A Spirited Perfect Ten

[Goofyernmost]

Therein lies the problem: the so-called news that people are digesting now is little more than opinion disguised to appear as news.

Traditional journalism a la Walter Cronkite is dead. As a result, objective fact-based reporting has been replaced with partisan opinionated propaganda. Who cares if that's what media consumers want. Adopting the "new media" keeps them ill-informed and beholden to truthiness instead of well vetted facts based in reality.

Well-respected professional travel journalists writing about trips to Disney resorts have far more objectivity at their core than the mommy blogger crowd working their angles for free family vacations. The professional travel journalist is completely dependent upon truthful reporting in order to maintain a viable career. Mommy bloggers are completely dependent upon Disney's approval in order to maintain low cost travel and entertainment for their families.

The truthiness of the mommy blogger/online fan advocate reports will satisfy the casual Disney consumer, much to the delight of TWDC. Just as folks don't want to spend their downtime researching the truth behind mainstream media news reports, they don't want to spend dozens of hours researching various resorts for the annual family vacation. They're satisfied with the mommy blogger/online fan advocate reports that essentially tell them where to go and what to do when they get there. And there are plenty of unethical "journalists" online who will gladly spoon-feed them the truthiness they seek in exchange for free passes and invites to special events, whether or not that compensation is ever fully disclosed.

I tend to agree with what you are saying, but, seriously to compare "Walter Cronkite journalism" to Jim Hill is, well it shouldn't even be in the conversation. Jim Hill is, for lack of a better comparison a human advertising method. He gets his status from saying mostly good things about Disney. Just as I would like someone that only said nice things about me. This never has been journalism. Just because someone is a writer, be it a good one or a bad one, does not make them a journalist.

these points are getting mixed up.

the problem with "social media influencers" is they're inherently for sale. most don't disclose the perks the get (something journalists do), and don't necessarily see themselves bound to the same code of ethics journalists are. now, when you're a consumer who pays attention to the product closely and can cut through the bull, who cares, right? except the more prevalent and prominent social media brand advocates become, the less disney has to interact with the real media. and that allows them to pawn off an inferior product, or cover up stories with big real world implications, etc.

So do you think that every TV network, every newspaper, every Magazine, every radio station that accepts money from Disney for advertising give a single damn about the content of the ads they accept. They are there to help promote whatever the buyers wants to promote, not to censor it. I say that realizing that certain moral standards do apply, but, not in the promotion of an entertainment company be they theme parks, movies or what have you as long as it is just promotion and not obscenities or morally reprehensible. This whole discussion is one of the largest piles of manure I have ever found on this site. It is meaningless yet mean, truthful, yet distorted and totally self serving. I'm done with even looking here anymore, it has reached a high point in stink.

BTW, I hear there's a new movie coming out in a couple of days. Is there any truth to that rumor?

 

[the.dreamfinder]

Social Media personalities like Jim, Lou and Ricky on down to the mommy bloggers are only as important as Disney chooses to make them. This is a monster of their own creation.

 

[flynnibus]

Therein lies the problem: the so-called news that people are digesting now is little more than opinion disguised to appear as news.

I call it 'product'... because no one can honestly act like some of those clowns do and actually be raised normal.

The professional travel journalist is completely dependent upon truthful reporting in order to maintain a viable career. Mommy bloggers are completely dependent upon Disney's approval in order to maintain low cost travel and entertainment for their families.

Not so subscribed to the first line.. but the second line, sure... and hence my 'bite the hand that feeds you' comment previously. Disney has quite the apple to offer.. and when you mix in the emotional buy-in these people have... it's a drug...

 

[the.dreamfinder]

What you gloss over here (or miss entirely) is that when you do this systematically... you can shout down the opposing opinion. With the ideas of volume, linking, prominance, etc.. you can keep pounding to ensure YOUR message is the one people are likely to find everywhere. That's when it's no longer about one shill - but about shaping what the public is most likely to see and believe. When you get your army of slaves to link and pump your spiel... it will be the dominate message people find online.

That sounds an awful lot like astroturfing.

 

[gonzoWDW]

I agree, a lot of folks are just plain dumb. They need big bold letters saying ADVERTISEMENT or ADVERTORIAL CONTENT produced by X. Take for example the two soccer moms I saw yesterday who couldn't be bothered to care that their children and their children's friends were throwing rocks at oncoming traffic and playing in the street on a busy road. I get that. However, what I take issue with is how folks like Jim, Ricky, and Lou are muddying the line so much that it is difficult for the casual reader to tell. It isn't that hard to say "I got comped to attend the grand opening of Diagon Alley or Cars Land". Tom Bricker does it so why can't they do it as well. Disclosure of benefits received by the company you are covering isn't some difficult task. If you respect your readers, you should be straight with them and if you don't you should be called out on it.

So what you're saying is that Ads and sponsored content are getting out of control? They're becoming smarter? Harder to stop?Well, good thing I saw South Park a few weeks ago, because:

But seriously, all the Jim Hill stuff seems like a non issue

 

[TalkingHead]

In more pressing matters, I want to know what @lentesta and Jim do with all the millions they make from their free podcast.

What I want to know is whether Len Testa has to practice his feigned surprise for the podcast or whether it comes naturally.

I think it was one of the Diagon Alley podcasts, Jim Hill says something about the Leaky Cauldron, and Len acted like this was the first he'd heard of it. "Oh! Wow! They're going to have a Leaky Cauldron, too?!"

It doesn't come across as natural and conversational; it's scripted for expert Jim and obsequious Len. Their whole shtick sounds too practiced to my ears.

It's also interesting how Jim chimed in once in this thread while his personal friends have responded numerous times. Not sure why Jim felt the need to "clear the air" at all.

 

[Cesar R M]

It absolutely was a "gotcha" post and your repeated denials of that being a motivation are, frankly, hilarious.

If Jim's specific transgressions were only tangential to your larger point you wouldn't opine as to his character with your following quote:

"First, I applaud Jim for coming in and giving his side of the story. Gutsy move. I wonder if, had this not come out, would he have ever opened up abut it?"

Protest all you want, Lee. But your giddiness to knock him down a peg is painfully transparent and absolutely unseemly. And while everyone here appreciates the inside information you have access to and mete out to the sorry peasants here (myself included) in dribs and drabs, that doesn't automatically make you an awesome person above deserved criticism, regardless of what some of the sycophants around here may want to believe.

Interesting that some people are trying to shift the focus of the conversation from Jim to Lee.

 

[TalkingHead]

If there wasn't any considerable compensation for the advocates' actions, we'd never know about any of them. It's all about conning the ignorant fan boy marks for professional gain. And Disney has perfected the con into high performance art.

It's all about self-promotion. Where would Theme Park Twitter be without it?

 

[Cesar R M]

Because everything you say here:



Are problems with Disney, not Jim Hill. What exactly would you like Jim to do? Disclose at the start of every article and every podcast he was arrested 20+ years ago? Give up his career? Self-deport? What? Your problems are with Disney, yet all the action here is to embarrass and punish Jim. If you actually gave a **** about this issue and Disney's reaction, you'd be rallying to get them to treat the OTHER former employees better, and use Jim as an example of how forgiving them has benefitted the company. But that's not really your angle.

You just registered an account to say this?

*cue suspicious theme for multi account usage*

In the words Elsa, let it go. What is done is done? What has happened has happened and nothing will change. Right now, these media bloggers are too valuable to Disney to give up despite their past. However, this is a great example of screening individuals who become reps of a brand. What happened with Jim happened many many many years ago so there was definitely time to heal the wounds of his crimes but its leads to a new question? What would happened if a registered *** offender managed to get into the park as a member of the press and became the social media brand advocate? That is my personal question and what I could see arising from scenarios like this as it seems there is no legitimate screening process.

cant be worse than having caught red handed and forced to taste 7 footlongs for free at a prison.

 

[Cesar R M]

That's hilarious. Do you know how many bloggers and social media influencers are sitting front and center at Apple Keynotes? Do you think they pay to get all those new devices to review weeks before the public gets them? Walt Mossberg was legendary for his consecutive streak of giving Apple positive reviews.

not to mention many times there were rumors of top tech companies getting free apple stuff and being paid to give glowing reviews of Apple stuff.

Reminds me of that Ars Technica or engadget (or many cell phone "review sites" rumors of them receiving money from apple to give their products glowing reviews and lowering their competitors, like for example, giving the Iphone 4s a 5 out of 5, but the galaxy a 3 out of 5)

In other news, they are finally bringing back brunch at California grill after what? 25 years? $80 for a couple poached eggs

but.. but.. you can get these pixie dusted eggs with an amazing view!!

 

[lentesta]

Reminds me of that Ars Technica or engadget

Dude....Ars? Really? Man, I used to love that site. Did they really do that?

 

[Cesar R M]

Dude....Ars? Really? Man, I used to love that site. Did they really do that?

Its a rumour.
But I know there is one site that definitively did (engadget).

 

[flynnibus]

Dude....Ars? Really? Man, I used to love that site. Did they really do that?

No

 

[PhotoDave219]

Don't feed the DramaLlama. Thank you.

 

[VJ]

It's funny how people keep trying to change the subject and it always comes back to the Jim Hill "scandal" (I use that term loosely). Just seems like much ado about nothing to me, to be honest.

 

[TeriofTerror]

I think I'm going to buy some Hanes stock. With the obvious epidemic of panty bunching, underwear sales should go through the roof.

 

[PhotoDave219]

I think I'm going to buy some Hanes stock. With the obvious epidemic of panty bunching, underwear sales should go through the roof.

Nah. People are going full on commando here

 

[Lee]

It absolutely was a "gotcha" post and your repeated denials of that being a motivation are, frankly, hilarious.

If Jim's specific transgressions were only tangential to your larger point you wouldn't opine as to his character with your following quote:

"First, I applaud Jim for coming in and giving his side of the story. Gutsy move. I wonder if, had this not come out, would he have ever opened up abut it?"

Protest all you want, Lee. But your giddiness to knock him down a peg is painfully transparent and absolutely unseemly. And while everyone here appreciates the inside information you have access to and mete out to the sorry peasants here (myself included) in dribs and drabs, that doesn't automatically make you an awesome person above deserved criticism, regardless of what some of the sycophants around here may want to believe.

If that's how you took it, fine. I can't change that.

I know what my motivations were/are.

As for the quote you used, I stand by the question and don't see it as questioning his character (Though, taken out of context, I can see how someone would think that.). As I've repeatedly said, it's about more than Jim's transgressions.

The question I raised there relates more to how long would this have gone unnoticed by Disney and others had it not been posted here. I think that's a fair question.

 

[jakeman]

Don't feed the DramaLlama. Thank you.

If we did that, this thread wouldn't have 10 iterations.

 

[Lee]

If people demand something of someone, regardless of the circumstances, they should be as open themselves about who they are and what they did however many years ago.

Ok, I'll be open.
My name is Lee and I have never stolen or committed fraud or been jailed by any company that I now, or in the past, have had a beneficial relationship with.

That's it. Period.
If he had boosted some snacks from a Publix, this wouldn't have ever come up.
Again, it isn't about random crimes someone committed, it's about a very specific situation.

I actually applaud Jim for what he did. He absolutely did not need to do that. Also, if this was intended to be a more general question of the relationship between Disney and independent bloggers that post biased opinion pieces about the BRAND (the use of caps always makes me laugh), why did Jim's name even have to be used? The name could have been kept out of it and the point would not have been muted at all.

I disagree.
First, nobody would have let me get away without giving the name. The level of pestering and speculation would have been enormous, and innocent parties could have been implicated. Better to be specific.

Second, I felt it necessary to be specific about the subjects position and benefits. That would have given it away, most likely.