Independent Audit Blasts Disney For Pulling ‘Bait And Switch’ On Florida: ‘A Mousetrap’

[whiteness]

That is NOT what "The right to remain silent" means. You are speaking or Miranda rights, where someone being arrested is advised that they may remain silent lest their own words be used to help prove that they committed a crime. The words themselves are not considered the crime.

I know. I was being facetious. Hence, the cute little emoji. I immediately regretted it given the venue where I posted it, because I know how passionate people are about this topic, here.

 

[Smugpugmug]

That thumbnail alone is telling. Anyone actually talking about this seriously wouldn't have such an over the top graphic.

Made the mistake of clicking on this guy's channel and didn't have to scroll far to find a headline bellyaching about wokeness. I should listen to legal advice from this guy because..........?

 

[whiteness]

And this isn't the correct application of this advice, so I think we're all clear on your understanding of the law now.

Yup, any words will be taken in the most negative light by the "other side." That's what's happening to Disney. That's what's happening to DeSantis. As I said before, there are no "unbiased" individuals, here: everyone has a side, and they view everything in that light.

 

[whiteness]

That thumbnail alone is telling. Anyone actually talking about this seriously wouldn't have such an over the top graphic.

Yeah, I'd rather just listen to the testimony without the commentary. They often made it almost impossible to hear what was being said.

But, what I did hear seemed potentially valid to me. I'm not a lawyer or an accountant, so maybe it's really all just smoke and no fire. I'm sure we'll find out, eventually.

 

[HokieRaven5]

Yeah, I'd rather just listen to the testimony without the commentary. They often made it almost impossible to hear what was being said.

But, what I did hear seemed potentially valid to me. I'm not a lawyer or an accountant, so maybe it's really all just smoke and no fire. I'm sure we'll find out, eventually.

The meeting is freely available on YouTube to watch without additional commentary:

https://www.youtube.com/live/2yQVPypD2Ls?si=GmdU0cZ_r7V9oFzY

 

[BrianL]

I know. I was being facetious. Hence, the cute little emoji. I immediately regretted it given the venue where I posted it, because I know how passionate people are about this topic, here.

Yeah we're passionate about our rights. Everybody should be.

 

[wvjules]

Look, people, of course the audit was requested because they thought there was some wrongdoing and the mandate was to find it. Why would anyone expect them to write a glowing report about how wonderful Disney was and what a great asset they were for the state of Florida?

Sure, if one of us had written the report, that's what they would have gotten. And we probably wouldn't have found many issues, either. Because, as I've pointed out now numerous times, people have already picked sides on this issue, and consistently only see the set of "facts" that supports their pre-existing viewpoint. And art blind to any other "facts" that do not. That is true no matter which side you are on. People already have such strong and hardened views on this, it is impossible for most of them to change at this point, no matter what they see or hear.

So, if anyone actually wanted an exhaustive deep dive into all of Disney's "wrongdoing", which Pro-Disney folks already believe is a logical impossibility, then you would have no choice but to hire people that were not "Pro-Disney." Given the enormous influence and presence Disney has in the state of Florida, it is impossible to find people who are truly neutral. People that would claim to be "neutral" might be doing so to hide the fact that they are secretly "Pro-Disney", so the safest option was to chose people who were known to be "anti-Disney."

Did that make the audit process biased? Yeah, probably. But, in my opinion, it would never be possible to make a totally "unbiased" audit of Disney's actions in Florida. It would either be biased in favor of or against them. If the reader made his or her own "audit", I'm sure you know, in your heart, which kind of audit you would write. We would all "find" the "facts" that supported the side we wanted to win. As long as audits need to be written by actual human beings, an audit of Disney will be biased.

That doesn't mean that the facts in the audit are lies and falsehoods. It does mean that they probably tried much harder to dig up bad things rather than good things, and presented their findings in a way that makes Disney look worse rather than better. Sorry to say, but the other side would have done the same thing, just in reverse (and they already are.)

The good news is, Disney can conduct their own audit and present their own facts. It's an adversarial process. Disney is no stranger to this: they sue people and organizations all the time. They have great legal representation, public relations and an army of loving fans. They won't just roll over and accept anything they feel is false or unfair. They will be given their day in court to prove their side.

So none of that is how audits should work. They are supposed to be independent and factual. No one gets to make up their own facts. Factual evidence is reviewed and concluded upon and should be free of bias and/or emotion.

 

[HokieRaven5]

Yup, any words will be taken in the most negative light by the "other side." That's what's happening to Disney. That's what's happening to DeSantis. As I said before, there are no "unbiased" individuals, here: everyone has a side, and they view everything in that light.

This goes beyond just a simple DeSantis v Disney after what has transpired this year.

 

[sam_gordon]

Because, as I've pointed out now numerous times, people have already picked sides on this issue, and consistently only see the set of "facts" that supports their pre-existing viewpoint.

This was never billed as a forensic audit. It was prepared for the FL governor and legislature per Florida House bill 9-B. Take it with the same grain of salt you would if Disney prepared their own report.

The thread title bills it as an "Indepenent" audit. I guarantee there are people/companies out there that either don't care about Disney/DeSantis and/or can set aside their personal feelings to do a professional, unbiased report.

I agree I wouldn't trust anything Disney put out, but by the same token, this shouldn't be accepted as gospel either. @whiteness, you seem to agree Disney would be biased in their report, but accepting of this one.

Did Disney do anything wrong? Don't know. Should Reedy Creek had been disbanded? Don't know. But the OPTICS are DeSantis got his panties in a wad because Disney spoke out against his bill. And politics is ALL about optics.

IMO, Disney (because corporations are people now), has the right to say what they want to say without government interference. If the public doesn't like their stance, they won't give that company money.

Just like any person has the right to say they disagree with what the President, Congress, state Legislature, or school board does. Thinking its OK for DeSantis to go after Disney is saying its OK to punish an individual for saying the President is wrong. Is that really what we want?

 

[BrianL]

The thread title bills it as an "Indepenent" audit. I guarantee there are people/companies out there that either don't care about Disney/DeSantis and/or can set aside their personal feelings to do a professional, unbiased report.

I agree I wouldn't trust anything Disney put out, but by the same token, this shouldn't be accepted as gospel either. @whiteness, you seem to agree Disney would be biased in their report, but accepting of this one.

Did Disney do anything wrong? Don't know. Should Reedy Creek had been disbanded? Don't know. But the OPTICS are DeSantis got his panties in a wad because Disney spoke out against his bill. And politics is ALL about optics.

IMO, Disney (because corporations are people now), has the right to say what they want to say without government interference. If the public doesn't like their stance, they won't give that company money.

Just like any person has the right to say they disagree with what the President, Congress, state Legislature, or school board does. Thinking its OK for DeSantis to go after Disney is saying its OK to punish an individual for saying the President is wrong. Is that really what we want?

When someone is constantly emphasizing the words "independent" or "honest" or "fair" then chances are that the item in question is anything but.

 

[HokieRaven5]

Should Reedy Creek had been disbanded?

This is the crux of my issue with this entire scenario. If you want to disband/dissolve RCID, fine. It served its purpose at the time and while it still provides a benefit to both Disney and the State, if you want it gone and fold Walt Disney World under Orange and Osceola County, fine.

But don’t then change it to a board that is no longer required to be accountable to its local constituents/tax payers and subject to the whims of the ideals of the entire state every four years because you failed to account for the existing bond debt in the first place and have to save face.

The audit (provided they bring about better evidence to back it up than the 78 exhibits they provided) does have concerns about the practices of RCID, but the inflammatory language use makes it sound more egregious than it actually is.

 

[john7994]

It's called "the right to remain silent" Sometimes, knowing when to stop talking is very valuable, both for individuals and corporations.

The above is not good advice (outside of criminal/civil culpability) and it’s incredibly contradictory to suggest that I must hear what you have to say, but others must/should remain silent.

 

[whiteness]

The above is not good advice (outside of criminal/civil culpability) and it’s incredibly contradictory to suggest that I must hear what you have to say, but others must/should remain silent.

Again, I was attempting to put a humorous spin on it.

But, that said, yeah profit making companies that want to appeal to the widest possible audience should avoid taking political positions if it might potentially alienate a large percentage of their customer base.

I know it's hard for some people on this board to accept, and it goes against their deeply held beliefs. But Disney, as a company, could have chosen to remain silent. And that might have been in their best financial interests as a profit making company.

Some of you will vehemently disagree with the idea that companies even have a choice in the matter: some people apparently believe that everything in life must be inherently political, and everyone and every organization must be forced to take a side. So, freedom of speech somehow requires Disney to take a side in an intensely political issue, no matter what the potential cost to their shareholders. Freedom of speech somehow equates to forced speech in the world-view of these people. And that is nothing new.

“In our age there is no such thing as "keeping out of politics." All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia. When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer. I should expect to find--this is a guess which I have not sufficient knowledge to verify--that the German, Russian, and Italian languages have all deteriorated in the last ten or fifteen years, as a result of dictatorship.”​

― George Orwell, All Art is Propaganda: Critical Essays

 

[HokieRaven5]

Again, I was attempting to put a humorous spin on it.

But, that said, yeah profit making companies that want to appeal to the widest possible audience should avoid taking political positions if it might potentially alienate a large percentage of their customer base.

I know it's hard for some people on this board to accept, and it goes against their deeply held beliefs. But Disney, as a company, could have chosen to remain silent. And that might have been in their best financial interests as a profit making company.

Some of you will vehemently disagree with the idea that companies even have a choice in the matter: some people apparently believe that everything in life must be inherently political, and everyone and every organization must be forced to take a side. So, freedom of speech somehow requires Disney to take a side in an intensely political issue, no matter what the potential cost to their shareholders. Freedom of speech somehow equates to forced speech in the world-view of these people. And that is nothing new.

“In our age there is no such thing as "keeping out of politics." All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia. When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer. I should expect to find--this is a guess which I have not sufficient knowledge to verify--that the German, Russian, and Italian languages have all deteriorated in the last ten or fifteen years, as a result of dictatorship.”​

― George Orwell, All Art is Propaganda: Critical Essays

No problem if people choose to withhold their $$ from Disney over the belief that Disney has been too political or ideological. Do what you want with your $$ based on your perception of the company and what they said.

That’s not the problem here.

 

[sam_gordon]

But, that said, yeah profit making companies that want to appeal to the widest possible audience should avoid taking political positions if it might potentially alienate a large percentage of their customer base.

That's your opinion. When you run a company, you get to choose what you comment about. Disney had the right to voice their opinion (because companies are people now). People have the right to choose not to do business with that company if they don't like that company's opinions. The GOVERNMENT does NOT have the right to punish a company for it's statements or beliefs. I hope you agree with that.

I know it's hard for some people on this board to accept, and it goes against their deeply held beliefs. But Disney, as a company, could have chosen to remain silent. And that might have been in their best financial interests as a profit making company.

Yes, they could have. And if they've lost money because of their statements or will lose money because of their statements, so be it. But this is NOT about that. It's about GOVERNMENT "going after a company" because of their beliefs.

Some of you will vehemently disagree with the idea that companies even have a choice in the matter: some people apparently believe that everything in life must be inherently political, and everyone and every organization must be forced to take a side. So, freedom of speech somehow requires Disney to take a side in an intensely political issue, no matter what the potential cost to their shareholders. Freedom of speech somehow equates to forced speech in the world-view of these people. And that is nothing new.

No one is saying what you claim. Disney made a choice to comment (IIRC, SOME people, possibly CMs, WERE asking them to comment), but it was still their choice. "Freedom of speech" means you have the freedom to say what you want without government repercussions. Do you believe in that or not? If so, do you believe Desantis did what he did BECAUSE of Disney's statements or because he thought Reedy Creek should be disbanded and picked a bad time (again, because the optics) to do so?

 

[RedHead0186]

So, if anyone actually wanted an exhaustive deep dive into all of Disney's "wrongdoing", which Pro-Disney folks already believe is a logical impossibility, then you would have no choice but to hire people that were not "Pro-Disney." Given the enormous influence and presence Disney has in the state of Florida, it is impossible to find people who are truly neutral. People that would claim to be "neutral" might be doing so to hide the fact that they are secretly "Pro-Disney", so the safest option was to chose people who were known to be "anti-Disney."

Did that make the audit process biased? Yeah, probably. But, in my opinion, it would never be possible to make a totally "unbiased" audit of Disney's actions in Florida. It would either be biased in favor of or against them.

It does mean that they probably tried much harder to dig up bad things rather than good things, and presented their findings in a way that makes Disney look worse rather than better. Sorry to say, but the other side would have done the same thing, just in reverse (and they already are.)

Then it's not an "independent" audit. An independent audit would be people who are not previously biased for or against Disney. That's the whole point of an independent audit.

An independent audit would focus on the facts and the results of those facts (Disney did, or did not, do XXX wrong, etc.). This report is not written that way, with plenty of opinion, slant, etc. That is not an independent audit report.

I have no problem with Disney being made to accept the consequences if they are guilty of any wrongdoing. I do have a problem with CFTOD calling this an "independent" audit when it's very clearly not. And yes, it is possible to find truly independent auditors. It does not appear that they tried very hard to do so in this case (though I don't know what the specific selection process was, so that's just a hunch).

 

[whiteness]

No problem if people choose to withhold their $$ from Disney over the belief that Disney has been too political or ideological. Do what you want with your $$ based on your perception of the company and what they said.

That’s not the problem here.

My daughter, who happens to be gay, hates Disney. Every time I try to get her to go with us, it's like pulling teeth: if EPCOT didn't have food festivals, I doubt she'd ever (willingly) set foot in another Disney park again. I cannot remember the last time she'd prefer a Disney or TV series movie over K-Dramas. It's probably been years.

We're taking her and her girlfriend to SeaWorld for her birthday. That was their choice, not mine. I have no idea what SeaWorld's political views are, but I'm pretty sure the deciding factor was their roller coasters.

So..yeah, not everything is political. Not everything HAS to be political. Disney doesn't HAVE to be political. It doesn't seem to be in their best interests and I think Chapek knew that and tried to keep them out of their current fight, but he, and Disney, was forced to take sides in the political debate. And...here we are...

If you think that's a wonderful thing for Disney as a profit making company, then you are also entitled to your opinion. I don't agree.

 

[Robbie Cottam]

If the Villages isn't stopped soon, the entire state of Florida will be turned into golf courses, tennis courts and speakers playing Jimmy Buffett music 24/7! /s

Wait I don't under understand; that's half of what I love about Florida

 

[HokieRaven5]

My daughter, who happens to be gay, hates Disney. Every time I try to get her to go with us, it's like pulling teeth: if EPCOT didn't have food festivals, I doubt she'd ever (willingly) set foot in another Disney park again. I cannot remember the last time she'd prefer a Disney or TV series movie over K-Dramas. It's probably been years.

We're taking her and her girlfriend to SeaWorld for her birthday. That was their choice, not mine. I have no idea what SeaWorld's political views are, but I'm pretty sure the deciding factor was their roller coasters.

So..yeah, not everything is political. Not everything HAS to be political. Disney doesn't HAVE to be political. It doesn't seem to be in their best interests and I think Chapek knew that and tried to keep them out of their current fight, but he, and Disney, was forced to take sides in the political debate. And...here we are...

If you think that's a wonderful thing for Disney as a profit making company, then you are also entitled to your opinion. I don't agree.

And that’s great, your daughter is free to have that stance on Disney. As is any other individual who are free to choose whether or not they support Disney going forward.

My opinion and any individual’s opinion on the stances of Disney and what we do with our $$ in regards to Disney are irrelevant to the subject matter. We as individuals can and should support or withhold support from companies based upon any of their stances and companies will be forced to adjust accordingly.

Again, that’s not the problem here.

 

[TwoMisfits]

I said at the beginning that the DeSantis/Disney fight was gonna be lose/lose for both parties. Nothing has changed my mind so far.

DeSantis's star has lost its shine.
Disney's theatrical releases have gotten crushed, even more worldwide than domestic, which means Disney may not have lost the PR battle here, but they have lost it worldwide, and it's not close. And their brand power has dropped through survey after survey.

At this point, a ceasefire could only benefit both parties, one more than the other. But neither seems ready for it, so both parties will continue to lose and lose more.

Disney has more to lose b/c it's hard to make people spend money as it is, and they have to have worldwide reach, not Floridian reach (I mean, DeSantis not winning a 2024 pres nom would be...exactly what would be expected at this point, so he has nothing more to lose, so no big reason to quit b/c a ceasefire might not be enough to get him a nom now either). And Disney will probably keep losing. Their lawyers are giving them bad PR/maximizing corporate profit advice, but this is why you don't use lawyers for that.