I spent a fair bit of time going over our discussion of Jim, his past crimes, and his connections to present day Disney and Universal. With a bit of perspective behind it, I think I have a better grip on what Jim and his highest profile defenders were saying. The goal of Jim's post here was to place his crimes in a personal context so that any further discussion of the very valid issues, including whether or not he withheld this information from his employers and Celebration Place/D23, as attacks on the character of a private person. But, Jim is not a private individual to be afforded privacy here, he is and has been a public figure for 25-30 years who actively promotes himself as a Walt Disney Company and entertainment industry expert having written for prominent Disney-centric online publications like Mouse Planet and Laughing Place as well as his current position as an credentialed journalist at the Huffington Post.
Len and Jim's ex, Fabby, have clear financial interests, revenue generated by the podcast and the unofficial guide's reputation and a chunk of Jim Hill Media respectively, to see this story go away. Those posts both advance the narrative established by Jim that any scrutiny of his past crimes are an attack on him as a person. Len specifically greets questions over whether he had known about Jim's past prior to last week with a non answer even suggesting he can speak on behalf of Disney on this matter.
But enough about that, the core of the issue remains; The Walt Disney Company's relationship with social media personalities. For at least the past five years, Jim has chosen to cover Disney by closely hewing to the PR message of the day, no matter the subject. Jim's writing on Universal can be characterized much the same way as well. In exchange, Jim receives generous perks from both Disney and Universal. While most top shelf media organizations receive these freebies/comps as well, writer for these organizations have to explicitly say they received them and many legitimate media organizations refuse them or reimburse these gifts/comps. It is as if Jim's con has changed, only it's a quid pro quo and legal.
However, Jim isn't the only individual who does this with Disney or Universal. Lou Mongello can go on and on about the wonderful time he had at Aulani and how all of his listeners must go and experience it like he did. Whilst he bloviates, he fails to mention that his vacation to Aulani, including airfare, room, and meals, cost $6000-7000 for which he was comped by Disney. And no, having a disclosure statement hidden on your website barely meeting legal compliance is simply not good enough.
The cornerstone of Disney's social media strategy relies upon BRAND advocates to evangelize the company and its various products, be it movies, tv shows, toys and of course theme parks. Lou, Ricky and Jim are at the top of the Disney/Universal BRAND Advocate food chain, they effectively operate with a seal of approval from these companies. Thanks to the access and approval they have received, Jim, Ricky and Lou have been able to cross over to gigs in media as journalists or paid experts; Jim writes for Huffington Post, Ricky at Fox News, and Lou for the local Fox TV affiliate in Central Florida.
This is the central problem with Jim's past and current behavior, he operates as if the ethics of his position do not apply to him. Jim may consider himself a changed man from the man of twenty years ago, but just because his behavior is not illegal does not make it ethical. For a company like Disney with a reputation for protecting its image, the decision to have people like Jim, Ricky and Lou blur the line between compensated BRAND Advocate and Journalist reeks of unethical and dishonest behavior towards their media employers and readers/listeners.
Isnt there one for Marry Poppins soon?
