The New York Post cherry picks a few quotes today to imply that Disney CEO Bob Iger isn't happy about going to battle with Ron DeSantis in Florida:
“The last thing I want is for the company to be drawn into any culture wars,” he told CNBC of Disney’s First Amendment case against DeSantis that was filed in April, which has since escalated into a row of warring lawsuits.
“I’m not sure that was handled very well,” Iger told CNBC of Disney’s response to DeSantis’ hotly-debated legislation that has been branded by critics as “Don’t Say Gay,” which was signed into law in March of 2022.
Over at National Review, Brendan Michael Dougherty takes it a step or three further:
Disney CEO: DeSantis Beat Us
What we should not be hearing after today are arguments that Disney won the battle with DeSantis. Disney is telling us, plain as day: This fight was a loss and should never have been fought at all.
I wouldn't have given this another thought if I hadn't run into a Politico headline and story about Iger's interview:
Disney CEO responds to DeSantis: ‘Preposterous’ that company is sexualizing kids
Disney CEO Bob Iger hit back at Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Thursday for starting a highly dramatized public fight against the entertainment giant....He also gave a full-throated endorsement of Disney’s ongoing lawsuit against the Florida governor, in which the California-based company accuses DeSantis of weaponizing his political power.
....“It’s concerning to me that anyone would encourage a level of intolerance or even hate that frankly could even become dangerous action. The notion that Disney is in any way sexualizing children, quite frankly, is preposterous and inaccurate,” Iger added.
....“Frankly, the company was within its right — even though I’m not sure it was handled very well — was within its right to speak up on an issue, constitutionally protected right of free speech,” Iger said Thursday. “To retaliate against the company in a way that would be harmful to the business was not something we could sit back and tolerate.”
I realize that this should probably be filed under "Who cares?" but for some reason it struck me as an especially egregious example of the intense desire so many people have to misrepresent things even when they're easily checkable. Hell, the Iger interview was on CNBC. Lots of people saw it, and it's obvious that Iger wasn't backing down, wasn't saying Disney had lost, and wasn't claiming they never should have fought back. He was saying exactly the opposite. What's the point of pretending otherwise?
"What's the point of pretending otherwise?"
Clickbait
This is a really good answer, though it also asks the same question just at another level: Why do so many people want to read articles about, for instance, Disney losing to DeSantis, which turn out to be misrepresenting facts wholesale.
I think it's because they are very insecure about their worldview. They see it as under assault and want to be reassured that they aren't wrong, and they aren't losing.
However, they are losing. We've seen a recent surge in people identifying as evangelical lately, but that's very modest in comparison with a very long trend of decline in that area.
We see same-sex marriage polling very high. I'm expecting trans acceptance to continue to gain ground, as people learn more about trans people.
And so on. The world is changing, but the people who don't like that want to be told that everything is ok, that makes them feel better, at least for a little while.
You're overthinking. Clickbait doesn't care about shaping reader worldview. That's so 1960s. Clickbait only cares what readers want to see and the form in which to deliver it.
Sad.
I agree with you about why the NY Post and National Review are, um, misrepresenting the story, but that wasn't the question Doctor Jay was asking. The question is, *why* do these alleged news outlets think that slanting the facts in this particular direction will draw and retain readers? Dr. Jay makes a strong argument for one very plausible explanation.
Thanks. You're exactly right as far as what I was trying to point at.
Look at the source - New York Post and the National Review. They lie for a living. And they know their readers will never fact check them.
Who cares? People who are interested in the truth. That leaves the entire Republican party out. Especially the MAGA nuts. Some day maybe the truth will mean something to most Americans.
Working part-time, I bring in more than $13,400 every month. I made the decision to research it after hearing a lot of people talk about how much money they could make online. All of it was real, and it completely 10 altered my life. You can read this article for
additional information…. https://needpeopleNYC.blogspot.com
Someone doesn't understand that people frequently act in bad faith intentionally
He understands it. The "engagement hooks" have been a bit weak lately.
But just to make it explicit, the game is the same one it always has been: if you get enough parrots shouting the same thing, you can "make your own reality". Long enough to run a bust out, at least.
If anyone is doubts this or thinks I'm speaking metaphorically, read up on how the Oklahoma Massacre of 1921 was ginned up, or look at lesser race riots and lynchings. It is the exact same mechanism - lie people into a combination of existential fear and bloodlust, and then light a match.
“What's the point of pretending otherwise?“
It’s clickbait only in the sense of National Review readers won’t come back if National Review doesn’t print what they want to read.
My 2 cents is it’s solely to mislead. To build up DeSantis.
It’s the Rush Limbaugh business model and it’s been the go to model for decades.
This, I think. They've got a brand, and the brand includes a narrative about DeSantis, so that's what they print if there's ANY way to print it (and there usually is).
The unfortunate thing is, this is becoming the standard model of "journalism." You need a brand -- including at the personal level -- because that's what sells, what gets you access, what gets you hired, what gets you printed above the fold. It's not about information; it's about validation and entertainment.
Agree with jharp& bbleh. They see DeSantis is stuck & unable to get anything going, so they are touting his War on Woke Disney. It's like Palin's bridge to nowhere story. It's not true, but they tell it because it represents the world as they want it to be.
The press has been aiding DeSantis in his lies, and that includes the “liberal” press. For instance DeSantis’s claims of victory over Covid by opening up the Florida economy early. In fact, Florida went from being similar to California in deaths per million to being worse than New York. If it had stayed similar to California 35 thousand Floridians would still be alive. But most people likely believe his policies were a success because he frames it so without fear of pushback.
The political press absolutely refuses to tell the truth about COVID in Florida. Part of it is that they are promoting & protecting DeSantis - SOP for the media & Republicans - but it is also because once they adopt a story, they never give it up.
See, e.g., Bill Clinton's haircut.
We all know by now that "constitutionally protected free speech" only consists of the hate speech, conspiracy theories, and racism that the magaRepubs utter. Anything else violates their rights, and must be stamped out.
Including Disney. Since DeSantis (DeSatan?) failed to come through, the "librul media" needs to step in to finish the job.
why? because they are all jostling to get to the head of the line to polish DuhSantis's knob.
gag, can't get that out of my head. ick.
Because the right wing hasn't just fully embraced Russia, they've fully embraced Russian politics. Just confidently state the opposite of reality, repeat it over and over, and then profit knowing your mentally conditioned base will assume the libtard media is completely corrupt when they hear the exact opposite from them.
"... was on CNBC. Lots of people saw it..."
Say what now?
This is how right-wing rags make their money. Their readers love clicking on articles like this. and they share them on social media. Even if the actual truth shows up at the end of the articles, most people don't actually read before sharing. It's mostly about the thrill of "winning" against your political opponents anyway, with that sense of winning focused on interactions with fellow believers. Regardless, all those clicks and shares create ad revenue.
fyi: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mouse_That_Roared_(film)