Michael Eisner wrote this letter to the NY Times in response to their editorial slamming Disney for not distributing Moore's new movie:
Link to letter on NY Times website
Quote:
To the Editor:
You accuse the Walt Disney Company of cowardice and censorship because of its decision a year ago not to distribute Michael Moore's film "Fahrenheit 9/11" (editorial, May 6). In fact, the cowardly thing would have been to be intimidated into distributing the film. We did not block its distribution. There are many avenues for Mr. Moore to pursue to get his film distributed.
Your accusations of stifling free expression are misplaced. The First Amendment does not say that The New York Times must print every article presented to it or that the Walt Disney Company must distribute every movie. If a government entity had blocked Mr. Moore's film from being released, that would have violated the First Amendment, and we would have quickly signed up to join any protest.
In the case of "Fahrenheit 9/11," we chose a path that was right for the company and its stakeholders.
The creation of intellectual product rises and falls on similar judgments by creative people and executives across America. We would hope that The Times would recognize that the Walt Disney Company has the same right of freedom of expression that it is advocating for Mr. Moore.
MICHAEL D. EISNER
Chief Exec., Walt Disney Company
Burbank, Calif., May 7, 2004
|
I think Eisner has a good point - that distributing this movie would amount to making a statement, and Disney has a right to determine which statements they wish to make. If Moore's new movie doesn't fit with that plan, so be it. He specifically says that there are other avenues for Moore to get his film distributed. So... Go to it. But based on the fact that they are open to Moore finding other distribution channels and that Moore knew about this before, I'd call it a publicity stunt. My only remaining question is, why did Miramax agree to produce the film in the first place?