Disney -vs- MJ

Vonderbach · Post by **Vonderbach** » Feb Fri 18, 2005 3:01 pm

Before I begin, let me first say that there should be no presumption of guilt or innocence regarding Michael Jackson. Until the verdict is read, I believe in keeping an open mind. Let's not muddle this with opinions in that regard.

My question is this, do you think that ABC (owned by Disney) has behaved inappropriately by airing MJ slash pieces such as the recent Martin Bashir documentaries? Consider for a moment that MJ was once a massive entertainment draw to Epcot and the other parks. MJ was featured in Disney ads and memorabilia to a large extent. In the end, MJ created huge profits for Disney, and now he's being regarded as the tabloid darling for ABC.

Has ABC crossed the line?

Mike Pinocchio · Post by **Mike Pinocchio** » Feb Sat 19, 2005 3:10 am

Um, no. While I don't care at all for the media's obsession with digging into celebrities' personal lives, I have more of a problem with news outlets choosing what and what not to report based on their corporate connections.

Vonderbach · Post by **Vonderbach** » Feb Sat 19, 2005 6:51 am

I believe you have misunderstood my question. The documentaries in question are not news, they are primetime documentaries. In other words, these are shows dedicated to airing "a biased and slanted opinion" which is contrary to what news should be. I agree with your sentiment, unfortunately it does not apply here.

Now that you have clarification, how do you feel?

QuickGold · Post by **QuickGold** » Feb Sat 19, 2005 11:31 am

It's just an attempt to garner viewers. I don't think Disney has any MO against Jackson. They just know Jackson pieces are popular and bring in alot of viewers.

G2-4T · Post by **G2-4T** » Feb Sat 19, 2005 11:42 am

QuickGold wrote:It's just an attempt to garner viewers. I don't think Disney has any MO against Jackson. They just know Jackson pieces are popular and bring in alot of viewers.

It all goes back to the all-powerful money and ratings - it is what people want to watch so they air it.

QuickGold · Post by **QuickGold** » Feb Sun 20, 2005 9:48 am

G2-4T wrote:
QuickGold wrote:It's just an attempt to garner viewers. I don't think Disney has any MO against Jackson. They just know Jackson pieces are popular and bring in alot of viewers.
It all goes back to the all-powerful money and ratings - it is what people want to watch so they air it.

Exactly

mickster68 · Post by **mickster68** » Feb Sun 20, 2005 7:42 pm

True, it's all about the ratings and the almighty dollar--then I suppose you could say MJ continues to make money for Disney, eh?

Mike Pinocchio · Post by **Mike Pinocchio** » Feb Mon 21, 2005 3:37 am

Disney's got their finger in so many pies, I swear they make ¢5 every time a bear takes a dump in the woods.

Vonderbach wrote:I believe you have misunderstood my question. The documentaries in question are not news, they are primetime documentaries. In other words, these are shows dedicated to airing "a biased and slanted opinion" which is contrary to what news should be. I agree with your sentiment, unfortunately it does not apply here.

Now that you have clarification, how do you feel?

My opinion still stands. Even though it's not "news" in the traditional sense, it's still the media, and I don't like the idea of censorship or special privileges for select people based on business connections. Even if it is tabloid fodder we're talking about.

Vonderbach · Post by **Vonderbach** » Feb Mon 21, 2005 6:30 am

You don't like the idea of a corporation making a choice based on personal considerations versus profits? It's not as if they decided to omit information from their news broadcast. I said nothing of censorship, as that would be interference from an outside force. I am speaking specifically of Disney's own decision to air such media.

But I don't want to get stuck on semantics here, I see where you're coming from.

Mike Pinocchio · Post by **Mike Pinocchio** » Feb Mon 21, 2005 7:17 pm

Sorry, I should have specified that it's self-censorship we're talking about here which, to me, is just as bad as - if not worse than - the state-sponsored kind. And don't get me wrong - I would love it if corporations were to make more decisions based on personal reasons. But it seems to me that in this case it would be more a case of favouritism if they were to show Jackson any special treatment.

For example, imagine if Michael Eisner got caught in some sort of Thai prostitution bust and somebody came to ABC with the information, but they decided not to air it out of consideration for everything Eisner's done for Disney. People would be understandably annoyed if they found out about it.

wallerman8 · Post by **wallerman8** » Feb Fri 25, 2005 5:25 pm

No I do not agree with it. Like you said Disney made a lot of money off of MJ. Still to this day a lot of people still see a conection between him and Disney. Besides like you said about keeping an open mind----He is innocent till proven guilty. So yes it is wrong (wether the money is there or not) for Disney to do this cause in a way it makes them look "Bad" to.(not to use a bad pun)

Fantasrick · Post by **Fantasrick** » Apr Fri 22, 2005 8:53 pm

ABC's primary concern is ratings. That's how they can charge more for their sponsor's commercials. They have no interest in a defunct EPCOT attraction that has been replaced long before any of the current controversy. True, the first allegations in 1993 may have contributed to the removal of Captain EO, but with the way Disney replaces attractions, they can easily claim that the capt. eo ride was dated giving them cause to replace it. The fact that there were allegations of molestation were just part of the catalyst for the removal of Captain EO anyhow. Besides, does anyone else feel that Captain EO was pretty lame anyhow? I thought it sucked and I would much rather see Honey I shrunk the Audience, hell, I even liked Magic Journeys.

AKLRULZ · Post by **AKLRULZ** » Apr Sat 23, 2005 3:22 pm

I agree that it is all about ratings -- if people didn't watch they wouldn't air these programs. Kinda a sad state of affairs we live in.

kgmadorin · Post by **kgmadorin** » Apr Mon 25, 2005 9:48 am

AKLRULZ wrote:I agree that it is all about ratings -- if people didn't watch they wouldn't air these programs. Kinda a sad state of affairs we live in.

That's what it comes down to. If you don't like it, if you don't agree with ABC, then stop watching that channel. Tell your friends to stop watching that channel, write a letter... do whatever you think should be done. If enough people agree with you and enough pressure is put on ABC, changes will be made. That's the way it is with any business.

AlexLoup · Post by **AlexLoup** » May Mon 02, 2005 1:09 am

Wait... my ABC station has never showed stuff like that. Or maybe they have and I don't care.

Anyway... I hate to say it pal but he has connection to other places and they use him as a poking stick. Some people on the good morning shows (not just ABC) treat it like he is gulity anyway.

Not being mean or anything

Subsonic Radio

Disney -vs- MJ

Disney -vs- MJ

MJ -v- Disney

MJ