Will Accusations Of Political Bias During The Donald Trump And Kamala Harris Debate By Alleged ABC News Insider Affect Disney’s Bottom-Line?

I was called into a video about the revelation that a very well-placed and very carefully legally prepared whistleblower has formally accused ABC News and their managers of active bias in the recent ABC presidential debate in particular in their coverage of the battle between Republican stalwart Former President Donald J. Trump and sitting Democrat Vice President (and sorority sister to ABC’s boss and best galpals to Disney’s Studio chief and heir apparent to Bob Iger as CEO) Kamala Harris. IF the verifications implied in the formal and very well lawyered legal documentation stand muster, the question our fearless leader WDW Pro wanted to ask That Park Place Editor and experienced journalist John Trent, experienced reporter and showman Marvin the Movie Monster and Yours Truly was this: Will this affect The Walt Disney Company’s financial future? You can watch the video for that discussion, but immediately afterwards another way of looking at it came to mind so, well, here it is: Since other companies in the broad sphere of entertainment/journalism/television/publishing etc. etc. potentially have the ability to choose sides and create conflicts of interest…what would THEY do? The obvious big candidate for such a comparison is, like in most things involving Disney these days, their strongest competition—Comcast NBC Universal, who in addition to owning their titular major traditional network, NBC, has ownership and/or partnerships with “news” and opinion outlets such as CNBC, MSNBC, and others which are openly and famously on the Left side of the aisle politically. How do THEY keep THEM separate from, for example, their theme parks…or not? And more importantly how do they keep them as clean or not from public disapproval over taking stands on issues of social, political, religious, and moral importance to customers?

READ: Disney Review Embargo For ‘Agatha All Along’ Lifts When The Show Airs, Critic Reacts: “I Don’t Think Disney Has Any Confidence In This One”

I and others have noted in the past that when the Florida legislature passed their bill regarding teaching about sexual variety and young public school children, one of the major justifications given by Disney’s then-boss Bob Chapek for taking a public stand on it was that their “cast members” pushed them to do it. Yet Universal, whose pool of cast members at their parks are demographically identical to Disney’s, refused to go there and basically told their people that they were in the rides and shows business, not politics. HAD Universal chosen otherwise, they might have at least been subject to the family audience disapproval and financial rejection that Disney suffered from, let alone more severely expensive results such as the ending of the Reedy Creek special privileges that are now estimated to cost Disney over one TRILLION dollars over the next 10 years alone. But Universal didn’t. They’ll put their TV stars like Fallon in rides (bad ones, sure, but…) but won’t put politics in their parks nor, it seems, in what’s supposed to be a neutral news unit such as a Presidential debate, something Disney was not just less scrupulous about but seems to have been eager to cross the ethical border on with a “Damn the Trumpedos, Full Speed Ahead!” attitude. The bottom line IS the bottom line if you’re in business as a business, not as a means to a political end, and that brings up the question of how, if proven and well-shown to the voting AND spending public, this may affect the previously semi-solid backing of major financial players for Disney management in any future events such as the prior Peltz attacks. My answer to that is that these big money institutions are, bottom line, about their OWN fate and their OWN credibility and to the degree that backing such boneheaded bias plays as this debate debacle dilutes the financial power of Disney/ABC, whether via continuing marketplace rejection by the public, even if on the grounds of fair play and not partisan chicanery, there may come a point where these big players have to jump OFF the good ship Steamboat Bobby and, if and when they do, they will do so with a loud bang of public rejection, not just a whimper of a slow sell-off.

READ: Report: Nelson Peltz Sells Disney Stock For Major Profit After Losing Proxy Battle With Company

So stay alert: IF you hear any of these titans of investment suddenly sounding a lot like Captain Louis Reynaud in Casablanca with the Wall St. equivalent of a “We’re shocked, SHOCKED do you hear us, to find out there’s been biased and blatant election interference going on in this establishment!” (even though the croupier would then say “Excuse me, m’sieu, but you need to sign Ms. Brazille zee questions-to-Hillary perp you hired’s paycheck”) get ready for a big loud sound of a very impactful whistle blowing in the markets as well as in the media. You may find, as well, that it is more than mere epic entertainment design and ownership of different IP’s that separates the well-run from the insanely badly run in the world of entertainment/news mega companies. We do not give financial NOR political advice on our channels, but we do observe those worlds as they impact culture and entertainment, and suggest that you think long and hard about whether your reactions to these truths we uncover and tell will or will not result in others observing you as you bring a cup to your lips and saying, after your fateful sip, “He/She chose…..unwisely.” NEXT: Disney’s Likely Next CEO, Dana Walden, Draws Controversy Over Comments and Whistleblower