Ex-Disney CEO Slams FCC’s “Out-of-Control Intimidation”
▼ Summary
– Michael Eisner, Disney’s former CEO, disagrees with current CEO Bob Iger’s decision to pause Jimmy Kimmel Live! following FCC threats.
– Eisner questioned the absence of leadership in response to the situation involving the FCC’s actions against Disney.
– He described the FCC’s threats as “hollow” and an example of “out-of-control intimidation.”
– Eisner did not specifically name Iger or Disney TV head Dana Walden in his critique.
– Eisner has a history of responding to pressure, having suppressed a film release due to Chinese government influence.
Michael Eisner, the former chief executive who guided The Walt Disney Company for over two decades, has publicly criticized the Federal Communications Commission for what he calls “out-of-control intimidation” aimed at the media giant. Eisner, who presided over Disney’s acquisition of ABC in 1995, took to social media to voice his disapproval of the company’s recent decision to place Jimmy Kimmel Live! on an indefinite hiatus. This move came in response to pressure from FCC chairman Brendan Carr, an appointee of former President Donald Trump.
In a post on the platform X, Eisner expressed frustration with what he perceives as a lack of strong leadership in handling regulatory threats. Though he did not mention current Disney CEO Bob Iger or television chief Dana Walden by name, his message clearly questioned the decision to yield to what he described as “hollow” threats from the FCC. Eisner’s stance carries weight given his own history; during his tenure, he faced international pressure when he chose to suppress the theatrical release of Martin Scorsese’s Kundun after pushback from the Chinese government.
Eisner’s comments underscore a broader tension between media corporations and regulatory bodies, highlighting concerns about censorship and corporate capitulation. His assertion that the FCC’s actions represent intimidation rather than legitimate oversight adds a significant voice to the ongoing debate over free speech and institutional influence in broadcasting.
(Source: The Verge)
