Disney’s Vindictive LA Times Ban Prompts Critics and Media Boycotts

Someone learned about The Streisand Effect from the thread covering this on Reddit.

 

1. I don't read Reddit.

2. I was actually on the internet when the original event happened. I'm old.

 

Clearly you learned it from my comment in yesterday's Taylor Swift thread.

But seriously, what is it with tonedeaf megabrands over the last few days? This is decidedly not a new phenomenon, and any decisionmaker who doesn't see the backlash/amplification coming from a mile away doesn't deserve to keep their post.

 

2017 seems to be the year people think there are no consequences for shitty behavior. I've got a guess what cause that. Hah.

 

This is such a bizarre story. The LA Times is my local paper and does a ton of great reporting, like you guys said I can't believe Disney didn't realize what a huge backlash they'd get for doing this.

 

I learned about it from Atlanta. Did you ever watch that show?

 

Nope.

 

Not a Glover fan?

 

disney pulling absolutely scummy shit lately

'The Last Jedi' Disney deal is squeezing theaters more than ever

 

A pretty good argument on why Disney did what they did, even though it's all over now.

What they seem to be doing to theatres over Star Wars though seems so terrible. Their movies make the most money from theaters so I don't get why they'd want to hurt them.

 

Just haven’t had time.

 

Good news! https://www.avclub.com/amid-pressure-from-critics-disney-ends-its-ban-on-the-1820227467

 

Good.

 

good. fuck Disney for thinking that was acceptable.

 

I somewhat agree with this sentiment but I am interested in the original article that prompted Disney to blacklist them (trying to find and read that now). If a journalist/journalistic entity can objectively be found to be spreading falsehoods against a company, why should that company refrain from pushing back? I am not saying that's the case here, but I am trying to understand your point and how much you understand of the situation (while admitting I don't know all of it). and would apply this attitude to future cases There's a difference between not liking something that's factually correct and not liking something because it's a damaging falsehood.

 

well, that hypothetical doesn't apply here, as you said. even if that were the case, i'd argue pursuing a libel suit would be preferable to blacklisting. but certainly in this case - the LA Times had posted an investigative report of Disney's tax deals associated with their CA Disneyland, which did not receive any corrections from Disney - it's naked pressure for the paper to bend to them.