Disney and DeSantis have reached a settlement to end their yearslong dispute over the development of Walt Disney World.
The agreement allows Disney to continue investing in the theme park complex, while also giving Florida control over long-term environmental permits granted to the company.
Disney and DeSantis have reached a settlement to end their yearslong dispute over the development of Walt Disney World. The agreement allows Disney to continue investing in the theme park complex, while also giving Florida control over long-term environmental permits granted to the company.
Disney and Florida have settled their yearslong dispute
The settlement was approved by the board of the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District, a body that governs the special tax district Disney is located in
Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis set up the Central Florida Tourism District to oversee the area in which Disney operates nearly two years ago
The war of words between Disney and DeSantis began in March 2022, after Disneys then-CEO Bob Chapek spoke out against a controversial bill that restricts certain instruction about sexual orientation and gender identity in the classroom
Accuracy
The war of words between Disney and DeSantis began in March 2022, after Disney’s then-CEO Bob Chapek spoke out against a controversial bill that restricts certain instruction about sexual orientation and gender identity in the classroom
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it presents the settlement as a mutual victory for both parties when in reality Disney has effectively closed the chapter on its protracted fight against DeSantis just one week before another existential battle with Nelson Peltz. Secondly, it portrays DeSantis' actions towards Disney as anti-business and anti-Florida despite evidence to the contrary. Lastly, it presents Iger's criticism of DeSantis as a legitimate concern for Disney's future investment in the state when in reality Iger has been critical of DeSantis on multiple occasions.
The article portrays DeSantis' actions towards Disney as anti-business and anti-Florida despite evidence to the contrary. For example, it states that 'DeSantis set up the Central Florida Tourism District to oversee the area in which Disney operates nearly two years ago, amid a growing conflict between the Florida governor and the entertainment giant.' This statement implies that DeSantis' actions were motivated solely by his personal vendetta against Disney rather than any legitimate concerns for tourism or economic development in the region.
The article presents Iger's criticism of DeSantis as a legitimate concern for Disney's future investment in the state when in reality Iger has been critical of DeSantis on multiple occasions. For example, it states that 'Iger called DeSantis actions toward Disney anti-business and anti-Florida.' This statement implies that Iger is an objective observer who only criticizes DeSantis' actions based on their impact on Disney's business interests rather than any personal biases or political affiliations.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several examples of informal fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing statements from Governor DeSantis and Disney CEO Bob Iger without providing any evidence or context for their claims. Additionally, the author uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing the conflict between Disney and DeSantis as a
The war of words began in March 2022, after Disney’s then-CEO Bob Chapek spoke out against the controversial bill that restricts certain instruction about sexual orientation and gender identity in the classroom.
DeSantis asked Floridas legislature to terminate the longstanding special privileges granted to Disney in Central Florida, appointing a new board of hand-picked supervisors to oversee the district.
The head of the oversight district for Central Florida also applauded the settlement.
Bias
(85%)
The article is biased towards the Republican governor Ron DeSantis and his actions against Disney. The author uses language that dehumanizes Disney by calling it a 'challenge to basic human rights' and accusing it of adding sexuality into programming for young kids. Additionally, the author quotes DeSantis saying things like 'I’m glad that they were able to do that settlement,' which implies that he is happy about ending the legal dispute with Disney even though there are no examples given in the article to support this claim.
Shortly after, DeSantis asked Florida’s legislature to terminate the longstanding special privileges granted to Disney in Central Florida, appointing a new board of hand-picked supervisors to oversee the district.
The head of the oversight district for Central Florida also applauded the settlement. “With this agreement, we’re eager to work with Disney and other businesses within Central Florida to make our destination known for world-class attractions and accountable governance,”
The war of words between Disney and DeSantis began in March 2022, after Disney’s then-CEO Bob Chapek spoke out against the controversial bill that restricts certain instruction about sexual orientation and gender identity in the classroom. Opponents have labeled the controversial law “Don’t Say Gay.”
, Disney said the settlement would allow it to continue to invest in Walt Disney World.
Disney’s capitulation followed a legal setback. In January, a federal judge threw out a Disney lawsuit claiming that Mr. DeSantis and his allies had violated the First Amendment by taking over a special tax district that encompasses the company’s 25,000-acre Florida resort.
As part of the settlement, the district agreed not to “prohibit or impede” long-term environmental permits granted to Disney.
Accuracy
, Disney said the settlement would allow it to continue to invest in Walt Disney World.Credit...Todd Anderson for The New York TimesMarch
Disney’s capitulation followed a legal setback. In January, a federal judge threw out a Disney lawsuit claiming that Mr. DeSantis and his allies had violated the First Amendment by taking over a special tax district that encompasses the company’s 25,000-acre Florida resort
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the headline claims that Disney has ended its fight with DeSantis over resort development when in fact they have only agreed to pause their appeal and negotiate a new comprehensive growth plan. Secondly, the author states that Disney said the settlement would allow them to continue investing in Walt Disney World but does not provide any evidence or quotes from Disney stating this. Thirdly, the article claims that Mr. DeSantis has been vindicated on all of his actions when in fact a federal judge threw out a lawsuit claiming he violated the First Amendment.
The article states that Mr. DeSantis has been vindicated on all of his actions when in fact a federal judge threw out a lawsuit claiming he violated the First Amendment.
The author claims that Disney said the settlement would allow them to continue investing in Walt Disney World but does not provide any evidence or quotes from Disney stating this.
The headline states that Disney has ended its fight with DeSantis over resort development but only mentions that they have agreed to pause their appeal and negotiate a new comprehensive growth plan.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy by stating that the state has been 'vindicated' on all of its actions. This is a subjective statement and not based on objective evidence.
[], []
Bias
(85%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Brooks Barnes and J. Edward Moreno have a conflict of interest on the topics of Disney, DeSantis, Florida, Walt Disney World, tax district and Walt Disney Company as they are owned by The Walt Disney Company which is a party in the lawsuit against Ron DeSantis over resort development.
Brooks Barnes has reported extensively on issues related to The Walt Disney Company and its business dealings. In an article published in 2019, he wrote about how the company was facing pressure from local governments to pay more taxes on its theme parks. He also mentioned that the company had been lobbying against new regulations that would have affected its operations.
J. Edward Moreno has written articles about The Walt Disney Company's efforts to expand into international markets and acquire other companies in the entertainment industry. In an article published in 2018, he wrote about how the company was facing challenges from competitors such as Netflix and Amazon.
The Walt Disney Company will no longer control its own destiny in Florida.
For more than half a century, the company acted as its own government within the 25,000 acres of land encompassing its Walt Disney World park borders in Orange and Osceola counties. It was remarkable power for a private enterprise.
That authority was eroded last year when the Republican-controlled Florida Legislature renamed a Disney-run special tax district and gave DeSantis the power to appoint its governing board members.
Disney sued the DeSantis administration in federal court claiming its planned $17 billion investment in Walt Disney World over the next decade was at stake, as well as the 13,000 new jobs the investment would create.
The settlement announced Wednesday also ends two state lawsuits related to the dispute.
Accuracy
Disney and Florida have settled their yearslong dispute
The war of words between Disney and DeSantis began in March 2022, after Disneys then-CEO Bob Chapek spoke out against a controversial bill that restricts certain instruction about sexual orientation and gender identity in the classroom
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Disney World near Orlando has been acting as its own government for over half a century which is not entirely accurate. The company was granted special tax district status by the state legislature and had significant influence over local politics but it did not have complete control of its destiny in Florida. Secondly, the article implies that DeSantis's appointment of Mateer to the oversight board is a positive development for Disney when in fact it raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest given his ties to the tourism industry. Lastly, while Disney has settled with the state and ended its legal challenges against them, there are still ongoing debates over issues such as parental rights in education which could impact their relationship with Florida.
The company was granted special tax district status by the state legislature and had significant influence over local politics but it did not have complete control of its destiny in Florida.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several logical fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the governor's statement and quotes from a retired professor without providing any evidence or context for their opinions. Additionally, there is a dichotomous depiction of Disney as both having remarkable power over its own destiny in Florida and being at risk of losing that power due to state intervention. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric by describing the conflict between Disney and the state as 'a foolish feud' without providing any evidence or context for their opinion.
The Walt Disney Company will no longer control its own destiny in Florida.
Bias
(85%)
The author of the article is Alexandra Glorioso and she has a history of bias against Disney. The article mentions that Disney sued the DeSantis administration in federal court claiming its planned $17 billion investment in Walt Disney World over the next decade was at stake, as well as the 13,000 new jobs the investment would create. This implies that Glorioso is sympathetic to Disney's position and may be biased against DeSantis and his actions.
The article mentions that Disney sued the DeSantis administration in federal court claiming its planned $17 billion investment in Walt Disney World over the next decade was at stake, as well as the 13,000 new jobs the investment would create. This implies that Glorioso is sympathetic to Disney's position and may be biased against DeSantis and his actions.
The article mentions that Glorioso has a history of bias against Disney. The author does not provide any evidence for this claim, but it suggests that the author may have a personal or professional relationship with Disney.
