Disney's war with LA Times 'craven, petty' and 'hostile' to journalism
Daisy Ridley as Rey in Disney/Lucasfilm's big holiday ticket, "Star Wars: The Last Jedi." (Lucasfilm/handout)
Michael PhillipsContact ReporterChicago Tribune
If a mouse throws a fit, what does it actually sound like?
Eeek-eeek! That’ll show ya! Take that, ya mugs!
That’s the sound, all right.
I bring up the subject of rodent pique to address the peculiar standoff initiated by Walt Disney Co. against the Los Angeles Times, a sister company of the Chicago Tribune, owned by the media conglomerate known as Tronc.
Disney’s maneuver, targeting the Times for reasons unrelated to its film coverage, seems to me craven and petty. And hostile to the practice, provocation and purpose of journalism — cultural, investigative or otherwise.
In September, the LA Times published an investigative series examining the complex financial ties between Walt Disney Co. and the city of Anaheim. The stories framed the argument that the tax rebates, political clout and civic influence enjoyed by Disneyland Park’s stewards are a swell deal for Disney, but a bum deal for the taxpayers of Anaheim.
Disney hasn’t called for any corrections or clarifications. They just didn’t like the implications of the Times’ coverage. “Complete disregard for basic journalistic standards,” Disney claimed in a statement. Eeek!
As payback, Disney implemented a media blackout of sorts. For story or review purposes, Disney no longer allows Times writers or editors access to advance screenings of their movies, or to movies carrying the Disney-owned Pixar, Lucasfilm or Marvel banners.
If the ban holds, the Times won’t get a look at “Star Wars: The Last Jedi” until all the civilian Jedis in the land do too. That means moviegoers will turn elsewhere to get the early critical word on whether “A Wrinkle in Time” or “Black Panther” or the new “Star Wars” is worthwhile, and why. Or why not.
The ban is why LA Times film critic Justin Chang attended a Thursday night screening of “Thor: Ragnarok” and wrote a review the next morning for Friday midday posting online. This was instead of seeing the film and writing the review earlier in the week, in time for Friday’s print run.
This week critics and columnists around the country have responded to the Times/Disney media blackout in different ways, though all in the same spirit of solidarity with the LA Times.
Washington Post critic at large Alyssa Rosenberg wrote Monday: “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.” She added: “I like a lot of movies that come out of the Disney corporate behemoth … but I like journalistic independence from corporate influence more.”
Rosenberg went on to clarify that she was speaking “only for myself here and not for The Post’s chief film critic, Ann Hornaday, or anyone else at The Post, and The Post has not taken a decision to participate in any boycott.”
Late Monday, Chicago-based film critic A.A. Dowd of The Onion’s A.V. Club called Disney’s screening ban “a purely vindictive response.” Dowd elaborated, “It’s a dangerous precedent that Disney is setting: Write an unfavorable story — one that Disney hasn’t disputed factually, even — and it will blacklist your publication, punishing independent journalism by using its massive corporate influence.”
Monday evening on Twitter, director Ava DuVernay expressed her support: “Saluting the film journalists standing up for one another. Standing with you.” The “Selma” director’s forthcoming adaptation of “A Wrinkle in Time” is a Disney release.
Early Tuesday, four prominent critics’ organizations co-signed a statement of protest directed at Disney. I’m in the National Society of Film Critics; I signed the letter, as did most of my fellow members. The other groups represented: the Los Angeles Film Critics Association, the New York Film Critics Circle and the Boston Society of Film Critics.
All four organizations voted to disqualify Disney’s films from year-end awards consideration until the Disney media blackout regarding the LA Times is revoked.
The letter, in part, reads:
“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.”
In the realm of studio/critic protocol, there was a time when Disney knew the right thing, and did it. Between 2006 and 2010, first opposite Richard Roeper and then The New York TImes’ A.O. Scott, I co-hosted “At the Movies,” the TV institution made famous by Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel. Disney owned the show, and it had nothing to gain, monetarily, from letting anybody sit in front of a camera and talk about the Disney biker comedy “Wild Hogs” in ways that would not please their stockholders.
Unless you consider cancellation of a long-running show retaliation, Disney never retaliated, never interfered. “I was surprised, frankly,” Don DuPree recalled Monday. DuPree was with “At the Movies” for nearly 20 years, eventually as executive producer-director.
“Disney respected the integrity and autonomy of that show,” he said. “Hard to believe.”
So I put it to you, Bob Iger, Disney CEO. On behalf of my colleagues at the LA Times, and all my fellow members of the National Society of Film Critics, why not think twice about this petulant Times screening ban? It makes you guys seem small.
Smaller than a mouse, even.
Michael Phillips is the Chicago Tribune film critic.
mjphillips@chicagotribune.com
Twitter @phillipstribune
The backlash gains momentum:
Biting the hand that feeds
Ava DuVernay is directing Disney's 2018 adaptation of "A Wrinkle in Time", at least for the moment...
Oh no, not the Washington Post! /sneed
In short:
-LA Times points out the disparity of revenue between Disney and Anaheim.
-Disney bans LAT critics from screenings.
-Four critic organizations disqualified Disney from award shows until the ban is lifted.
Who has the most power?
Who needs who more?
Who stands to lose and by how much?
Do people even care about critics anymore outside of virtue signaling opportunities?
Last edited:
