Poor Disney. After “The Alamo,” “Hidalgo,” and “Home on the Range” were seen by a combined 14 people nationwide, you’d think the company might be looking for a hit. Sure enough, Michael Moore wants to give it one, but the company doesn’t want anything to do with it. Go figure.
The Walt Disney Company is blocking its Miramax division from distributing a new documentary by Michael Moore that harshly criticizes President Bush, executives at both Disney and Miramax said Tuesday.
The film, “Fahrenheit 911,” links Mr. Bush and prominent Saudis — including the family of Osama bin Laden — and criticizes Mr. Bush’s actions before and after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
What’s worse, the company appears to be letting politics drive the decision making process.
Mr. Moore’s agent, Ari Emanuel, said Michael D. Eisner, Disney’s chief executive, asked him last spring to pull out of the deal with Miramax. Mr. Emanuel said Mr. Eisner expressed particular concern that it would endanger tax breaks Disney receives for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where Mr. Bush’s brother, Jeb, is governor.
“Michael Eisner asked me not to sell this movie to Harvey Weinstein; that doesn’t mean I listened to him,” Mr. Emanuel said. “He definitely indicated there were tax incentives he was getting for the Disney corporation and that’s why he didn’t want me to sell it to Miramax. He didn’t want a Disney company involved.”
Disney is denying a political motivation, but if true, it points to a problem with the way corporate ownership of the media limits what the public can see and hear. After all, if media companies have to worry about adverse political consequences of criticizing the president, it would almost impossible for the public to stay sufficiently informed.
Mr. Moore, who will present the film at the Cannes film festival this month, criticized Disney’s decision in an interview on Tuesday, saying, “At some point the question has to be asked, ‘Should this be happening in a free and open society where the monied interests essentially call the shots regarding the information that the public is allowed to see?’ “
It’s like a 21st century version of “Freedom of the Press is limited to those who own one.”