Quote:
Originally posted by hammer4all
Look, there is a clear double standard here: It's perfectly alright for Disney to run 3 hours of Rush Limbaugh followed by 3 hours of Sean Hannity, but as soon as we're talking about something left-wing that's "bad business." The fact that you would attribute lift-wing to Stephanopoulos just shows what progressives like me are up against. Btw, I didn't mention this last time, but your own link shows that Eisner and Disney donate about as much to Republicans as they do Democrats. So I wish you would stop implying that the money only flows one direction.
|
Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh are good business because they make oodles of money for Disney and don't cause boycotts or excessive damage to Disney's reputation. The public at large simply doesn't associate Disney with Rush Limbaugh, even if they should. If you'd like to change that, organize a protest, boycott Disney and its advertisers, and cost them more than they gain from airing Hannity/Limbaugh. Rush will be gone faster than you can say "prescription painkillers."
Or, go listen to Air America or Democracy Now and buy absolutely everything they advertise. In time, they'll make enough money to finance and distribute any movie you desire.
Moore is bad business because the Christian right is effective at organizing boycotts, e.g. the Dixie Chicks. A boycott of Disney's film, television, entertainment, and amusement industries is far more costly than the potential profits from Moore's movie. Eisner, who is fresh off a bitter internal power struggle and a hostile takeover attempt by Comcast, is understandably risk averse. The rewards of backing Moore simply don't outweigh the potential risks. Risk vs. rewards, basic finance.
I pointed out Stephanopoulos because he is a former member of Democratic administration, which some would assume makes Disney guilty of liberal bias by association. Personally, I don't, which is the primary tenet of my argument. Whether he is progressive enough for you is immaterial to the discussion. However, the fact that you and FAIR call Stossel a conservative shows you what libertarians are up against.
My link to the non-partisan
Center for Public Integrity (as opposed to your link to the partisan FAIR), shows that Eisner has a preference towards donating to Democrats, particularly when it comes to Senators and Presidential candidates. Like any responsible investor, he donates some money to Republicans in order to hedge his influence portfolio. Harvey Weinstein donates exclusively to Democrats.
The point of my argument is that Disney's decision not to distribute Moore's film is likely economic, not ideological. Disney isn't blocking distribution, it's simply choosing not to distribute it themselves. Moore has seized the opportunity to publicize his movie (right before Cannes) and launch a bidding war for its distribution. It's a far simpler explanation which doesn't require Arab investors or tax breaks, just a realization that Disney likes money and Moore likes publicity.