Once again Disney is coming under fire for withholding from DVD The Path to 9/11 miniseries.

“brass at Disney were called on Thursday to defend their decision not to release the controversial miniseries "The Path to 9/11" on DVD and to justify CEO Robert Iger's $27.7 million pay package.
"Path," a 2006 ABC miniseries critical of President Bill Clinton's handling of terrorist threats, was so controversial that leading Democrats asked Disney not to air the program. Disney, after making some hasty edits, ran it commercial-free.
At Disney's annual shareholders' meeting in Albuquerque, N.M., one mutual fund portfolio manager said it was high time Disney turned "Path" into a DVD and recouped some of the $40 million it spent on the project.
The fund manager, Tom Borelli, accused Iger of protecting Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign at the expense of shareholders, and pointed out that Iger has been a steady Clinton donor since before the former first lady was elected to the Senate.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainme...727501920080307

Questions for the debate:

1. Is Disney caving to political pressure from the Clintons and the Democratic Party?
2. The studio had no problem quickly releasing the Moore Fahrenheit 9/11 – so why is this different?
3. Is this piece any less a documentary than the Moore piece? Why or Why not?

I'll answer strictly as an outsider to this whole situation. Feel free to take this all with a very large grain of salt.

Questions for the debate:

1. Is Disney caving to political pressure from the Clintons and the Democratic Party?

From what I read here, it seems to be more a matter that this Iger fellow doesn't want to release something that attacks the husband of a candidate he supports. Not exactly "caving in," but it seems rather petty.

2. The studio had no problem quickly releasing the Moore Fahrenheit 9/11 – so why is this different?

There are only two possible reasons. One, it won't make any money. Two, Iger doesn't like it. I'm just guessing here, but I suspect it's partly the first and mostly the second. (If Iger knew it would make his company a ton of money, I suspect he'd release it anyway. As it is, he probably figures it will just quietly go away.)

3. Is this piece any less a documentary than the Moore piece? Why or Why not?

Both are highly opinionated discussions about controversial issues. I have not seen either one, so I can't judge the quality of either.

The estimate is it would bring in 40 million and this is why Disney stock holders are angry about a personal “political” decision that effects Disney profits and their returns.

Disney had no problem releasing political videos of a sitting President. But now can't seem to bring themselves to release a political video of a mere presidential hopeful?

I'm going to go with "Yes" on that one. You don't spend $40 billion on a film, and then let it sit in a vault if you're such a good businessman that Warren Buffet endorses you. The money was spent. More can be made. This is not what successful people do.

Uhm... Democrats begged them not to release it?

Fahrenheit 911 was so close to the General Election that it was almost considered a "political advertisement". Disney did everything TO release that movie, and are doing everything NOT to release this one.

Moore has yet to make a documentary.

Bowling for Columbine spliced together Charlton Heston's speeches, misrepresented the "Free Gun" at the bank by spacing out filming over the federally mandated five day waiting period (he wore the same clothes to pick it up), and claimed the NRA descended on Colorado immediately afterwards, when they didn't. And his gun figures for the U.S. were inflated because he counted every shooting, not necessarily "murders", like the other countries represented.

Fahrenheit 9-11 was a joke. "Headlines" noted in the movies were taken from the Opinion Page, The Gore “victory” rally isn’t celebrating a Florida win. It was held before the polls had even opened. The Carlyle Group is not a Bush playground, as noted in F911. Many Bush opponents are investors, including George Soros. And John Ashcroft didn’t really lose a Senate election to a “dead guy.” Mel Carnahan died in a plane crash a few weeks before the election, and the Missouri Governor had promised to appoint Carnahan’s widow Jean Carnahan if voters pulled the lever for Mel Carnahan. It's more FUN to believe that Ashcroft lost because people would rather vote for a corpse. But the facts are what make a documentary, not the humor.

A "documentary" would have been unbiased - something Michael Moore has the complete inability to be. Moore can be entertaining, but it's propaganda that's simply fun to watch.

So any documentary is better than the fiction that Moore has done. Unless it also is meant to be a hit-piece and nothing else.

Actually, Disney did not release Farenheit 9/11. They declined to do so because they felt that the film and its criticism of Bush was too politically charged. They sold the rights to the movie. The founders of Miramax, the company that funded the film, purchased the rights and arranged for the release. And the US did "air recon" on the deal.

Nice fact checking.

So yoy are implying that the “rights” to the documentary are for sale? Please show us this “fact”. Otherwise they are “holding it” – aren’t they.

"Disney has no plans to release a 2006 ABC mini-series entitled Path to 9/11 on DVD, says The Hollywood Reporter. Disney stockholders recently met in Albequerque, New Mexico, and Tom Borelli, a Disney portfolio fund manager, accused CEO Michael Iger of protecting political considerations in withholding this DVD. Apparently, not only does Disney not want to release the mini-series on DVD, but they will not sell the rights to other studios as well. Borelli apparently had a letter from Lionsgate claiming that Disney would not sell the DVD rights to another company"
http://www.movieweb.com/dvd/news/48/27148.php