It's important to always remember that the big Hollywood media companies are not people. They don't hold any particular political stances, other than those which help the bottom line. Hollywood is much like every other industry in the United States. Faced with two choices, it will always choose the road less likely to cause bad publicity or impact the bottom line. Don't confuse feel-good PR campaigns or highly-promoted diversity initiatives with having an actual moral stance on gender, racial or LGTBQ issues. It's all about the money, no matter what any individual executive might believe personally.
I have no idea what Disney CEO Bob Iger's personal beliefs are when it comes to issues of diversity, gender identity or any other contentious cultural issues. I know what he's said publicly, which is essentially "I don't mind being supportive, just as long as it doesn't appear that Disney is publicly supportive in the projects it releases."
For instance, in an April interview on CNBC (Iger's preferred home for softball 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."
He has made variations of these comments in other venues, including a Q1 2024 shareholder's meeting:
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.”
While Iger has never discussed just where he believes the line is between showing respect and "propaganda," based on recent events at the company, the line seems to be somewhere around "a character can be culturally or sexually diverse, just as long as they don't actually talk about it."
The Hollywood Reporter's Pamela McClintock reported today that Disney has pulled a transgender storyline from the upcoming Pixar animated series Win Or Lose:
A spokesperson for Disney confirmed that the story arc was removed and provided the following statement to THR: “When it comes to animated content for a younger audience, we recognize that many parents would prefer to discuss certain subjects with their children on their own terms and timeline.”
The character remains in the show, but a few lines of dialogue that referenced gender identity are being removed. A source close to Win or Lose said the studio made the decision to alter course several months ago.
That timing would be about same time Disney also apparently decided to pull an episode of Moon Girl & Devil Dinosaur that featured a trans character named Brooklyn:
An unaired episode of the show entitled "The Gatekeeper" features a transgender character named Brooklyn (Indya Moore). Brooklyn is a member of the girl's volleyball team and faces discrimination from a "narrow-minded coach" who wants to have her removed from the game.
And these are not the only examples of cultural pushback from Disney executives. I recently spoke with a writer/producer from an ABC series. I was told there had been a strong pushback from executives about a secondary character on the show - a character who identified as a different gender. It was not something that was at all highlighted in the script. In fact, it was only referenced once in passing. But notes from executives argued that "since it's barely mentioned, why can't we just skip it all together?"
This is an issue at just about every studio or network right now. But it's more pronounced at Disney, where executives are loathe to do anything which might be perceived as "non-family friendly" by critics. And Iger's stance seems to be that if you eliminate anything which might offend a viewer, than what isn't included in the company's content doesn't matter.
The problem with cowering to this criticism is that recent American history has shown us that winning a battle isn't enough. Like hostage-takers everywhere, the cultural purists of the conservative movement see this as a literal do-or-die cultural war. And once you win one battle, you don't celebrate. You move on to your next target. Republican legislatures move to restrict abortions, then move on to birth control. And now there are Republican legislators arguing that frozen embryos should be considered people and should be "adopted" and brought to term, even if the donors disagree.
Moves against trans athletes in high school quickly evolved into anti-trans laws, then laws that targeted same-sex couples. It didn't take long for concerns that schools were teaching Critical Race Theory to evolve into complaints that teaching about Rosa Parks made white students "feel bad" and that any book for children that portrays same sex parents wasn't appropriate for school libraries.
And that pattern of behavior will inevitably follow in the entertainment world. Pushback against mentions of a trans character will lead to complaints of portrayals of families with "two dads" or mentions of people in same-sex relationships. It wasn't that many decades ago that having a woman on screen who was a single, unmarried mother was frowned upon. And given enough pressure and some strategic folding of a backbone, the industry may return to those days.
What media executives like Bob Iger fail to grasp is that omitting something is as much a political statement as the decision to include it. Media companies are notorious moral cowards when faced with the prospect of pushback from some segment of the audience. The segregation of black and white characters on-screen continued on television well into the 1960s because of the threat that some network affiliates in the south wouldn't approve and would boycott the episodes. And broadcast networks then making the decision not to highlight black performers or show racially integrated casts was a political decision. Even if it was political by omission.
A braver executive than Bob Iger would say publicly, "Sometimes you might not agree with the choices made by a character or a show. But our entertainment reflects everyone in America, not just the people who look like you do. If that bothers you, then the problem lies with your ability to see everyone as an equal, worthy of being able to tell their specific story."
I agree that media companies don't need to go out of their way to provoke conservatives. They should be as politically neutral as possible. But neutrality only works in an environment where diversity is possible. When one side starts arguing that merely mentioning same sex relationships is wrong, then lines have already been drawn.
