Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

LA Times barred from Disney movies after report on corporate welfare

boingboing.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 222 posts

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

#201

Post by Mountain_Skies »

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…

Same thing happens with pro sports teams, especially when it comes to coverage of stadium subsidies. If you want year around free content via access to players and staff, you can't report anything that harms the business side of the operation. So now almost every local media outlet cheerleads for new stadiums and arenas to be paid for by public dollars.

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

#202

Post by jstarfish »

munk-a wrote: post #162
IvyMike wrote: post #17

If I were the LA Times, every Disney movie review would be replaced by text saying "Disney has blacklisted us from early screenings as a retaliation for an article we published on them. When our reviewer has a chance to attend a normal screening we will place the review here, until then, please enjoy this reprint of the original article".

I would also urge the LA Times to consider submitting 1 star reviews to various review aggregators (metacritic/rotten tomatoes) due to being unable to view early screenings. I think the critic industry should stand up to this sort of strong arming. It'd be fitting if the stink of this move clung to their creative productions.

That's the equivalent of people leaving 1-star Amazon reviews of an item they never received. It's juvenile and doesn't help anybody.

The proper response would be to go after Disney even harder. Go after the politicians they puppet. Be as much of a nuisance as they can be until concessions are made.

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

#203

Post by googlryas »

hsod wrote: post #183
oh_sigh wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What effect do you think Russian propaganda and voter suppression had on the black turnout for HRC? And what effect did simply not fielding a historical black candidate have on the enthusiasm to vote among the black population? Also, how does black targeted propaganda and state-wide "voter suppression" laws explain that HRC lost big on the black vote relative to 2012, but Republicans came out equal or perhaps even be…

> despite the media screaming constantly that Trump is racist This stuff is really, really not conducive to good discussion. > Also, how does black targeted propaganda and state-wide "voter suppression" laws explain that HRC lost big on the black vote relative to 2012, but Republicans came out equal or perhaps even better in the black vote A few things here: * Can you cite a source that says Republicans did better in…

Despite having an account for almost 8 years here, I can only post about 1 comment per 12 hours, so here is my response:

Do you think it is an unfair statement? Perhaps I should have said "despite the media frequently asserting that Trump is racist".

> * Can you cite a source that says Republicans did better in the black vote relative to 2012?

I compared the 2016 and 2012 CNN exit polls for this: http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls and http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president/

I know exit polls aren't perfect but the samples are large here and I don't see any reason to expect some kind of pro-Trump or anti-Romney bias in these.

What exactly is the Russian propaganda you're talking about? I've only read about them promoting both sides of contentious issues like BLM

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

#204

Post by gooseus »

rhcom2 wrote: post #197
gooseus wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh man, I'm excited for you, I cried when I got to the end of THoR... you gonna continue with The History of Byzantium or Revolutions Podcast? I find Robin Pierson to be pretty good (THoB), but I find I can't stop listening to Duncan... I'll buy the audio book for Storm Before the Storms just to keep listening.

Oh boy, I had heard of Revolutions but not that he did the history of Byzantium. Looks like I'm sticking with Romans, thanks for the heads up :D

Ah well, Mike doesn't do Byzantium, he started Revolutions instead... Robin Pierson was a podcaster who liked THoR so much that he decided to pickup where Mike left off.

I'm 60ish episodes in and it's pretty good, but not quite the same... Revolutions is pretty much the sameish format with Mike, but different kind of history.

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

#205

Post by TazeTSchnitzel »

oh_sigh wrote: post #178
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Instead, the data shows that Hillary didn't get black voters to turnout in the numbers that Obama did. It also shows voter suppression by Republicans hurt Democratic turnout in critical states (Wisconsin).

Take Wisconsin's 10 EC votes and give them to Clinton and she would still lose. As a side note, I find it interesting how one man's voter suppression laws are another man's voter integrity laws.

“Voter fraud” is just a pretext. It happens at negligible rates whereëver it's been studied, and Republican legislators have actually been caught red-handed conspiring against likely-Democrat demographics, it's not just speculation.

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

#206

Post by WalterBright »

ceejayoz wrote: post #26
porfirium wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Most money offered gets to be president. Didn't seem to work very well for Hillary... (I know this sounds like a cheap shot, but it completely breaks down your argument)

$2B in free media attention helped a bit, I'd imagine. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring-donald-t...

As I recall, that media coverage was almost entirely negative.

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

#207

Post by njarboe »

bovermyer wrote: post #167
hammock wrote: post #93

Seems like everyone is using the comments to throw shade on Disney, but I'd like to praise the LA Times for publishing good reporting under pressure not to. Despite not technically being an independent paper (Are there any anymore?) I have long admired the LA Times as one of, if not the only, US paper left that does what seems like independent journalism and is not afraid to call out stories everyone else is ignoring…

The Minneapolis Star Tribune has a single owner, Glenn Taylor. Source: I work for the Star Tribune.

The Washington Post also has a single owner, Jeff Bezos.

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

#208

Post by Udo_Schmitz »

Udo_Schmitz wrote: post #14

Curious how much headwind this will generate. Other critics and award groups already boycotting Disney screenings in solidarity: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/journalists-boycott-di... https://www.thewrap.com/critics-denounce-disney-blackout-la-...

Well, too much headwind I guess, ban already ended:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/business/disney-la-times....

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

#209

Post by njarboe »

sgift wrote: post #50
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

I risk to devolve this into a flame war, but I think it would be a good idea to wait what Muellers investigation finds with regard to influences on the presidential election, so money spend by third parties to help get someone elected can be attributed to the corresponding campaign.

Seems like this should be a Sputnik moment for the US if the Russian understanding and execution on social networks are so superior to our own that low six figure spending budgets can have any significant influence when hundreds (thousands?) of other entities are spending much more.

Anyone have a good source for an estimate of how much corporations and individuals spent on political advertising last election cycle?

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

#210

Post by gottam »

colemannugent wrote: post #163
JPKab wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No flame war here, but as someone who has friends and family in Appalachia and middle America who voted for Trump, I tire of the "Trump won, and we didn't foresee it, so it must have been Russia tricking stupid, dumb rednecks into voting for him" narrative. I dislike it because if Hillary had won, nobody would be looking into this at all. They would simply accept that in a free republic, policing what people hear is…

As someone who also has friends and family in middle America I honestly believe that the best way to ensure that Trump gets re-elected again in 2020 is maintaining the "only redneck bigots voted for Trump" argument. Roughly half of Americans voted for Trump, to insinuate that they are all bigots is to insult half of the country. Obviously most of the bigots voted for Trump, but they are still a very small minority. T…

Have you seen the left as of late? They have just as many bigots if not more. They're universally completely intolerant that the person they didn't vote for won the election. They also have rather interesting opinions on white people on the country. If that's not bigotry I don't know what is.
Post reply on HN