The following part of the article demonstrates the lack of veracity of "insider information" of corporate intrigue as different camps spin a story for their desired ends...
Though no outsiders were present, chatter about Iger’s talk soon began to seep through Hollywood. His words were interpreted as a shot at Chapek. Though a 28-year Disney veteran who most recently had overseen the theme parks and resorts, Chapek was an outsider in Hollywood. Known for cutting costs and raising prices, he was regarded by many with distrust if not outright hostility. So the version of the board retreat that made the rounds had Iger showing up Chapek, who was said to have followed Iger’s remarks by declaring in blunt terms that, in fact, Disney was now a data-driven company. It sent a chill through Hollywood.
Sources who attended the meeting say Chapek did not make such a bald declaration. They say he was merely being himself: a numbers-oriented, bottom-line-focused businessman lacking creative experience and without Iger’s polish and flair. Nonetheless, the retreat anecdote dovetailed with a narrative that was already taking hold among Iger confidants: that he had lost faith in Chapek and that his speech before the board was “a final warning” that Disney was veering off course. And the idea of the wrong man at the helm of Disney stokes a lot of anxiety in an industry that has seen Fox and MGM swallowed up, WarnerMedia battered by AT&T and Paramount transforming into a shadow of itself.
So... which version is correct? Very few people will retell this story recounting both sides of the story. They will tell the side that feeds their anger in the hopes of making one or both look bad, even though we don't know the true story.
Keep that in mind whenever anyone reads a 'Spirited' tale of corporate intrigue. Or remnants of a whispering campaign longing to create a effigy to burn of a film studio head who ruined their childhood's favorite franchise.
Kudos to the writer of this article who presented both sides.
www.hollywoodreporter.com
