well known Anaheim and Disney aren’t exactly getting along right now. These stories showcase that. I think Disney and Anaheim’s relationship is the real story here.

 

[embracejg]

I think the story here isn’t necessarily that Disney blocked them but that they feel the stories they’ve put out are unfair. It’s well known Anaheim and Disney aren’t exactly getting along right now. These stories showcase that. I think Disney and Anaheim’s relationship is the real story here.

And speaking from experience as a journalist, a subject in a story thinking it was "unfair" is usually code for "Oh crap, we didn't want people to know about this because what happened reflects poorly on us."

For the newspaper, its going to spotlight the exclusion because A) There are a few people who read those reviews and may wonder where it is and B) It shows the story had an impact.

 

[umichigan10]

I feel like Anaheim kinda forgets who put them on the map. Much like what WDW did for orlando, Disneyland does for Anaheim. I’m not saying that means Disney should be allowed to do everything and anything, but also the city should remember why they’re a destination to begin with

 

[umichigan10]

Also would like to add what many have said that this is a bad look for Disney all around

 

[lockedoutlogic]

...petty, but not surprising...

...carry on

 

[Grom]

And speaking from experience as a journalist, a subject in a story thinking it was "unfair" is usually code for "Oh crap, we didn't want people to know about this because what happened reflects poorly on us."

For the newspaper, its going to spotlight the exclusion because A) There are a few people who read those reviews and may wonder where it is and B) It shows the story had an impact.

Agree with all three points you've made. It would be "unfair" if Anaheim was an LA Times advertiser (while Disney was NOT) and Anaheim had leveraged their ad dollars to influence reporting.
In truth, I'd guess Disney is actually the advertiser and the Times reporting was truthful in the face of advertiser backlash.

I'd also guess this board may be prone to pro-Disney bias but I'm new here FWIW.

 

[bluehen]

All Disney did was put a big bright arrow pointing at the story. I am on the East Coast so had no idea there was a story in the LA Rimes. I have now read it

 

[writerguyfl]

I feel like Anaheim kinda forgets who put them on the map. Much like what WDW did for orlando, Disneyland does for Anaheim. I’m not saying that means Disney should be allowed to do everything and anything, but also the city should remember why they’re a destination to begin with

I grew up in a (multiple) college town. The reason people across the country and world know the name is because of those colleges. But, even without those colleges, the town would still exist. The difference would be that people outside the local region wouldn't have heard of it. Being "known" doesn't really change much. The functions of local government would be in place.

Obviously, Anaheim's tax base would be much smaller without Disney. But as you said, that's doesn't mean Disney gets a free pass to do whatever they want.

My extended family still lives in my home town. Whenever the local colleges try to use their clout, it becomes a heated situation. There's a fine line between acknowledging the importance of a large local company (be it Disney, colleges, or some other employer) and avoiding being taken advantage of by that company. No matter what you do, someone is going to be upset.

 

[embracejg]

Critics from the Washington Post, Boston Globe and AV Club have now said they will no longer attend advance Disney screenings as long as the L.A. Times has been banned: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/journalists-boycott-disney-films-la-times-snub-1055338

 

[LSLS]

not necessarily changing their ways but may ease off a bit or at least not be as bold

Like in sports during a playoff series when after a game the coach will complain to the media that his star player isn't getting the right foul calls or whatever, and then often the next game you notice calls are being done differently a bit (be it conscious or unconscious)

I don't know - only thing I can think of

See I think of when a sports team bans a sports journalist from their arena because they don't like the coverage (happened with the Isles a while ago). Basically that journalist gets a TON more hits on their pieces, and other journalists rally around them. But I agree, can't figure out why they would do this. All they are doing is giving the Times more credit and getting more people to pay attention. As was stated before, people aren't reading the paper for movie reviews, but I bet a lot more do now, and I bet a LOT more go and find the article that made Disney want to be so petty.

 

[maltdizzy]

Honestly, does it even matter? Do that many people even read newspaper reviews of movies when there are so many online prominent reviewers like Rotten Tomatoes? I think not.

Rotten Tomatoes doesn't review movies, there are a review aggregator, it's "fresh score" is calculated priority from established newspaper/print critics, whose content it reprints. It also reprints the reviews from less established online critics and from audience members, but they aren't calculated into the "fresh" score.

Disney has nothing to gain politically in O.C. and Ca. by coming across as petty. It's helping a local story (hatchet job or not) go viral.

 

[HopperFan]

Rotten Tomatoes doesn't review movies, there are a review aggregator, it's "fresh score" is calculated priority from established newspaper/print critics, whose content it reprints. It also reprints the reviews from less established online critics and from audience members, but they aren't calculated into the "fresh" score.

Disney has nothing to gain politically in O.C. and Ca. by coming across as petty. It's helping a local story (hatchet job or not) go viral.

My point is nobody is picking up their newspaper to read a movie review. They are looking to free online/internet sources. Newspapers are dying and even though they are all working the online angle, the thought that the general public is paying then logging in, going to a newspaper movie review page to decide whether or not to see a movie is .... not believable.

Petty, fine, but really who cares? No different than any other media squabble, network finger pointing, he said/she said. They both have support in their points of view in the situation .......... they both will continue to have their bases and I just think it's another blip in the eye rolling news out there. And honestly let those other companies be no shows, there are plenty in line behind them.

So a movie company doesn't give a newspaper a preview ticket ......... it is so unimportant in this world, and I think everyone is getting upset over a stupid squabble. While the story has gone viral, am sure there are plenty of folks rolling their eyes, seeing it as two children fighting and moving on to worry about real problems.

 

[embracejg]

See I think of when a sports team bans a sports journalist from their arena because they don't like the coverage (happened with the Isles a while ago). Basically that journalist gets a TON more hits on their pieces, and other journalists rally around them. But I agree, can't figure out why they would do this. All they are doing is giving the Times more credit and getting more people to pay attention. As was stated before, people aren't reading the paper for movie reviews, but I bet a lot more do now, and I bet a LOT more go and find the article that made Disney want to be so petty.

Other journalists rallying around them usually causes the organization to back off these tactics. If some reporter who is regularly on a beat were told they couldn't ask answers at a press conference, for example, I'd raise my hand and then either ask that reporter's question for them or cede my time to that reporter.

So the reaction to these tactics are predictable and don't help Disney. The company should've known how this would go.

 

[Grom]

Critics from the Washington Post, Boston Globe and AV Club have now said they will no longer attend advance Disney screenings as long as the L.A. Times has been banned: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/journalists-boycott-disney-films-la-times-snub-1055338

I’m typically critical of Jeff Bezos & WP but can’t blame them for showing solidarity with LATimes as well as Boston Globe. Disney’s manipulation of elections and buying their own candidates into office is unsurprisingly corrupt behavior.
Seems like a PR fail for Disney to draw more attention to their own misconduct by banning a news agency for reporting and investigation.