Walt Disney

Introduction

When people think of Disney they think of Mickey Mouse and Disneyland and good clean family fun. However, behind the scenes there is an altogether more sinister side to Walt Disney, a side that is seldom on view to the general public. The purpose of this report is thus to try and show this by highlighting some of Walt Disney's less palatable businesses practices. As such the report will consist of three distinct parts. The first will look at Disney's alleged use of sweatshop labour in the production of its merchandise in the third world. The second part will attempt to examine how Disney exploits people in the first world through advertising and its control over parts of the media. Finally, the last section of the report will examine Disney's use of lobbyists to influence the US government and also how Walt Disney is involved in the actual political process due to its involvement in the media.

Walt Disney in the Third world - Sweatshop Labour

When most people from the developed world think of Walt Disney, they consider Mickey Mouse, Disney Land in Florida, cartoons and cuddly toys as key components under the subject of Walt Disney. However the real truth is that millions of children in Third world countries are being forced to work in sweatshops to make toys and goods for Walt Disney. Whilst the directors make millions of pounds in profits, millions of children and adults suffer exploitation through working in terrible conditions for abysmal wages. In 2005 the company had revenues of $31.9 billion. ^[1] This is a fine example of globalisation and how it has affected developing countries in the way of sweatshops and their treatment of workers. Walt Disney has benefited greatly from using developing countries like Bangladesh for cheap labour to produce clothing and toys. In China, Disney has a large population to choose from and can even be selective in discriminating against married women. Both these countries will be highlighted in this report. Corporations like Disney can easily avoid being punished for use of sweatshops by easily pulling out of their subcontractors if pressure mounts against them. There are also heavy environmental impacts as a result of sweatshops through large amounts of pollution being produced. Through owning mass media stations like ABC, Disney has managed to stop its use of sweatshops from gaining negative exposure.

Walt Disney sweatshops are heavily involved in producing goods such as clothes, toys, books and games. Children of the Developed world enjoy such goods through using them to play and learn with. However children from Developing countries like Bangladesh, China and Pakistan work for very little wages, barely enough to survive , and in terrible environments. In sweatshops workers endure high accounts of abuse both physical and mental. They have no right to speak out against conditions in case they lose their job and trade unions are forbidden. Many anti globalisation activists 'argue that corporations who sell their product in wealthy western countries - at western prices - have a responsibility to pay their workers according to basic western standards'. ^[2] However supporters of globalisation and free trade 'point to a lower standard of living as an explanation for the low wages and argue that their (corporations) operations benefit the community by providing needed jobs the choice isn't between high-paid and low-paid work, but between low-paid or unemployment'.^[3]

An example of sweatshop use by Walt Disney is Niagra Textiles Ltd in Bangladesh. Workers at this sweatshop are treated terribly through the following: - Physically abused through punching and slapping if they are not working fast enough. - Forced to work extremely long hours (14 hours a day seven days a week one day a month off). - Drinking water is very unhealthy. - Sewers paid 11 - 20 cents an hour; helpers are paid 7 - 8 cents an hour. - Docked two days' wages if they talk back to managers or supervisors. - No one has heard of Disney's code of conduct. - Women have no maternity rights. - Wages often paid late and overtime is less than should be. ^[4] These are just some of the conditions which workers face. Workers at such sweatshops have no life apart from working in horrendous conditions for a small pitiful wage that barely buys them enough food to get by. This sweatshop is near the city of Dhaka and employs 1,500 workers, 60 per cent whom are women. Along with Walt - Mart and Sorbino, Walt Disney employs workers to make clothing. Walt Disney accounts for 40 - 50 per cent of total production and benefit greatly from the lack of restrictions placed on working conditions and treatment of workers in Third world countries like Bangladesh.

Workers at this sweatshop came up with their own recommendations which they would like to see changed. All they are looking for is the following: - Provide one day off, Friday, the Muslim holiday. - Immediately end all forms of physical abuse. - Pay overtime and wages correctly and on time. - Pay legal maternity benefits. - Provide a proper place to eat. ^[5] They however are calling for help from people especially developed countries who care about there plight. One interesting point is that workers do not want people to boycott products. This is because if sales slow down, then the production plant will close and workers lose their small livelihood. Instead they want to work with management and Disney to meet their recommendations. Every worker should have the right to safe conditions. 'However it is important to be aware that the Disney Company has a long history of punishing workers who dare ask for their basic rights. In the face of such modest demands, Disney has pulled its work from factories in Bangladesh, Haiti and China leaving thousands of workers on the street.' ^[6] Since there are so many Third world countries able to provide sweatshops to translational corporations, Disney are in a powerful position through choice of where they can locate.

Another example of Walt Disney's poor treatment of Third world workers is that of Chinese sweatshops. China has a large population and therefore can provide vast amounts of cheap labour, ideal for production through the use of sweatshops. Also government suppression is favourable for Disney sweatshops in China with 'workers not allowed to organise themselves and having no collective bargaining power.' ^[7] The names of the factories could not be identified in case workers faced punishment as a result of damming reports on the sweatshops. Many of the workers who are keen to work in these sweatshops are migrants from poor rural areas. They move to South China to try and find work, this is the only option available to them. Married women usually are discriminated against and it is usually the young who gain the upper hand in getting jobs. This is a really good example of the massive difference between the top and bottom of Disney. A Chinese worker earns US$62.5 per month, US$750 a year. Michael Eisner CEO of Disney earns an incredible US$4,221,666 per month, US$50,660,000 'to the power of 3'a year. This wide gap typifies globalisation. It would take a Chinese worker 260 years to earn what Michael Eisner makes in a day. Also 'it is very common for workers in China to labour 13-15 hours a day and 7 days a week for months at a stretch, let alone their overnight labouring in the peak season.' ^[8] In some sweatshops workers are forced to live and eat in dorms which are described as 'pig fed.' Conditions in such dorms are a shambles with workers being forced to sleep 12 in a room. Records holding data are falsified so sweatshops do not get into trouble. 'The management often taught workers how to answer the monitors' interviews.' ^[9]

So how does Disney avoid punishment for its disgraceful role in the use of sweatshops? Like most corporations, Disney does not own the sweatshops that produce goods, it conveniently subcontracts to them. Through subcontracting, Disney can 'keep their hands clean by shutting problematic factories. By doing so, Disney can immediately walk away from the disgrace and find new suppliers there are thousands of factories waving their hands to Disney to show interest in getting contracts.' ^[10] With regards to sweatshops in China, Disney commented by saying 'We have a strong International Labour Standards Code of Conduct for Manufacturers and conduct regular social compliance audits of the independently run factories that produce Disney branded merchandise.' ^[11] However this is clearly not the case with sweatshop workers being forced to work in horrendous conditions. Factories only take sufficient action to sort out problems when international pressure is applied against corporations like Disney.

One common development in developing countries where Disney sweatshops are used is the negative environmental impact created. These sweatshops are often built on land which was originally used for agricultural practices. Pollution is a major problem with waste dumped in nearby rivers which has a major affect on water supplies. 'Free trade sparks a "race to the bottom" in domestic environmental regulations, fuelled by a bid to attract foreign investment and jobs, or whether countries that maintain high environmental standards face investment and job losses to countries with lower environmental laws (called the "pollution haven" effect).' ^[12] From this Disney obviously will choose countries which offer lower environmental laws so they do not have the added burden of preserving the environment. Pollution indicators are often adjusted to levels that suit corporations like Disney, damaging the environment as a result. Most governments in developing countries see corporations like Disney as key providers of employment and 'lack the financial, technical, and human resources required for regulatory enforcement, even where the regulations exist and enforcement is desired.' ^[13] Before sweatshops arrived to developing countries, agricultural practises were important to the local communities. At least back then the local people have some sort of life instead of being detained and enclosed in these sweatshops morning, noon and night.

Haiti is another example of Disney using sweatshops to produce goods. Historically Haiti has been a prominent location for Disney to use and exploit poor people through the use of sweatshops. 'Disney has been buying clothes from the same contractor for 20 years.' ^[14] In Haiti the sweatshop workers face the same poor pay and conditions that have been described earlier in Bangladesh and China. However Haiti was the focus of attention after 12 year old girls were found working in abysmal conditions in a sweatshop which produces goods for Kathie Lee Gifford clothing line. Kathie Lee Gifford clothing works with Disney in producing clothing however this was a scandal which Disney managed to get away with. 'Disney continued to escape media scrutiny of its own consumer products; the company did what it could to stabilize Kathie Lee Gifford's career. When she failed to shake off the scandal, Disney wheeled out the big gun: ABC News.' ^[15] Disney owns ABC News and as a result organised 'Prime Time live' which was used to portray a caring attitude to sweatshop workers and bolster Kathie Lee Giffords image. However her image had another set back when employees had not been paid in a sweatshop making Kathie Lee Gifford blouses. 'Disney managed to stay clear of media brick bats over sweatshops. Such avoidance is easier when a company owns many large media outlets.' ^[16] This shows that Disney has enormous power and ability to stop any real accusations affecting the success of the company and its sweatshops.

In conclusion Walt Disney's use of sweatshops and treatment of workers is very poor. Allow many kids and adults in the developed world find Walt Disney fun and friendly, the developing world see it as an almost dictatorship through its controlling practises and poor pay and conditions. In Bangladesh, workers are paid between 7 and 20 cents an hour with conditions that are totally unacceptable. Workers either choose to work in sweatshops or face unemployment. Another example of Disney's use of sweatshops is that in China there is a massive availability of workers to choose from. This is a bonus for Disney through millions of people willing to work for poor wages and conditions. Disney manages to use sweatshops through subcontracting work; this is a safeguard to stop any charges being brought against Disney. The environment is another casualty as a result of corporations like Disney using sweatshops with countries offering less environmental restrictions gaining production. Media control is important in stopping negative campaigns and being in control of situations as shown in the Kathie Lee Gifford and Disney scandal with sweatshop production in Haiti.

Notes

1. ^Wikipedia webpage on Walt Disney
2. ^Wikipedia webpage on sweatshops
3. ^Wikipedia webpage on Sweatshops
4. ^National Labour Committee report on Walt Disney Sweatshops in Bangladesh
5. ^National Labour Committee report on Walt Disney Sweatshops in Bangladesh
6. ^National Labour Committee report on Walt Disney Sweatshops in Bangladesh
7. ^Centre for Research on Multinational corporations Disney's sweatshops in South China
8. ^Centre for Research on Multinational corporations Disney's sweatshops in South China
9. ^Centre for Research on Multinational corporations Disney's sweatshops in South China
10. ^Centre for Research on Multinational corporations Disney's sweatshops in South China
11. ^Disney sweatshops alleged
12. ^Global Trade and Environment
13. ^[www.cal-osha.com/articles/COR04-20050214-000.pdf.aspx White Paper on Occupational Health, Safety, and Environmental Conditions in Sweatshops]
14. ^Kathy Lee, Disney, and the Sweatshop Uproar
15. ^Kathy Lee, Disney, and the Sweatshop Uproar
16. ^Kathy Lee, Disney, and the Sweatshop Uproar

Walt Disney in the First world -Advertising Ethics

Disney and advertising Ethics Today over $2 Billion dollars is spent annually on targeting juvenile consumers. In an age where people have suggested that the construction of ideas and images has surpassed the manufacture of goods, the stakes could not be higher. Marketing strategies measure humans in terms of lifelong consumer value ($100,000 dollars is one current estimate) and thus child orientated advertising has become ever more pervasive. ^[17] In this section I would like to take a look at the advertising strategies employed by Disney, especially towards children. The Disney Company is one of the three largest media firms in the world. For many the name Walt Disney is liable to evoke associations of wholesomeness and innocence. The Disney Company made a name for itself through the harnessing of good feelings in a protected atmosphere. Some of this image still endures today. However through the conduct of the last decade or so, as described in the previous sections, sentiments of dissatisfaction have began to ‘dim the sparkle’ of the magic kingdom. The reality is that Disney has become a multibillion dollar corporation no different from any other. ^[18] Thus, similar to the methods of exploitation described in previous sections, Disney engages with an aggressive marketing policy, particularly towards children, just like any other corporation, damaging the notion that it is part of a dissimilar world of magic and incorruptibility. In order to comprehend Disney's brand of fantasy it is critical to understand how it is manufactured and marketed. Media and entertainment companies have long been diversified with business divisions spread across film, broadcasting, and print. Yet, these companies, including Disney are increasingly are realising the benefits of promoting their activities across a growing number of outlets, creating a cross-promotional dynamic or ‘synergy’ between individual units and producing immediately recognizable brands.^[19] ‘Such a strategy is not so much vertical or horizontal integration, but a wheel, with the brand at the hub and each of the spokes a means of exploiting it. Exploitation produces both a stream of revenue and further strengthens the brand.’^[20] This definitely is not a novel occurrence for the Disney Company. From its inauguration, Disney fashioned strong brands and characters that were promoted in a range of manners (mostly through films and merchandise) throughout the world. The company's cross-promotional strategies accelerated dramatically in the 1950s when the company opened Disneyland, the theme park that used previously created stories, characters, and images as the basis for its attractions. Furthermore, the television program Disneyland was introduced onto Disney owned ABC, providing further opportunities to promote the theme park as well as Disney's other products. ‘Over the past few decades, the possibilities for synergy have expanded even further with the addition of cable, home video and other new media outlets. Indeed, the Disney company has developed the strategy so well that “Disney synergy” has become the phrase typically used to describe the ultimate in cross-promotional activities.’ ^[21]

Disney synergy is principally about the commodification of children's culture, its conversion into a universal market, in which licensed characters become the center of an unbounded assortment of interconnected marketing schemes. For the marketers at Disney, the philosophy is simple: the movie is the main product and serves as the inspiration for the merchandise that flows from it. As one Disney executive explained: “It's important to us that the entertainment comes first. First, the kids will see the movie and fall in love with the characters; then they'll want to bring home a piece of that movie”. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1132/is_11_52/ai_74410355

The head of Disney affirmed this strategy to Advertising Age in 1989, explaining that the Disney Corporation's activities all emphasise each other: "The Disney Stores promote the consumer products which promote the [theme] parks which promote the television shows. The television shows promote the company." [26] Quoted in Mark Crispin Miller, `Demonopolize Them! A Call for a Broad-Based Movement Against the Media Trust', Extra! (Nov/Dec 1995), p. 9.

Ad agencies and marketing departments have now become increasingly frightened that we have all become immune to traditional forms of advertising. Now they are increasingly turning to unconventional forms of marketing. Cartoons in recent years have smashed out of the TV screens and came out in the flesh. Through the seven kids channels in the United States, a variety of ground shows have been organised. http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=123125 Disney for example, in 1997, engaged with their third megamall tour to promote their summer film Hercules, the previous years being Pocahontus and the Hunchback of Nottredam. The Hercules tour spanned 5 months and 20 cities. The tour included included a live multimedia stage show, a “Baby Pegasus Playland” for toddlers, featuring carousels and other play areas, and a ten-minute video workshop called "Learn to Be an Animator," where guests were shown how Hercules characters were animated. Several carnival-type Hercules-themed game booths were offered, with McDonald's providing the prizes. In addition, there were opportunities for guests to take photos, try out the new Hercules games introduced by Disney Interactive, and log onto the Hercules Web site at hercules.disney.com. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1132/is_11_52/ai_74410355/pg_4 Similarly, on completing one year of operations in the India, Walt Disney Television International (India) kicked off a huge scale on-ground event -Disney Magic -in Mumbai, Ahmedabad, New Delhi, Kolkata, Hyderabad and Bangalore. The show was held in various cities over a period of three months. Disney though are overt in their admission about the driving force behind these events. Disney CEO Rajat Jain for example says, “Events build brand affinity and an emotional connect. And given the fact that there are limited ways to reach out to kids, events play a large role in marketing kids’ content”. These events give kids an opportunity to touch and feel the brand.

Many Disney commentators have agreed that a large part of Disney’s success is attributable to its use of new technologies. In particular its corporate marketing strategies have become evident on the companies website. Critically, and unlike any of its other promotional vehicles, Disney.com has given the company direct access to consumers homes and the ability to solicit immediate commercial transactions. http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue9_6/martin/ Thus Disney aggressively pursues new audiences and markets, as well as trying to maintain its current consumer base by steering traffic towards its website. The company focuses on access to interactive online technology by specifically promoting Disney merchandise through the web and vice versa. Disney merchandise invites consumers to log onto the Internet and explore Disney’s massive Web site, which is full of catalogues, games, images and interactive animated stories from Disney films. Disney also advertises its Web site address in newsletters and at the end credits of its home videos and theatrically released features. Each of these cross–promotion vehicles drives traffic toward the Disney.com home page while reminding audiences how easy it is to log on. http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue9_6/martin/ In another attempt to boost advertising revenues, Disney will also now offer primetime ABC shows free on the internet. Shows including ‘Lost’, ‘Desperate Housewives’ and ‘Commander in Chief’ will all be made available free online but viewers wont be able to skip the commercials. Disney will also place full-length episodes of some children's programs from the Disney Channel such as “That's So Raven”' online. The strategy is the first time a broadcast network will give away full-length TV shows online, and illustrates the pressure on networks to increase their audience amid competition from cable and Internet services. Disney television Co-Chairwoman Anne Sweeney said “It's a learning opportunity, about recognizing that none of us can live in a world of just one business model” http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aKGgiBUOYgcA&refer=us Also in its search for profits, expanding on the companies cross promotional and merchandising strategy, Disney has collaborated with non Disney companies such as McDonalds to act as retailers and advertisers through the happy meal. http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue9_6/martin/ The Megamall ground shows described earlier were also sponsored by GM’s Chevrolet. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1132/is_11_52/ai_74410355/pg_4 Whilst attempting to put these techniques into practice, Disney, in conjunction with Viacom have been leading campaigns of intimidation against forces which would see a curtailment in their marketing activities. Disney and Viacom are attempting to prevent the federal communications division from implementing safeguards designed to protect children under 12 from the excesses of TV and online marketing. Disney and Viacom are especially troubled by updated FCC safeguards designed to ensure children aren’t exposed to unlimited amounts of commercials, as well as ads pitched by program hosts. Disney & Viacom have subsequently threatened to go to court in an attempt to sweep away the Children’s TV act.^[22] To conclude this section, it can be seen that Disney is an icon of American culture that has insinuated itself into the everyday life of hundreds of millions of people, primarily through its role in the commodification of children's culture, but also through the commodification of media and culture, more generally. Although it still has a positive public image that goes back decades, there is no doubt about what the company is all about. As Michael Eisner put it bluntly in a 1981 staff memo: "We have no obligation to make art. We have no obligation to make a statement. To make money is our only objective"

Notes

1. ^Consuming kids
2. ^[23]
3. ^[24]
4. ^[25]
5. ^[26]

Walt Disney's links to Lobbyists and PR Firms

Mickey Mouse Goes to Washington

As we have seen, the Walt Disney Corporation is not quite the family friendly corporation the general public believes it to be. In this section of the report we will be taking a look at how the Disney Corporation lobby's politicians and public officials to get what they want and we will also look at how Disney is involved in the political process through their media branch.

On the eve of the second Gulf War, the Walt Disney Corporation won a rare prize when the Federal government permanently closed the airspace above its theme parks in Florida and California ^[27]. The reason for this unprecedented move was to protect the theme parks from terrorist attacks.

What this means is that Walt Disney World and Disneyland now have 24 hour security zones. This means the parks have the same security as President Bush's Texas ranch and perhaps more incredibly, the same security as such military installations as nuclear submarine bases and storage facilities which house both chemical and nuclear weapons ^[28]. Perhaps more surprising is the fact that there was no public debate as to whether Disney theme parks should be granted and likewise the Homeland Security Department did not make the request to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Congress bent its own rules to help Disney get the no-fly zones because of Disney's lobbying efforts ^[29]. The Republican Senators Ted Stevens and Richard Shelby were the driving force behind Disney's successful request and both of these men were influenced by Disney lobbyist Mitch Rose. Rose just happened to have been one of Senator Stevens' most trusted aides for nearly a decade, until he left Stevens' office in 2000, to go and work for Disney, on good terms. This goes way beyond asking an influential friend for a small favour. Granting theme parks the same level of protection as important military facilities is a joke. Naturally though Disney have no qualms about what they have done. Disney officials are unrepentant and insist that they have done nothing wrong by 'persuading' lawmakers to order the FAA to give Disney theme parks special protection for the foreseeable future ^[30].

The decision has angered pilots across the country however. These pilots have accused Disney of deliberately playing on the nation's fear of terrorist attacks in order to gain a competitive advantage by closing off the airspace above their theme parks as a means of banning competitors' aerial advertising planes and sightseeing helicopters ^[31]. Disney has been fighting against these self-styled guerrilla advertisers who try to lure customers away from Disney to nightclubs and other local attractions for decades. During the height of the Orlando air wars, biplanes towing advertisements and blimps competing for attention were an everyday occurrence ^[32]. It looks as though Disney has finally found an effective means of defence against these advertisers but these may be the only aircraft which the no fly zones protect the parks from.

According to security experts, the no-fly zones which bar planes from flying below 3000 feet within 3 miles of the centre of the parks- do not provide much protection from potential terrorist aerial attacks. This is because a terrorist in a small aircraft could conceivably fly from outside the zone and reach a park within a matter of seconds ^[33]. John Pike, the director of globalsecurity.org says, 'Apart from warning away law abiding pilots, it's not clear to me what this is going to buy you. It's not clear to me what difference this would make unless they're going to put some SAMs (surface to air missiles) in front of the castle to enforce it.' Despite this assessment, Disney is likely to be delighted that they have finally gotten rid of those pesky aerial advertisers which is likely to have been their aim all along and all it took was to ask for a favour from friends in high places. It is still crazy though to think that Disney had no-fly zones over its theme parks before another potential symbolic target like the Sears Tower in downtown Chicago which happens to be the largest building in the US and one would think an easier target to hit with an aeroplane.

The no-fly zone issue is not the only time in recent memory when Disney has tried to influence the lawmakers. A few years back Disney faced the prospect of losing the copyright on Mickey Mouse and a whole host of classic Disney characters. Of course Disney did not take this lying down and their answer to the problem was to have the company's chairman Michael Eisner go to Washington and have a quiet word in the ear of the Senate Majority leader Trent Lott, needless to say the meeting was unpublicised ^[34]. On Michael Eisner's agenda was tax breaks, visas for animal trainers and transportation to Disney theme parks and of course at the top of the wish list was a plea to Congress to help his company's number one priority, the HR2589 bill to extend the copyright on Mickey Mouse ^[35].

This meeting showed how powerful the Walt Disney Corporation is and how it is not afraid to use its position as America's largest entertainment company to get what it wants. Moreover, the meeting between the Senate Majority Leader and the corporate executive shows the bipartisan reach and the behind-the-scenes lobbying tactics of Disney ^[36]. Disney's covert lobbying campaign is typical of a company that industry insiders say jealously guards its image as a family friendly entertainment company and an all round good guy whilst hiding the other image of a savvy business and political force.

The reason behind this cloak and dagger activity was that Disney stood to lose billions of dollars in revenue if the copyrights were not extended. Critics of the HR2589 bill argued however that Disney had already earned plenty of money from classic movies and characters and that now was the right time to allow other companies to offer videos and other products based on Disney characters when their copyright expires ^[37]. Critics believe that Disney movies should be available in the public domain the way the works of Shakespeare and Mark Twain are as this means the works are more accessible to more people at a lower price ^[38]. Another criticism is that it is unfair for one company to get preferential treatment for sweeping legislation that would enable Disney to continue to charge premium prices for products featuring Mickey Mouse and all of his friends.

If we go back a few years further to 1993, Disney was once more involved in a lobbying campaign. This time the company was fighting over its proposals for an American history themed amusement park near the village of Haymarket, Virginia which lies just 35 miles west of Washington D.C. Local officials were enthusiastic as they saw Disney's America, as the park was to be called, as a major generator of jobs and tax revenues and they also thought that the theme park would significantly boost the states tourist industry ^[39]. Naturally many local people were against the park as they were worried that if the theme park were built then it could cause much harm to northern Virginia in the form of increased pollution, traffic congestion and urban sprawl ^[40].

The battle heated up once Disney insisted that the state should pay a significant portion of the start up costs associated with the project. Disney argued that this was fair because the park would pay its way in the long-term and so proposed that a tax-incrementing scheme be put in place wherein the funds which were being sought from the state would be repaid out of Disney's future tax payments ^[41]. This effectively meant that the state would be left out of pocket and not Disney if the project went belly up, which is a great bit of business for Disney but not so great for the taxpayer.

Disney go its way when the General Assembly passed a Bill on the 12th March 1994 which approved a $152.8 million package for Disney. $131.5 million was to spend on road and highway improvements with the rest of the funds to be used for training workers and promoting tourism ^[42].

Just previous to this announcement, Disney submitted a rezoning request for the site. Approval was sought for 1340 hotel rooms, 2500 residential units (houses, condominiums and apartments), a water park, a zoo, two million feet of commercial space adjacent to I-66 and a 27 hole golf course ^[43]. Astonishingly the rezoning request was approved and so Disney had the go ahead to build its new community.

How was this possible? How had Disney managed to get approval for what was effectively going to be a new community and substantial financial help from the State? The answer is by lobbying very hard behind-the-scenes. Disney's staunchest ally was the Republican Governor George Allen and it was he who worked tirelessly to convince the Virginia legislature that the state should provide some of the start-up costs of the project ^[44]. In fact, Disney representatives had been working with George Allen when he was just Governor-elect and not even in office. This shows the lengths that Disney were prepared to go to in order to get their project started. Eventually however Disney were forced to pull the plug on the project as the negative press the company was receiving was proving harmful to the company's squeaky clean image. This only goes to prove that you can buy elected officials but not the average Joe.

As we have seen, Disney has used its lobbying power to influence politicians' decisions but the company is more deeply involved in American politics than this. During the recent American presidential elections, Disney's subsidiary Miramax refused to distribute the Michael Moore film Fahrenheit 9/11 on the grounds that they did not want to be involved in the middle of a politically orientated film during an election year ^[45]. This is despite the fact that nearly all of Disney's talk radio stations broadcast Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and both of these shows promote an unremitting Republican political agenda ^[46].

Furthermore, the Disney Corporation has significant ties to Prince Al-Walid bin Talal who, coincidentally is the primary figure whose connections to President Bush are investigated in Fahrenheit 9/11. Al-Walid first became involved with Disney when he made a large investment into Eurodisney which was in financial difficulties at the time. Disney also scrapped a plan to describe Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in an Epcott Centre display because al-Walid personally asked Michael Eisner to intervene and stop this ^[47]. Disney is thus in the thick of the political process on the side of the Republicans which explains why they decided not to distribute a film which seriously undermines the Bush presidency.

Notes

1. ^No-fly zones shield Disney's resorts
2. ^No-fly zones shield Disney's resorts
3. ^No-fly zones shield Disney's resorts
4. ^No-fly zones shield Disney's resorts
5. ^No-fly zones shield Disnsey's resorts
6. ^No-fly zones shield Disnsey's resorts
7. ^No-fly zones shield Disnsey's resorts
8. ^Disney in Washington: The mouse that roars
9. ^Disney in Washington: The mouse that roars
10. ^Disney in Washington: The mouse that roars
11. ^Disney in Washington: The mouse that roars
12. ^Disney in Washington: The mouse that roars
13. ^[48] Eisners Fantasyland Excuse For Censorship
14. ^[49] Eisners Fantasyland Excuse For Censorship
15. ^[50] Eisners Fantasyland Excuse For Censorship

Conlcusion

In conclusion, Walt Dusney Corporation is not a cute and cuddly organisation. Walt Disney is just as ruthless as other major corporations in making sure it gets what it wants. Disney as we have seen is not afraid of exploiting people in the Third World in order to manufacture its products at the cheapest possible prices. Nor is Disney afraid of exploiting people in the First World by its use of advertising and the media. Likewise Disney will use covert means to influence the decision makers in Washington to make sure it has copyright protection and the no-fly zones over its theme parks which are only there to scare away advertisers.