Today I was particularly interested in a story on the BBC website regarding Disney permitting access to the Los Angeles Times once again, after initially blocking the paper from press activities following an article which was particularly unfavorable last year.
I had not seen the article previously, and in the first case of the Streisand effect in this blog, I was drawn to read it. Ok you could say that it was one sided and not particularly favorable to Disney and it’s activities in the Anaheim area. But, Disney was invited to comment and apparently declined the offer, so this appears one sided as a result!
It’s hard not to like Disney when you’re my age, the time spent watching Donald Duck, The Jungle Book and the other animated films (both classic and modern) are hard to ignore. However it is also hard to see all of their good points, partly from reading this and also from what my Media Studies teacher cited as a reason for hating Disney: because they made wild animals appear to dance. It’s hard to disagree with that point, especially when during GCSE Media Studies I went on a daily holiday to Disney World!
What’s we especially interesting in this case is the fact that other newspapers rounded up and backed the LA Times, in a ‘ban them and we won’t show either’ style. The other newspapers could have seen the absence of the LA Times as a bonus and one fewer competitor at the events, but instead the old adage of journalists sticking together was honoured and thats the big learning point here.
I mentioned the Streisand effect, and that gets its second mention in this blog as Disney could have ended up in such a case. As I said I hadn’t come across this article until today, but it could be argued that the Disney response would have won sympathy for the LA Times, and if that is the case, then perhaps that is why Disney decided to invite the paper back into events? It wouldn’t have been difficult for this to get massively out of hand for Disney, but as a PR incident, it’s managed to ride this one out.