Is The Zone Flooding Again?

Could it be that with its coverage of the "outrage" surrounding Disney's suppression of the new Michael Moore film, the NY Times is embarking on a new crusade reminiscent of its attempt to integrate Augusta National?

The Times front-paged this "story" on May 5 in a story ominously titled "Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush"; astute observers mocked this as a publicity stunt and pointed out that, scary headline notwithstanding, Disney was not forbidding Moore to find another distributor.

Since then, the Times has a follow-up story ("Disney Takes Heat on Blocking Bush Film", an editorial titled "Disney's Craven Behavior, and four Letters to the Editor, each less convincing than the last, and all supporting the Times (we pummel them in the extended excerpts, and I know there were dissenting letters, but they censored me!).

As a benchmark for sensible coverage, we might assume that the LA Times tales an interest in the film business. They have had one story, which followed the original NY Times report. The LA Times devotes a lot more ink to the absurdity of the claim by Moore's agent that it was all about tax breaks, and airs the notion that this is a publicity stunt (Moore denies it, surprising us with the news that "I don't need publicity for people to go see my movies".

The LA Times also runs one editorial, noting a concern with media giants stifling alternative views, but emphasizing that "you might wonder whether Disney and Moore himself are really crying all the way to the bank. Both sides benefit from the decision. Moore gets to pound the anti-corporate drum and receives gobs of free publicity, while Disney placates conservatives outraged by its original backing of the film."

More common sense can be found from Michelle Cottle at the New Republic.

So what is with the NY Times? They must know that their position is nonsensical, and that they are being played. Some guesses - Harvey Weinstein of Miramax is much bigger in New York City that Michael Eisner. The Times tells us that Miramax has retained a former top strategist for Hillary!, so that may induce a bit of sympathy from the Timesmen (and women). Maybe the Times doesn't like Bush, maybe they hate ABC News, maybe they have it in for Eisner... what big-time Hollywood guy would know?

And the Times likes to hear from its readers! Try "Letters@NYTimes.com".

UPDATE: They didn't print my letter, but the did print Michael Eisner's response.

UPDATE II: TIME magazine ignores the Florida tax break angle, but concludes by noting the free publicity benefits. The LA Times runs a piece by Kay Hymowitz of the Manhattan Institute titled "If It's Moore, It's Less Than Honest", which addresses a few of Mr. Moore's factual shortcomings. If Ms. Hymowitz is based in Manhattan, why didn't she submit this column to the NY Times? Or is it possible that they "censored" it?

Finally, the NY Times re-enters the fray with a Monday article in their Business Section about the relationship between Michael Eisner and Harvey Weinstein titled "Just When the Ice Was Beginning to Break". This article does mention that Disney's stated reason for rejecting the film is a desire to avoid being associated with a partisan Bush-basher; it does not mention either the "Florida tax breaks" or the "publicity stunt" theory. "All the News That Fits Our Story".

So Who's Afraid of Michael Moore? (4 Letters)

To the Editor:

Re "Disney Takes Heat on Blocking Bush Film" (news article, May 6):

When the country is caught up in concern about the Iraqi prisoner abuse, will the public and official Washington ignore the fear of political extortion the Walt Disney Company felt about releasing the new Michael Moore film, which links the Bush family with prominent Saudis, including the family of Osama bin Laden?

If the fear of losing tax breaks can stop the release of a motion picture critical of the president, the public will have an even greater reason to be concerned.

CARTER TOMASSI
Berkeley, Calif., May 6, 2004

Hook, line, and tax breaks.

•

To the Editor:

Re "Disney's Craven Behavior" (editorial, May 6):

So Michael D. Eisner, the chief executive of the Walt Disney Company, is worried about jeopardizing tax breaks the company is granted in Florida.

Does Mr. Eisner feel that Gov. Jeb Bush, despite all of Florida's more pressing issues, would somehow manage to recklessly, suddenly and maliciously waste Florida's taxpayer dollars or shamelessly use the Florida Legislature as a means of personal revenge?

It's hard to determine whom Mr. Eisner is displaying more contempt toward: Governor Bush, Floridians or proponents of free speech.

ABIGAIL MOUAT
Gainesville, Fla., May 6, 2004

Interestingly, the writer correctly notes the abusrdity of the "tax break" charge, then bounds off in the wrong direction.

To the Editor:

A May 5 front-page article says that a senior Walt Disney Company executive, when asked why the company was forbidding the distribution of Michael Moore's film, explained: "It's not in the interest of any major corporation to be dragged into a highly charged partisan political battle."

The executive is right, of course. Large corporations do not want to foster vigorous public debate.

Given that large corporations dominate the media, this admission should give us pause.

LINDSAY BEYERSTEIN
Brooklyn, May 6, 2004

OK, I will pause long enough to note tham nay, many media live quite happily in their niche - the NRO and TAP come to mind. The notion that Michael Moore can not find a Hollywood distributor for a Bush-basher is ludicrous. OTOH, if the NRA tried to do a pro-gun documentary, would anyone in Hollywood touch it? Would the NY Times moan about corporate censorship? Will I quit with the rhetorical questions, already?

To the Editor:

As an owner of Disney stock, I believe that the company has no business being the arbiter of political correctness.

Its only question should be: Will Michael Moore's film "Fahrenheit 9/11" make money for the company and the stockholders?

Given Mr. Moore's track record, the answer is clearly "yes."

ERIC MARGOLIS
Tempe, Ariz., May 5, 2004

Close, but wrong - The film will surely be profitable; whether Disney Corp. as a whole will make money after the boycotts and Red-state stay-aways is a business judgement probably better made by someone who knows the business.

And my question - did the Times really not get any letters pointing out the absurdity of their position (other than my evidently censored one, of course).

Comments

[old maltese]

I think it's the eyeglasses they use -- filters out every lead that has no built-in anti-Bush slant. Wonkette posits that the Times editorial board showed up to heckle Rumsfeld in
Congress today. (Regarding Augusta, I hope you're being ironic with 'integrate' -- it was a matter of sex, not race.)

[TM]

Re: "integrate" - I did pause briefly at the word choice, and felt a bit of brain freeze coming on - don't we speak of sexually integrating something, a college, for example? Or, when a college goes co-ed, what is the word for that?

I'm blanking.

[old maltese]

'Or, when a college goes co-ed, what is the word for that?'

Trouble. :•)

[TM]

LOL. But my vocabulary remains in intensive care.

[John Thacker]

"integrate" is appropriate, I think.

I wonder if Eric Margolis, as a Disney investor, is equally annoyed at Disney for not taking a sure profit opportunity in distributing Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ." I'm sure that the Times found it equally horrible that such a successful movie was refused distribution by major studios, and had to be self-released.

[Crank]

The telltale sign of a biased piece on Moore is when they refer to Disney "prohibiting" or "blocking" distribution of the film or some such, implying that they are preventing anyone from distributing it. Miramax is a subsidiary; a fair and accurate statement would simply be that Disney is refusing to distribute the film (note the difference in approach when it's a Halliburton subsidiary, where all acts are referred to as those of the parent or at best "a Halliburton subsidiary").