By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Former Disney CEO Michael Eisner has publicly criticized the company’s decision to suspend Jimmy Kimmel’s show on ABC, owned by Disney. Eisner, who served as CEO from 1984 to 2005, expressed his disapproval of the indefinite suspension, linking it to the FCC Chairman’s threats against ABC. The decision followed Kimmel’s comments about the Charlie Kirk assassination, which sparked controversy. Eisner’s remarks and those of other prominent figures, including celebrities and former late-night hosts, come in the wake of FCC threats and raise concerns about free speech and corporate interests within the media landscape.
Read the original article here
Ex-Disney CEO Michael Eisner is now grabbing headlines for his sharp criticism of the entertainment giant, particularly their perceived capitulation to Donald Trump’s pressure regarding Jimmy Kimmel. It’s a pretty interesting turn of events, especially considering Eisner’s own long and impactful tenure at Disney. It seems like even though there’s been a lot of criticism of Eisner’s past actions, at least he’s willing to speak out, and that in itself is noteworthy.
Eisner’s words are definitely striking, calling out the current leadership for what he sees as a failure to uphold the First Amendment. He specifically questioned where the leadership has gone, highlighting the importance of figures in positions of power standing up against bullying and defending free speech. It’s a strong statement, and coming from someone who ran Disney for over two decades, it carries a lot of weight. Many feel Disney’s reaction to the pressure from Trump was weak, and that they should have stood firm on protecting their platform.
The discussion around this issue is bringing up other serious concerns, like the future of Marvel and the direction of Disney’s content. There’s a feeling that the company is prioritizing politics over quality and that the constant bowing to external pressures is hurting their creative output and audience base. Canceling subscriptions and boycotting the company is an act of disapproval for how Disney is acting in the current situation. Some are expressing frustration with the perceived lack of courage within the company to take a stand, highlighting the financial implications of such decisions and the need to protect the integrity of their content.
The article references the importance of strong leadership at Disney, mentioning Frank Wells, who served as Eisner’s right-hand man. The suggestion is that if current CEO Bob Iger had someone similar, the company might be making better decisions today. This raises the idea that Disney is in a difficult position, particularly if they’re facing threats from the U.S. Government, as one commenter mentioned. There is the notion that they might be forced to respond in a certain way, or lose what is essentially their empire.
It’s important to keep in mind the broader implications of Disney’s choices. There’s a lot of talk about free speech and the potential erosion of democracy, as well as the impact of political pressure on entertainment. There’s also the issue of corporate cowardice, with the suggestion that Disney is prioritizing appeasement over principle. Many are calling for accountability, including calls to boycott companies that are caving to Trump and his supporters.
The question of why more current leaders haven’t spoken up on the issue is a good one. Many of them are probably being pressured by shareholders and fear losing their positions. Others simply have different priorities, and the potential for controversy or economic losses is too great for them to consider taking a stand. It’s a complex situation with a lot of moving parts.
Some people are expressing frustration with the situation, highlighting the importance of speaking out against government overreach and protecting free speech. There are also practical considerations, such as the potential impact of government actions on the company’s finances. There is a lot of focus on how the companies are reacting to threats from the US Government and how they could be facing pressure.
One of the things that stands out is the level of disappointment many people have with Disney. While there’s an understanding of the challenges they face, there’s also a sense that they’re not living up to their potential. The issue is made all the more poignant by the fact that Disney is one of the few companies that could easily fight back.
The situation is a good example of the current political landscape. It touches on issues of corporate responsibility, free speech, and the influence of politics on business and culture. It’s a complex issue, and it’s clear that people have a lot of strong opinions on the matter.