Moore's Mouse Problem

This week the Walt Disney Company reaffirmed its intention to block Disney-owned Miramax from distributing Michael Moore’s latest documentary, Fahrenheit 911, through Disney’s distribution channels. The film takes issue with President Bush’s decisions before and after the 2001 World Trade Center attacks and examines Bush’s ties to powerful Saudis, including the Bin Laden family. Disney, as a result, has argued that Moore’s film is too political and partisan for its company to distribute—defying its contract with Miramax. Even more disturbing than Disney’s disavowal of any and all products deemed too political, Moore’s agent has told The New York Times that Disney’s chief executive Michael D. Eisner made clear to him the decision was largely motivated by tax incentives concerning its theme park in the state of Florida.

While Eisner denies the allegation that his company indulges Gov. Jeb Bush in exchange for money, the key issue remains. Disney has a right to distribute what it wants to distribute, but we also reserve the right to criticize malicious decisions. Disney’s choice to use its powerful financial position to keep political expression from the public is an insult to all Americans. If Disney is willing to allow Miramax to make the movies it wants to make, Disney ought to be willing to follow through with its own contract to distribute those films.

To be sure, Moore and Miramax will find a new distributor; of that there is no question. What is particularly worrisome is that the interference of powerful media conglomerates in the dissemination of politically sensitive material has lately become routine. Two weeks ago, Sinclair Broadcast Group instructed its seven ABC affiliates not to air a Nightline segment displaying the names of over 500 U.S. soldiers killed in action in Iraq because, according to Sinclair’s statement, the company deemed the program politically motivated against U.S. efforts in that country. (Meanwhile, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., blasted Sinclair’s decision as “a gross disservice to the public, and to the men and women of the United States Armed Forces.”) In February, Clear Channel Communications, Inc. dropped Viacom’s Howard Stern Show from its programming as part of its new Responsible Broadcasting Initiative (RBI), purportedly because the show was offensive and indecent. But the truth is that the show had been vulgar for many years, and the RBI came days after Stern first voiced his discontent with President Bush.

Together, the Nightline, Stern and Fahrenheit 911 episdes form a worrisome pattern of corporate hindrance of political discourse—or in Nightline’s case, simply a refusal to acknowledge the sacrifice of American soldiers. The conglomerates act lawfully. But regardless, by refusing to disseminate programs and publications because of their political content, firms like Sinclair, Clear Channel and Disney perfidiously shape debate to suit their preferences—a complacent public interested in consuming products instead of politics.

Some media outlets feel no compunction in using their influence to stifle points of view for political reasons. To the rest of us, the thought is utterly revolting.