My thought on these is that like most other articles (a bit less in these, but still there), the focus is more on the business side of things. Disney and Gold seem to be following this tack themselves, in that their comments focus mainly on things like flat performance of the stock over the past X years and the governance of the board. Unfortunately, I think they will end up on the losing end, as this argument will be tough to win.
The issues that many people here care about, and the issues that most believe have set Disney apart from other companies, are more long-term and mission oriented, and although some of these things are mentioned in the letters, they don't seem to be the focus of any discussions. No analyst I have heard of comments about whether California Adventure is a sign of bad management by Eiser, etc. At least these articles delve a bit into things like micromanagement, but I think the common perception is that this is an internal feud that will blow over shortly.
For many on Wall Street, including the big institutional investors that Disney/Gold say they will be talking to, I think the major focus is going to be on stock value. They won't care much about the long-term issues (or even the governance) unless a very direct effect can be shown. Barring some major development (e.g. closing the animation department completely or closing a park), they aren't going to pay the level of attention to such issues enough to become "educated" about the things that make Disney unique. To most, Disney is just like any other major media company. I don't see Disney/Gold being able to convince them otherwise - even people who read these boards regularly are not convinced it would be good for Eisner go (e.g. look at the discussion on the debate board).
The one chance they might have is if they have some specific event that they can tie directly to Eisner. This could be the loss of the Pixar relationship, a strike or something by employees (or any kind of official statement from employee groups or unions - both of these are very unlikely), or a governance-related scandal (also unlikely). Otherwise, I think the simple argument that "our stock is improving" will be enough to blunt almost any criticism enough to keep the status quo.
