Roy Disney Goes Online in Battle to Oust Eisner (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/15/business/media/15roy.html?ex=1072155600&en=a8da5fda7f563c01&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE) - New York Times, 12/15/03

QuikQuote: The Web site, SaveDisney.com, was created, according to its home page, as a "central information location as we begin to restore Disney to its position as the pre-eminent entertainment company in the world."
So far, Mr. Disney and Mr. Gold have included their letters of resignation from the board, photographs of themselves, e-mail addresses for comment and an assortment of Disney-related vacation and fan-based Web sites, including mouseplanet.com and miceage.com.

I wonder why they chose to include MP and Miceage as 2 sites...

Oh my gosh, what the heck is wrong with this reporter?????????????

"And most of the Disney-related Web sites mentioned seem to have no connection to any disaffection with Mr. Eisner. Some sites promote Mickey Mouse and the theme parks."

Oh my gosh!!!!! Is she BLIND?????? Look at the banner on Miceage.com! Do you think she even looked at JimHillMedia.com?

I think that she probably looked at the site main pages andnot the discussion boards, which brings us to the question... what is up with MousePlanet regarding taking a stand (or not) on this issue in their main pages?

Originally posted by DisneyFan25863
I wonder why they chose to include MP and Miceage as 2 sites...

Ummm, maybe because they are two separate sites?

Savedisney.com needs a full-time editor to provide daily specific links to articles and discussion boards, not leave it to chance that lurkers will find the right stuff.

Originally posted by teri
Oh my gosh, what the heck is wrong with this reporter?????????

That's exactly what I thought, Teri. She obviously either didn't look at the sites, or only gave them a cursory glance, but it wasn't very strong reporting on her part. I wrote a reporter last night suggesting he follow up on his story regarding Roy's online battle with a report on Roy's online supporters- I think there is a good story there.... Roy and Stan posted these site links because there has been so much information and activity directly related to current events at the WDC, and it's obvious the NY Times reporter was clueless. Very poor reporting, IMHO. :mad:

I just read an MSNBC gossip piece that throws another NY times report into question: a reporter ran an article in the wake of Roy's resignation that quoted Harvey Weinstein of Miramax. He was critical of the atmosphere at the WDC, and his comments seemed to support Roy's position. The only problem is that, while he acknowledges making those comments, they were made a good month before Roy's resignation, while being interviewed for a book by the same reporter. She apparently chose to use his statements in such a way that people would think they were made in response to the resignations, and even went around trying to elicit comments from others based on this premise.

What is the deal at that paper? I had to double-check to see if they weren't talking about the Post...

Somebody better call her out, then.

That comment about how these websites seem to promote Mickey Mouse and the Theme Parks... well, duh! How the heck.... does she think we would have to be anti-Disney to be valid?

That's just it, Teri- she doesn't get it. It's because we love Disney that we are concerned about what is happening. We don't want to tear it down, we want to make it better. I really have to question if she even looked at the sites- she probably just had some intern do it and report back to her. Like you said, Miceage has a large ad banner for SaveDisney.com- how on earth could she miss that?

Originally posted by cstephens
Ummm, maybe because they are two separate sites?

I mean why did she choose MP and Miceage out of the 8 sites listed, even though MP, for instances, hasn't said much of anything about Roy and Stan?

Perhaps because, historically, it has?

I think the article was written either over the weekend or late last week for holding until Monday morning's paper. Having once worked in journalism I am guessing about this reporter but there can be a tendency, when on deadline about what the editor might think of as a minor article, that the reporter who wrote it didn't feel up to going through the discussion forums on any sites listed at SaveDisney.com. Not everyone is into online discussions. Could be this reporter, for whatever reason, didn't want to delve further or wade through messages or suchlike. Had the reporter visted any Disney fan site, or any financial/stock site (such as The Motley Fool or CBS Marketwatch.com) that has discussion forums for the various stocks, the reporter would have seen vast majority of posters exuding general agreement and support for Roy Disney and Stanley Gold and negative towards Michael Eisner and the recent past at Disney. Talk about it on CBS Marketwatch.com's DIS discussion area was scorching for awhile against Eisner. In fact, I think I saw an article on CBS Marketwatch.com's DIS news list that talked about online reaction to Roy Disney's resignation. So maybe the NY Times reporter was told not only to do an article about SaveDisney.com opening up but check out the fan sites the SaveDisney.com site lists. The reporter literally did that, saw nothing on the home pages of the two fan sites that were overtly about Roy Disney-Stanley Gold-brouhaha vs. Michael Eisner, wrote that in the article for the NY Times, and went on about the reporter's business doing something else. Didn't do a full job of it, but then again for space or content (or "spin control") maybe the editor cut out any references to Disney fan site discussion areas and which way the wind was blowing on those areas. Who knows?