Country Bear Jamboree closing for lengthy refurbishment in August

[WDW1974]

New York Times is a big deal, and has a great reputation, but that is mostly for political/foreign affairs/investigative type articles, those article are discussed endlessly. But the Arts Section? Not so sure about that section, sure it gets its readers, but most readers don't read the NYT for the Arts Section. I read NYT's articles frequently, those which pop up on Google News, but I doubt I've read even a dozen articles from the NYT's Art section. When it comes to Art/Entertainment, there are more visible publications, IMHO.

As we come into the election, the NYT's liberal slant has become more evident/talked about, maybe that is why some people don't like it.

The NYT is daily reading for me most days. It is our national newspaper of record to the outside world. Brooks stories usually don't appear in Arts, but in Business and or National, but that is neither here nor there.

I don't find any bias in the publication whatsoever. I do think that many folks who would prefer a USA Today type experience may find bias because they've never read deep investigative reporting.

But I'd rather focus on the Disney piece ...

 

[WDW1974]

It is not at all a conspiracy theory.
I can't say too much about it, but suffice to say the origins of the story and its purpose has been looked into. By people in a position to have access to such things.
Disney wanted the story there, and had a reason (as '74 said) for it.

Thanks for the backup, but none is needed. Folks often want the simplest answer. Stories are placed all the time with all sorts of agendas. Many are deserving of it. ... Rest assured, NYT newsprint is pricey. Very. A story on an animatronic bear show being shortened by five minutes doesn't warrent two sentences in said pub.

Right here. Half asleep....

If you had SNL on, then you would have seen some hot Yeti-loving ... and better yet it happened at a hotel called the Wilderness Lodge.

 

[KingdomKeeper]

...If Henry does do the "eyebrow gag", there are no lights shining on him so you can't tell. And if he is, I couldn't see from the back...

Ok, second time I have seen this mentioned, what is this eyebrow gag mentioned?

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

It is not at all a conspiracy theory.
I can't say too much about it, but suffice to say the origins of the story and its purpose has been looked into. By people in a position to have access to such things.
Disney wanted the story there, and had a reason (as '74 said) for it.

Let me get this straight, the article is NOT a conspiracy theory, yet there is super secret info you have that you can't publicly discuss and it is being looked into by top people?

Who?

The CIA?

The only one who knows the inspiration for the story is the author. This isn't the type of article that the author needs to get the editor to back-up his sources because the author was writing about a pop culture topic and quoting anonymous fans, like me, who just have a strong opinion. As the article was about the fan base, it makes sense to touch upon what the message boards are saying, not that this is a super-crypto reference to Disney's plan to "mine data" and use Next Gen technology.

I'm almost laughing because it sounds to me sort of like saying the Obama administration is preparing the population for a robot invasion by using Twitter more in this election than in 2008, because obviously Twitter is run by a big computer and a master computer will run the robot invasion.

We all know that Disney does lavish the press with $, such as flying media folks around and giving free meals and accommodations, but since CBJ just opened, they wouldn't have had time to shower the author with these perks. Given how the article points out problems that the Tiki Room refurb had, and fan gripes, it is not at all the type of article/press coverage that Disney openly solicits from the media.

So, unless you are suggesting that a NYT author (a prestigious well paying job), took a check from Disney for $$ to write an article which in part bashes them, I don't see how the article is a plant.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

Thanks for the backup, but none is needed. Folks often want the simplest answer. Stories are placed all the time with all sorts of agendas. Many are deserving of it. ... Rest assured, NYT newsprint is pricey. Very. A story on an animatronic bear show being shortened by five minutes doesn't warrent two sentences in said pub.

I've read NYT enough to know that they cover all sorts of niche articles, and usually with in-depth reporting. Not at all surprised CBJ was made into an article. Disney is a brand name, and the story is interesting as there is this inherent conflict between fans and the company, and the whole political correctness issue. This makes this article more mainstream than a lot of the niche topics I have seen, IMHO.

Technically, all of this is a conspiracy theory as folks are theorizing a conspiracy (implausible theory, IMHO) between the author and Disney.

 

[Lee]

Let me get this straight, the article is NOT a conspiracy theory, yet there is super secret info you have that you can't publicly discuss and it is being looked into by top people?

Who?

The CIA?

The only one who knows the inspiration for the story is the author. This isn't the type of article that the author needs to get the editor to back-up his sources because the author was writing about a pop culture topic and quoting anonymous fans, like me, who just have a strong opinion. As the article was about the fan base, it makes sense to touch upon what the message boards are saying, not that this is a super-crypto reference to Disney's plan to "mine data" and use Next Gen technology.

I'm almost laughing because it sounds to me sort of like saying the Obama administration is preparing the population for a robot invasion by using Twitter more in this election than in 2008.

We all know that Disney does lavish the press with $, such as flying media folks around and giving free meals and accommodations, but since CBJ just opened, they wouldn't have had time to shower the author with these perks. Given how the article points out problems that the Tiki Room refurb had, and fan gripes, it is not at all the type of article/press coverage that Disney openly solicits from the media.

So, unless you are suggesting that a NYT author (a prestigious well paying job), took a check from Disney for $$ to write an article which in part bashes them, I don't see how the article is a plant.

You are missing the point.
Read '74's post again. It's all in there.

The only one who knows the inspiration for the story is the author.

Not entirely true.

As to what I know and how I know it, this case is no different from the average bit of Disney info I get and pass on. In almost every case, the source must be protected. Doesn't make the info any less accurate.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

No, trust me...it was planted. It's a spin piece, salted with just enough negative comments to seem "unbiased".
I'm fairly confident we'll be learning the origins of that piece in the coming days...

So, from this post it sounds like you don't know the "origin" of the piece,(whatever that means.)

Exactly.
It was an extremely unnecessary move, in my opinion, and one that will likely do more harm than good in most circles.
Can't wait to learn more...

So, you want to know more here in this post. And you admit that the article did more harm than good, "in most circles".

As to what I know and how I know it, this case is no different from the average bit of Disney info I get and pass on. In almost every case, the source must be protected. Doesn't make the info any less accurate.

And now you imply that you have inside info regarding the "origin" of the piece.

You do know that if somebody at Disney wrote a check to pay off a NYT author, (a bad career move as the reward doesn't equal the risk), it would have to be somebody pretty high up at Disney, and possibly with Iger's consent as blatantly writing a check is different from flying in the media for the grand opening of a new land. So, if maybe a couple vice presidents, and Iger, and the author know about the deal, you say you now have this info?

Given that the author blasted Disney with fans misgivings, he risked Disney leaking to his bosses that he was paid off, which could cause him to be fired.

Somewhat confusing is your claim that people "with access to such things" are looking into this. If Disney paid off the author, they wouldn't be looking into it because they know they did it! Of course, you must mean your top secret sources at the NYT, such as the author and his editor, or the C.I.A.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

You are missing the point.
Read '74's post again. It's all in there.

Would that be the super long rambling post with the conspiracy theories and the insults?

Old Dead Guy Walt said he didn't want that for his worldwide empire of parks he was planning (along with his timeshare and hotel empire) when he sat on that bench watching Diane and Sharon on the merry go round munching on peanuts.

I see some posts above, including by one of the folks who was mentioned in the piece (enjoy the 15 minutes while they last, we can't all be Jon Cryer!) talking about this couldn't possibly be placed by Disney because it has GULP!!!, GASP!!!, GROAN!!! ... negative comments in it.

 

[Lee]

Notice the time difference between my posts that you quoted? Things were learned during that time.

It's obvious you are going to believe what you want about this whole thing, so I really see no point in arguing the matter.

 

[NewfieFan]

Trying to catch up on some posts after being away for a couple of days... wanted to see what happened to CBJ and folk's opinions on it... what thread did I just walk into!?! Backing out slowly...

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

Notice the time difference between my posts that you quoted? Things were learned during that time.

All of those posts were from yesterday! First it was assuring us it was a planted piece while waiting for the info to come in, then it was a nebulous "confirmation" that the piece was planted while no divulging information because it could hurt sources.

It is not about what I believe, per se, but the convoluted conspiracy theory whereby Disney pays off a respected New York Times reporter to write a puff piece which then actually turns out to mock Country Bear Jamboree and hardcore fans of the attraction. I personally think that you, (and WDW1974 especially who is prone to rants about social media "whores"), doesn't like it when an article is half-opportunity for Disney to defend themselves, and half criticism, because you don't like to hear anything positive in the press, and assume that a legitimate reporter would have gobs of negative things to say about Disney.

No doubt you and WDW1974 have some tidbits of insider info, but the interpretation of why Disney's does things is open for debate as it is harder to get into the heads of the handful of people who call the shots. So we have,

1. Conspiracy theory involving Disney paying NYT to write a paid piece, even though the article paints Disney in a bad light at certain points.

2. Assertion that Carsland is close to being greenlit for DHS, construction beginning within 12 months.

I don't think either of things are true, IMHO.

 

[asianway]

So...when was the last time the NYT(or any other newspaper or true media outlet for that matter) quoted anonymous message board posters?

Ever?

 

[Lee]

All of those posts were from yesterday! First it was assuring us it was a planted piece while waiting for the info to come in, then it was a nebulous "confirmation" that the piece was planted while no divulging information because it could hurt sources.

And the problem there is where?
I read the piece and commented on it here, stating that I wanted to know more.
Later....I did learn more. From a person or persons who would not appreciate me spilling it all out here. No different from the ususal Disney information I get ahold of.

It is not about what I believe, per se, but the convoluted conspiracy theory whereby Disney pays off a respected New York Times reporter to write a puff piece which then actually turns out to mock Country Bear Jamboree and hardcore fans of the attraction.

When did I say Disney paid anyone off? I didn't.
I said the piece was put there for a reason, not that anybody got a payoff.

I personally think that you, (and WDW1974 especially who is prone to rants about social media "whores"), doesn't like it when an article is half-opportunity for Disney to defend themselves, and half criticism, because you don't like to hear anything positive in the press, and assume that a legitimate reporter would have gobs of negative things to say about Disney.

You are welcome to think that....but it isn't the case.

...but the interpretation of why Disney's does things is open for debate as it is harder to get into the heads of the handful of people who call the shots.

Not really. Not when you have people who are knowledgable about a situation telling you in no uncertain terms why something was done. No guesswork or interpretation is involved at all.

Conspiracy theory involving Disney paying NYT to write a paid piece, even though the article paints Disney in a bad light at certain points.

Again, I am not asserting that Disney paid anyone off. Not at all. I'm saying they planted the story for a reason, one which '74 explained earlier.
As for painting Disney in a bad light....does it really? Or does it, from another angle, paint fans in a bad light? In a sense saying, "Look what we have to deal with."

2. Assertion that Carsland is close to being greenlit for DHS, construction beginning within 12 months.

Yes. I think it is either greenlit or close and construction could begin within a year.

I don't think either of things are true, IMHO.

That's fine.

 

[Atomicmickey]

So, it's sorta like this:

"You are getting very sleepy, you are feeling very restful . . .
we are spending a lot of money on something that will hopefully increase our ROI . . .
it is not what you asked for, but it is what we want . . .
you are getting sleepier . . .
you will love it . . . you always have loved it . . . .
deeper and deeper into a blissful sleep . . .
you asked for this, it is what you want . . . .
you love this, it is magical . . . .
sleep, sleep . . . .

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

Again, I am not asserting that Disney paid anyone off. Not at all. I'm saying they planted the story for a reason, one which '74 explained earlier.
As for painting Disney in a bad light....does it really? Or does it, from another angle, paint fans in a bad light? In a sense saying, "Look what we have to deal with."

The author writes articles for a prestigious journal, the New York Times. He isn't on Disney's payroll, so the only way to get a planted piece would be to pay him off in some way. Doubt he was flown down to Orlando for CBJ's opening, and doubt that he would let Disney dictate what was in an article, jeopardize his career for nothing.

WDW1974 reason is, IMHO, nonsensical, a bizarre crypto reference to next gen work, or a way to justify making changes to queue, two things that Disney doesn't need to do as the interactive queues are pluses, generally. They did surveys and guests hate waiting in lines so they add intersting/interactive stuff.

The article refers to CBJ as corny, and it makes derrogatory descriptions of the bears. Once again, the interest piece is the guest reaction to the ride, doesn't really help Disney at all, especially as they bring up the failed Tiki Room refurb.

For any article regarding changes in an attraction, a fair author would get comments from Disney, and then add their own commentary and that of others. Disney will always spin things, no surprise here.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

Yes. I think it is either greenlit or close and construction could begin within a year.

I seriously doubt that, but you admit that you don't know if it is greenlit? There are a lot of reasons why Carsland won't be coming to DHS . . . I find Carsland at DHS very hard to believe, so I guess we'll agree to disagree.

 

[Lee]

I seriously doubt that, but you admit that you don't know if it is greenlit? There are a lot of reasons why Carsland won't be coming to DHS . . . I find Carsland at DHS very hard to believe, so I guess we'll agree to disagree.

I have no concrete information that it has been officially greenlit.
What I have is the statements of people who are in a position to know that a version of Cars Land is actively being developed (some say fast-tracked) for DHS.

I'm not making this stuff up. Same for the CBJ article. I don't do that.
I've got a 10-year track record here. Feel free to point out the times that I have been a)wrong or b)making stuff up.
But....believe what you want.

 

[The Empress Lilly]

First, let me tell you what the story was NOT about. That would be the Country Bear Jamboree. If you think that's what it was about, you're mistaken.

[...]

This was the first little salvo in a big push to get people behind Disney's huge tracking/data mining initiative. Amusing that it was in the NYT. My Mouse Ears are off to the folks behind it, but the battle is just starting.

Oh, don't be silly.

Everybody knows what a Disney attraction is, it is as mainstream American as Johnny Carson and Elvis. The story is about changes over time to this form of classical entertainment. Some attractions are nearing forty, fifty, sixty years of age. Today's audiences have different interests, attention spans, other diversions than forty years ago. How do entertainment giants cope with that?

That's all it is. Nothing to see here, move along people.

 

[WDW1974]

Lee, you're wasting time. I think I hurt someone's feelings because I took a little bit away from their 15 minutes of fame by saying that Disney was pleased with the story.

The suggestion that anyone was ever paid for a story, let alone Brooks Barnes of the Times, is absurd. But again, I think we're speaking a foreign language to some (many?) people here. Stories get placed all the time. That doesn't mean money is ever changed hands. Sometimes, it is just a favor for a friend or associate.

The pixieduster is trying to take cred away from what really went down by using terms like 'conspiracy theory' which always gets the simple-minded all frothed up because they see life very simply. And have no idea how things like major media work.

Bottom line, the person's rabid defense of the story (and that it's so negative toward Disney, which it is far from, he/she is just used to all the Pixie Dusted posts here) doesn't alter the fact they were quoted (sorta) in the story and they should be happy. Maybe frame it and put it on the fridge.

I don't get the zealous campaign by said poster to make it seem like the CBJ is gosh darn it the perfect story for the NYT and its readership and that it is a typical piece in the way it was put together.

I fully expect that poster to go back and forth so long as they're engaged. I am not intending on wasting a beautiful Sunday in paradise doing so ... I'll just repeat what I've said. The story was a plant and was designed to go after the most die-hard Disney fans and paint them as out of touch loons while advancing Disney's technology agenda. And, maybe that went over many folks' heads, but that's exactly what it did. End of story.

 

[WDW1974]

I seriously doubt that, but you admit that you don't know if it is greenlit? There are a lot of reasons why Carsland won't be coming to DHS . . . I find Carsland at DHS very hard to believe, so I guess we'll agree to disagree.

Yeah, you're right. because you're somebody important, right?

So important that you know that John spent late yesterday afternoon (possibly evening as well) meeting with Imagineers at WDW, after a luncheon his winery hosted at Citricos, to discuss said project. You know that, right?

And you also know it's not coming here ... another online genius. If I only had a trip coming up ... (oh wait, I sorta do but I'll go insane if I have to deal with this drivel until then.)