LA Times barred from Disney movies after report on corporate welfare • Hacker News Board

Re: LA Times barred from Disney movies after report on corporate welfare

#111

Post by shp0ngle » Tue, Nov 07, 2017, 5:58 PM UTC

adamnemecek wrote: post #53

guelo wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Below I've linked a few more. It's a bit of a prisoner's dilemma: whichever media outlets don't participate in the boycott will have a competitive advantage when they put out early reviews, but it hurts all outlets if Disney is able to pull off the intimidation power play. http://flavorwire.com/611229/an-editorial-note-re-disney-and... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act-four/wp/2017/11/06/w... https://www.avclub…

Implying people go out of their way to read Disney movie reviews. People who go see these movies are probably parents with children. Your average 5-yo doesn't make the decision whether or not to see "German fairy tales 5: Snow white harder" based on the review in Hollywood Tribune.

Disney owns Marvel and Star Wars. The have a massive leverage with those.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2017

First, third and fourth most popular movies of 2017 are Disney, and the year is not yet over (Thor, Star Wars).

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2016

First, second, third fifth, seventh and eleventh most popular movie of 2016 are all Disney.

Re: LA Times barred from Disney movies after report on corporate welfare

#112

Post by BearGoesChirp » Tue, Nov 07, 2017, 5:58 PM UTC

mullen wrote: post #33

adamnemecek wrote: post #16

I feel like things like this are a fundamental social problem. How can this be prevented?

Pass a Constitutional amendment that states that corporations are not people. Then start passing laws that restrict the free speech of corporations and then pass more laws stating that money is speech. Then there can be fine tuned laws stating the max that a person can give to a candidate and start forcing all organizations that have anything to do with politics to register and state who is giving them money. Elimina…

I'm a billionaire. I buy a couple local news companies and tell them to run what ever content I want. How do you stop this without limiting free speech of the individual as well?

Re: LA Times barred from Disney movies after report on corporate welfare

#113

Post by anonacct37 » Tue, Nov 07, 2017, 5:58 PM UTC

s73ver_ wrote: post #37

rs999gti wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most money offered gets to be president. But even that doesn't work. In 2016 for the US presidency, Hillary Clinton's campaign had $790M USD versus Donald Trump's $408M USD. She had double the money 'to buy the presidency' and she still lost. https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16

Does that count the amount of free press Trump received during the campaign?

Don't know why you're getting downvoted. Trump was the best thing that ever happened to the media and they didn't stop talking about his antics for the entire election.

He made them alot of money in clicks, and that's what journalism is about.

Ultimate responsibility maybe lies somewhere else, but there's plenty of blame to go around and they emphatically deserve some of it.

Re: LA Times barred from Disney movies after report on corporate welfare

#114

Post by notyourday » Tue, Nov 07, 2017, 5:59 PM UTC

bsder wrote: post #66

michaelt wrote: post #40

This is similar to the tactic used by Harvey Weinstein to discourage newspapers from reporting on rape allegations against him. Journalists that participated in the cover-up got access to his film premieres, parties at award ceremonies, interviews with celebrities and so on. Turns out that was enough to get every entertainment journalist to cover up his crimes for years. Apparently people in Hollywood don't see any p…

> Apparently people in Hollywood don't see any problem with this! I suspect the bigger problem is that there are so few honest people involved in the business that you would have to shut down if you broke off association with everybody doing shady things in Hollywood. While I'm pleased to see Weinstein going down, I keep scratching my head about "We know that there are people in Hollywood doing far worse things. Why…

Hollywood still defends Polanski.

Hollywood still attacks RMG.

Hollywood still defends Ben Afflec.

Hollywood still has not kicked Tarantino/Clooney/Matt Daemon out for covering it up.

Netflix/Amazon/HBO still has not dropped everything that Harvey the Stain makes money off from its catalogs.

House of Cards has been canceled but not pulled.

It is simply posturing.

Re: LA Times barred from Disney movies after report on corporate welfare

#115

Post by barrkel » Tue, Nov 07, 2017, 5:59 PM UTC

_jal wrote: post #9

eduren wrote: post #5

> Disney CEO Bob Iger is said to have ordered the retaliatory measure against the LA Times, and is also thought to be considering a 2020 presidential bid, which augurs poorly for his approach to the free press. Wow, I hadn't heard this was a possibility until now. I sure am looking forward to seeing which of the many {m/b}illionaires ends up winning the presidency in 2020! How about we just cut out the middlemen and…

Let's just start selling the role outright. It would be more efficient, most likely lead to the same result, and avoiding the grating, bullshit horserace coverage for a year would make everyone's live better.

There's a variant of this that's been studied: quadratic voting, but more in the context of corporate governance. It actually can have positive effects.

http://ericposner.com/quadratic-voting/

Re: LA Times barred from Disney movies after report on corporate welfare

#116

Post by r00fus » Tue, Nov 07, 2017, 6:00 PM UTC

michaelt wrote: post #40

This is similar to the tactic used by Harvey Weinstein to discourage newspapers from reporting on rape allegations against him. Journalists that participated in the cover-up got access to his film premieres, parties at award ceremonies, interviews with celebrities and so on. Turns out that was enough to get every entertainment journalist to cover up his crimes for years. Apparently people in Hollywood don't see any p…

It's also the tactic used by the Bush administration to deal with negative reporting... limit their access to white house pressers and the President.

Probably something done a lot in politics.

Re: LA Times barred from Disney movies after report on corporate welfare

#117

Post by chimeracoder » Tue, Nov 07, 2017, 6:01 PM UTC

rs999gti wrote: post #35

eduren wrote: post #5

> Disney CEO Bob Iger is said to have ordered the retaliatory measure against the LA Times, and is also thought to be considering a 2020 presidential bid, which augurs poorly for his approach to the free press. Wow, I hadn't heard this was a possibility until now. I sure am looking forward to seeing which of the many {m/b}illionaires ends up winning the presidency in 2020! How about we just cut out the middlemen and…

> Most money offered gets to be president. But even that doesn't work. In 2016 for the US presidency, Hillary Clinton's campaign had $790M USD versus Donald Trump's $408M USD. She had double the money 'to buy the presidency' and she still lost. https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16

> But even that doesn't work. In 2016 for the US presidency, Hillary Clinton's campaign had $790M USD versus Donald Trump's $408M USD. She had double the money 'to buy the presidency' and she still lost.

In addition, we can look at state-level races to get more data on the effect of campaign spending. It turns out that, after a certain point[0], campaign spending does not correlate very well with campaign success, and in self-funded candidates in particular actually tend to underperform: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/sometimes-money-cant-bu...

[0] ie, obviously your gubernatorial campaign won't get very far if you only have $1000, total. But the difference between $40MM (what Brown spent in his 2010 campaign for governor) and $200MM (what Meg Whitman spent in that same race) is a lot less than people think.

Re: LA Times barred from Disney movies after report on corporate welfare

#118

Post by jandrese » Tue, Nov 07, 2017, 6:02 PM UTC

vostok wrote: post #86

jandrese wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only in official spending. Third parties aren't counted so it's a mostly meaningless measure. All it means is Hillary was worse at hiding the contributions to her campaign.

I'm sure it was a calculated decision rather than incompetence. She would have been burned at the stake long ago if she did anything not entirely above board.

She was burned at the stake politically anyway, I'm not sure how much difference it would have made.

Re: LA Times barred from Disney movies after report on corporate welfare

#119

Post by ConceptJunkie » Tue, Nov 07, 2017, 6:02 PM UTC

eru wrote: post #43

stale2002 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a funny joke, but empirically not true as of this last election. Hillary massively out spent Trump.

Trump had a real genius for getting free media attention (in return for giving the media good numbers of viewers with his antics).

This is what so many people fail to grasp. Trump used some major judo on the media. They thought they were totally trashing him (and they were), but he leveraged the massive negative media attention to his benefit in a way I think the media and Democrats still largely don't understand.

The biggest problem, I think, is that the media still think that people find them objective, when they are trusted at rates comparable to Congress' approval ratings. Trump tapped into this distrust and played the media like a fiddle, and in doing so, he was not only able to win a Republican primary that few people expected, but a general election that even fewer people expected.

Re: LA Times barred from Disney movies after report on corporate welfare

#120

Post by lostlogin » Tue, Nov 07, 2017, 6:03 PM UTC

eru wrote: post #43

stale2002 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a funny joke, but empirically not true as of this last election. Hillary massively out spent Trump.

Trump had a real genius for getting free media attention (in return for giving the media good numbers of viewers with his antics).

It’s been a topic that’s has come up a few times - was it a tactic that was considered, or was it something that just happened and has benefitted him?