In the Wednesday edition of my Too Much TV newsletter, I highlighted my unhappiness with Bob Iger's efforts to dodge the question of what his idea of "woke" entertainment might be and what he means when he refers to entertainment that is both inclusive, but non-threatening:
During Wednesday's shareholder meeting, Disney CEO Bob Iger made these comments in response to a shareholder question:
Iger said that the company is “committed to telling stories that reflect the world around us, and using those stories to entertain people from all walks of life.” He added, “We know our job is not to advance any kind of agenda. So as long as I am in the job, I am going to continue to be guided by a sense of decency and respect, and we will always trust our instincts.”
Which opens up a lot of space for some follow-up questions. For instance, given that one of the criticisms from Nelson Peltz has been that Disney films such as the remake of The Little Mermaid and The Marvels were examples of the company releasing films that were "too woke." I'd love to be able to ask Iger if it agreed with the specific assessment and if he would greenlight similar films today.
And then follow-up with this question. “You say the company is committed to telling stories that reflect the world around us. How do you navigate the desires of the company’s LGTBQ fans, who want to see some of their stories told, and critics who argue that any depiction of an LGTBQ lifestyle is woke and wrong?”
I'd also be interested in hearing his assessment of the working conditions for Disney's LGTBQ employees. Until the recent battle with Governor DeSantis, Disney had been planning to move more employees to its Florida operations. Which is one of the primary reasons why Disney's former CEO got in a public battle over Florida's so-called "Don't Say Gay" law.
So I'd love to hear Iger answer the question, "What would you tell a Disney employee who says that because of recent laws passed in Florida, they don't feel safe moving their family into the state?"
In a Thursday morning interview on CNBC (Iger's preferred home for quasi in-depth interviews), the Disney CEO talked again about the complaints that some of Disney's recent TV shows and movies were somehow more LGTBQ propaganda than an effort to be entertaining.:
“I think the noise is sort of quieted down. I’ve been preaching this for a long time at the company before I left and since I came back then our number one goal is to entertain,” Iger added. “The bottom line is that infusing messaging as a sort of a number one priority in our films and TV shows is not what we’re up to. They need to be entertaining, and where the Disney company can have a positive impact on the world, whether it’s, you know, fostering acceptance and understanding of people of all different types, great."
I have so many questions. And to be kind, David Faber is not going to be asking the obvious follow-up question to this statement. In part because if he makes things too difficult for Iger, he might not return to CNBC for his every six months exclusive sit down interview.
But also, financial reporters such as Faber aren't concerned with anything except the financials of Disney. And all of this talk about programming is off-topic for CNBC.
Still, read those comments from Iger again. His implication is that in some vague way he doesn't want to identify, some previous Disney projects did not put "entertainment first."
“But generally speaking, we need to be an entertainment-first company … And understanding that look, we’re trying to reach a very, very diverse audience. And on one hand in order to do that, what you do, the stories you tell, have to really reflect the audience that you’re trying to reach, but that audience because they are so diverse, really, first and foremost, they want to be entertained, and sometimes they can’t be turned off by certain things. And we just have to be more sensitive to the interest of a broad audience. It’s not easy, you know, so that we can’t please everybody all the time, right?”
Talk about a mealy-mouth word salad. We want to be diverse and appeal to a broad audience. But we don't want to turn off people who might be offended. So, the question is, where does Iger see that line? If some audiences are offended by a non-white Little Mermaid, does he not want to go down that road? If a percentage of the audience believes that any representation of LGTBQ characters is tantamount to grooming, does he believe it's best not to offend that audience? Even if it means releasing projects that are less diverse?
Iger wants to have it both ways and I don't blame him. No executive worthy of their multi-million dollar salary is going to willingly offer their opinion on a topic that is likely to make some segment of his customer base unhappy.
But I don't see how Iger can dodge this issue forever. Of course, entertainment is the primary focus of every media company. But saying that "entertainment comes first" is a bit like saying "we need to make fewer, but better projects." Yes. But that's not the issue at hand.
The question isn't whether Disney films and TV shows should be entertainment first. No one is arguing otherwise. The question is what form does that "entertainment first" approach take? Is it entertainment, but diverse? Or entertaining, but homogenized?
The fact that Iger keeps dodging that question gives you a pretty good idea which way he's likely leaning.
