Rumor Bye Bye (Tiki) Birdies?

[KevinPage]

My experience in the theme park industry had plenty wild and outlandish ideas shot around and developed then filed away in a cabinet to one day - maybe - be reopened.

Hundreds of absurd ideas bounced around and made it to various stages of "blue sky" development. Countless of these ideas were reopened, laughed at and then disregarded even though they were at one time part of a long term multi-decade contingency plan (that was constantly fluid and changing almost weekly).

If someone in Imagineering shot the idea across the table to remove Tiki Birds/CBJ and a in-depth meeting was held about how it could be done and what could potentially replace it...is that really such a serious thing now?

If that's the case I would've considered 20+ rides/shows that were on some form of a chopping block...

Very true. But this always leaves it up to the judgement of the leaker and blogger on what they think is serious and/or relevant enough to report on.

I think with Bob Chapek in charge, there should be more leeway in taking serious any possible inflammatory issues, given the man’s track record.

I’m sure not every hair brained awful idea he has had has come to pass, but it pays to stay vigilant when you have a buffoon at the top.

 

[Mouse Trap]

Very true. But this always leaves it up to the judgement of the leaker and blogger on what they think is serious and/or relevant enough to report on.

I think with Bob Chapek in charge, there should be more leeway in taking serious any possible inflammatory issues, given the man’s track record.

I’m sure not every hair brained awful idea he has had has come to pass, but it pays to stay vigilant when you have a buffoon at the top.

I think the judgment of the "blogger/leaker" is clear:

No matter what level of seriousness or stage of development, as long as it's a whisper, it's worth reporting on because the general park goer has no idea what the process actually is like and is easily exploited for clicks and website traffic.

 

[brb1006]

It is unfortunate that we have no modern gadfly like Al Lutz used to be.

However, Al never lashed out at dismissive fans. Spirit should have been a legitimate blogger with a site of his/her own rather than a voice on these forums who acted like he owned the place.

At least he made the discussions interesting.

 

[nickys]

So... WHAT. A. MESS.

DPB calls out "...sources" (let's put aside their scruples for a moment) for saying the Tiki birds are going away. You know, like @Ronnie Sanford (shakes fist at Ronnie!!! ) and Twitter's Passport to Dreams. In fact, Passport to Dreams has been on the drum beat for people to write to Disney to save the Tiki Room. Which is probably why DPB is responding to the rumor.

Now, Corless never said the Tiki room or the birds were going away. He said it's getting a Moana overlay (an old rumor once mentioned by @marni1971 ).

But Corless is interpreting the reference to "unscrupulous sources" as being a reference to him. <engage hissy fit> Corless rightly defends himself as saying he never said it was going away, just reporting on a rumor of an overlay.

And now everyone is schadenfreuding all over Corless for no good reason (this time). If a Moana overlay comes through, he'll be (rightfully) throwing this all back in your faces (you who are dancing on the grave of his reputation).

It pays to read carefully, folks.

The website piece had the headline:

Enchanted Tiki Room Will Be Replaced With A Moana Show for Magic Kingdom’s 50th Anniversary

And then went on to finish with this:


Whether you love singing birds or bears at The Magic Kingdom, it seems that Mr. Chapek has a wonderful magic trick for you: he’s going to make them all disappear. We expect an announcement to be made regarding this potential change at this year’s D23 Expo.


So although the article did talk about an overlay and inclusion of Moana, he also used the words “replaced” and “disappear” in respect of the Tiki Birds.

 

[rle4lunch]

TC's reclama sounded like he was crying as he wrote it.

 

[GoneViral]

Hey folks, I've been lurking here for several years, even before I created an account here. I'm actually a fairly prolific theme park writer, but I want to discuss this from a different perspective.

I've written about movies a lot, too. I had a high enough profile in that industry that if I said something negative, I'd occasionally draw the attention of a high-profile film executive. I understand that a lot of you don't like the proprietor of that particular website and are enjoying his comeuppance. I'm not trying to tell anyone how to act, although I'll say that I've heard secondhand about unstable people attempting self-harm after situations like this.

So, I'm never a fan of internet pile-ons. I used to be guilty of that behavior during the Wild West days of the early internet, and it's one of my greatest regrets. I hope that you'll all take that comment respectfully rather than critically. Everyone sitting at a computer typing or pressing the buttons on their phone is a real person with feelings and emotions.

I don't know this person, only their reputation via other sites. It certainly sounds like they have a lot to learn, but the journey to intelligence and wisdom is hard for all of us.

With regards to Disney's response to this rumor, I'm reminded forcibly of something that happened to me once. I've broken my fair share of "rumors" over the years because I cultivated sources who learned over time that they could trust me. I never cared about a headline and site traffic more than how reporting that rumor could impact someone's life.

Not coincidentally, I'm not a master of clickbait and have a reputation as a respected grinder rather than a superstar content provider. Many of the names that you know who built hugely successful websites cut corners along the way, and I know this because I was there watching it unfold.

When I have broken "rumors", I inevitably received swift backlash from both dubious readers and (especially) impacted movie studios. And the angriest that any executive ever got with me was over an article I wrote that was 100% accurate. The VP of a studio had cut a deal for a YT book/franchise that they expected to become the next Harry Potter. The way that they handled that deal was a debacle to the point that the author of the book recently described how insane the entire process was from his own perspective.

Every word that I typed in that piece was true yet I was yelled at, professionally assailed, and threatened with a lawsuit. Since my site featured a lot of high-profile attorneys who worked with me for little to no pay, I knew that the threats were without merit and worried little about them. That's not the point, though.

Someone in a position of power tried to shout me down in order to cower me into silence. When I see Disney act like this, I can't help but wince. It's a bad look for them imo, and I say that as a superfan who has Platinum Plus passes and a DVC membership. There's at least some merit to this "rumor", and they just buried somebody while denying it. I don't like that precedent.

To a larger point, I sincerely hope that the Tiki Room and Country Bear Jamboree are still an integral part of WDW during its centennial celebration. They mean too much to the history of The Walt Disney Company to alter radically or eliminate.

 

[mikejs78]

There's at least some merit to this "rumor", and they just buried somebody while denying it. I don't like that precedent.

I get some of your points - but here I have to disagree a little. There is definitely merit to the rumor that there may be modifications to the Tiki room. However, as noted above, the author of the article wasn't careful with his language - he said the birds would be replaced, said "make them disappear", etc. And it seems there's no credible rumor that this is the case.

The other issue with Tom isn't just his reporting of rumors. It's how he treats others, including people of TWDC. He's constantly attacking people, name calling, etc. I think there's a little bit of that that goes into how people here and elsewhere generally feel about him.. And there's some sense of "he had this coming".

It would be one thing if he had just reported a rumor and done it in a responsible manner. But he sensationalized it, tried to galvanize support on Twitter for the cause, etc, and resorted to name calling executives while at it. Whatever he got back was much tamer than what he generally dishes out.

 

[Goofyernmost]

No, the new rumor thread was merged with the two year old one by the moderators to keep the news in one thread.

OK, I did not know that. Carry on!

 

[britain]

Quoting the line from the end of the show ('make them disappear') may have been an attempt at cleverness, but when taken literally, it sure sounds like replaced replaced.

 

[Stevek]

I had the app downloaded because every once in awhile l liked listening to WDWNTunes. I removed it. Not because of the whole rumor thing, but the more I've heard about the type of person he is I can't support that. Besides there's tons of sites where I can get a Disney Park music fix.

I actually used to listen to his podcasts but his schtick became more and more tiresome and that, coupled with with his arrogance and immaturity, pretty much killed it for me. The sad thing is that he is very knowledgeable and clearly passionate about Disney. Unfortunately, he is trying to make a name for himself in all the wrong ways and the backlash is getting worse by the day and his ego is so big he just doesn’t care.

 

[DAR1974]

I get some of your points - but here I have to disagree a little. There is definitely merit to the rumor that there may be modifications to the Tiki room. However, as noted above, the author of the article wasn't careful with his language - he said the birds would be replaced, said "make them disappear", etc. And it seems there's no credible rumor that this is the case.

The other issue with Tom isn't just his reporting of rumors. It's how he treats others, including people of TWDC. He's constantly attacking people, name calling, etc. I think there's a little bit of that that goes into how people here and elsewhere generally feel about him.. And there's some sense of "he had this coming".

It would be one thing if he had just reported a rumor and done it in a responsible manner. But he sensationalized it, tried to galvanize support on Twitter for the cause, etc, and resorted to name calling executives while at it. Whatever he got back was much tamer than what he generally dishes out.

It's classic bully behavior

 

[jt04]

In all fairness that was very far along until it took an internal U-turn.

Hoping they can stick with rough "studio" themed lands. IE Pixar, WDAS etc. See Marvel at DCA. And the evolving Pixar Pier.

 

[OrlandoRising]

I wanted to chime in here since I run a theme park news site and think this situation brings up a good discussion about ethical practices with Disney sites. I'm not here to impugn or malign Tom or his site. I've never met him.

Reporting on rumors in this industry is always going to be messy. You're not going to get people on the record. You're not going to get official confirmation when you want it. You've got tens of thousands of people working at WDW that could claim to have inside information, and it would be hard to verify anything they tell you. But if you wanted to, you could credit them as "someone within the Walt Disney Company." It's up to the individual site to decide whether whatever sources are telling you, along with labeling something clearly as a "rumor," is responsibly publishing information.

Speaking as a guy who used to report on state politics, sports, and health care, the standards of sourcing in this line of work would not go over well with editors in my past jobs. Is that just the nature of this beast or are sites reporting irresponsibly? That's up for debate, but let's not paint all blogs and "leakers" as the same.

Because Tom has not played well in the Disney fan community sandbox, especially with this site and stealing valued members information and claiming it as his. He will most likely recive very little support form those in the community.

The danger is that while I am enjoying the knockdown by Disney here. I am also concerned they are sending a message to the rest of the community about criticism. Disney needs to let these sites be critical and use that as a means to improve. All that being said I would not be surprised if Disney and Tom have some stuff going on behind the scene, we will probally never hear about it but if he thinks he can take on Disney and win...

This is also something that concerns me. Again, I don't know Tom and I'm not going to speak ill of him. But with the advent of Disney vloggers and social media influencers, the hope on Disney's end that offering privileged media access would result in positive coverage has turned into more of an explicit expectation: if you don't speak of this in glowing terms, even when you're writing a news story, not a review or opinion piece, you won't be invited back.

You may argue that they don't have to reward criticism with access, but did you also think it was fair when Disney temporarily shut out the LA Times from critics' screenings of Disney movies retaliation for a story about the company's political influence in Anaheim?

This isn't excusing injecting opinion about Disney and its executives into what is supposed to be a news story, because that's not something I would do on my site.

 

[RSoxNo1]

Technically i don't think it's clickbait if the information is given away in the post... there wouldn't be any reason to click. Clickbait would have been 'RUMOR: You're never going to believe what is happening to the Tiki Birds' OR 'RUMOR: Moana is taking over a classic attraction. But which?'

Corless will regularly post misleading headlines with the text downplaying the headline itself. Even this TIki Bird headline is misleading as he explains in a follow up post saying it would be Moana added to the existing attraction.

 

[Kman101]

I get some of your points - but here I have to disagree a little. There is definitely merit to the rumor that there may be modifications to the Tiki room. However, as noted above, the author of the article wasn't careful with his language - he said the birds would be replaced, said "make them disappear", etc. And it seems there's no credible rumor that this is the case.

The other issue with Tom isn't just his reporting of rumors. It's how he treats others, including people of TWDC. He's constantly attacking people, name calling, etc. I think there's a little bit of that that goes into how people here and elsewhere generally feel about him.. And there's some sense of "he had this coming".

It would be one thing if he had just reported a rumor and done it in a responsible manner. But he sensationalized it, tried to galvanize support on Twitter for the cause, etc, and resorted to name calling executives while at it. Whatever he got back was much tamer than what he generally dishes out.

This!

 

[GoneViral]

I get some of your points - but here I have to disagree a little. There is definitely merit to the rumor that there may be modifications to the Tiki room. However, as noted above, the author of the article wasn't careful with his language - he said the birds would be replaced, said "make them disappear", etc. And it seems there's no credible rumor that this is the case.

The other issue with Tom isn't just his reporting of rumors. It's how he treats others, including people of TWDC. He's constantly attacking people, name calling, etc. I think there's a little bit of that that goes into how people here and elsewhere generally feel about him.. And there's some sense of "he had this coming".

It would be one thing if he had just reported a rumor and done it in a responsible manner. But he sensationalized it, tried to galvanize support on Twitter for the cause, etc, and resorted to name calling executives while at it. Whatever he got back was much tamer than what he generally dishes out.

Fair enough. I would be unprofessional to evaluate the behavior of a writer I don't know in a forum the person might not read. I'm someone who prefers to criticize people directly (or at least speak with their bosses) when there's room for improvement and growth.

What I'll say is that when I reported on the rumor, the site that Disney assailed wasn't one of my sources. Now, we may share the *same* sources, but Orlando Insider is absolutely correct. Reporting on rumors is always messy because readers want to know about them but then blame the publisher when they don't come to be.

Intentionally or not, Disney's just turned the topic of discussing rumors into a major conversation. So, I am certainly curious to read the thoughts of others about what's appropriate versus what crosses the line. I've been writing for more than 20 years, and it's a topic that always seems opaque.

 

[GoneViral]

Reporting on rumors in this industry is always going to be messy. You're not going to get people on the record. You're not going to get official confirmation when you want it. You've got tens of thousands of people working at WDW that could claim to have inside information, and it would be hard to verify anything they tell you. But if you wanted to, you could credit them as "someone within the Walt Disney Company." It's up to the individual site to decide whether whatever sources are telling you, along with labeling something clearly as a "rumor," is responsibly publishing information.

Speaking as a guy who used to report on state politics, sports, and health care, the standards of sourcing in this line of work would not go over well with editors in my past jobs. Is that just the nature of this beast or are sites reporting irresponsibly? That's up for debate, but let's not paint all blogs and "leakers" as the same.

This is also something that concerns me. Again, I don't know Tom and I'm not going to speak ill of him. But with the advent of Disney vloggers and social media influencers, the hope on Disney's end that offering privileged media access would result in positive coverage has turned into more of an explicit expectation: if you don't speak of this in glowing terms, even when you're writing a news story, not a review or opinion piece, you won't be invited back.

You may argue that they don't have to reward criticism with access, but did you also think it was fair when Disney temporarily shut out the LA Times from critics' screenings of Disney movies retaliation for a story about the company's political influence in Anaheim?

This isn't excusing injecting opinion about Disney and its executives into what is supposed to be a news story, because that's not something I would do on my site.

First of all, your first two paragraphs are brilliant. In my time, I've discovered that political posts require the most sourcing but are the most difficult to source.

Your next paragraph is why I've rarely attended early film screenings. Studios would expect glowing reviews of, you know, less than glowing movies. I'm not trading my ethics for popcorn and a coke. And I once had the LA Times steal one of our site's (obscure) columns. Even though I've disliked them ever since, I took their side in that situation with Disney because Disney was in the wrong. I've never worried about Iger's ethics. Some of his underlings are starting to scare me, though.

Out of curiosity, how did you approach the story? I had mentioned the overlay but acknowledged that others felt a complete shutdown was possible. I always try to be as open-ended as possible since I understand how much is in flux during all of these internal project discussions.

I mean, somebody somewhere reported in detail about Disney's ski resort that never happened, and I'm sure that person took a hit for it never getting built. For that matter, somebody in this thread might have been covering Disney long enough that they discussed the details of Beastly Kingdom prior to its cancellation.

 

[marni1971]

Hoping they can stick with rough "studio" themed lands. IE Pixar, WDAS etc. See Marvel at DCA. And the evolving Pixar Pier.

Evolving is one word for it. But back in Orlando, DHS should still have defined areas.

 

[OrlandoRising]

Out of curiosity, how did you approach the story? I had mentioned the overlay but acknowledged that others felt a complete shutdown was possible. I always try to be as open-ended as possible since I understand how much is in flux during all of these internal project discussions.

I didn't report on the story until Disney commented on it, the same as Tom's earlier report on The Land and The Seas. I explained what he reported, included Disney's response, got additional comment from Tom about their response, and noted his site's rumor track record, both ones he got right and others he got wrong.

This just goes for me personally, and maybe it's old-fashioned, but I'm not comfortable with the sacrifices on sourcing I would have to make to report Disney and Universal rumors that I hear myself. I'd rather stick to stories where people will go on the record, and if I mention rumors, it's when I attribute it to the original site that reported it.

 

[HauntedPirate]

I can't shake the feeling that TC is being fed some questionable information in an effort to find leaks within the company. Why, I do not know. But regardless, his ship is in danger of going down with whoever is feeding him his information.