charms

Disney does whatever makes them money. If they released Moore's film, there is a substantial risk of protests and boycotts by the right-wing, particularly in what is already a highly-charged election year. A few years ago, the Southern Baptist Convention began a much publicized boycott of Disney for its policy towards homosexuals. Why would Disney, who sells happy, wholesome, all-American, family schmaltz, put their name on a product that will likely be labeled un-American by the right wing? It's bad business.

We can sit here and play endless rhetorical frisbee with examples of right-wing and left-wing associations, but guilt by association ultimately falls short of conclusive. Do they employ John Stossel? Sure, they also employ George Stephanopoulos. Incidentally, Stossel is more accurately described as a libertarian than a conservative.

Do they have Saudi investors? Sure, they also have Jewish investors, Democrat investors, Republican investors, Christian investors,.... We can concoct any guilt by association theory we want. Eisner donates money to Democrats. What's that prove? Nothing.

If Eisner didn't want Michael Moore to make a movie, he wouldn't have helped finance it in the first place. The decision not to distribute allows Disney/Miramax to make lots of money from the sale of the distribution rights, generate lots of publicity, yet still maintain enough insulation to protect the Disney brand. It's called hedging your portfolio.