FCC chair launches investigation into Disney over DEI
The hits keep coming for The Walt Disney Co. — and not in the way that the media empire would probably prefer.
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chair Brendan Carr announced Friday on the social media platform X that he is opening an investigation into Disney, the parent company of ABC, over potential violations of the FCC's equal employment opportunity regulations through the company's efforts that promote diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI).
'For decades, Disney focused on churning out box office and programming successes. But then something changed,' Carr wrote in a letter to Disney that he also posted online. 'Disney has now been embroiled in rounds of controversy surrounding its DEI policies.'
The Walt Disney Co. said it received Carr's letter and will cooperate.
'We are reviewing the Federal Communications Commission's letter, and we look forward to engaging with the commission to answer its questions,' a Disney spokesperson told The Hill.
The FCC last month launched a similar probe into Comcast, the parent company of NBCUniversal, over DEI concerns.
Letters that Carr sent to both companies note the FCC wants to ensure that the companies 'are not promoting invidious forms of discrimination.'
Since President Trump took office in January, his administration has pushed to curb DEI efforts that swelled in government and private businesses in recent years. He signed executive orders to end DEI programs across federal agencies and pull federal funding from recipients, including colleges, that promote DEI.
In his letter to Disney, Carr wrote that the FCC's enforcement arm would follow up with the company, which he suggested may have altered names of its DEI initiatives without changing policies.
'In recent years, Disney made DEI a key priority for the company's businesses and embedded explicit race- and gender-based criteria across its operations,' he wrote. 'Although your company recently made some changes to how it brands certain efforts, it is not clear that the underlying policies have changed in a fundamental manner – nor that practices complied with relevant FCC regulations.'
Disney, in particular, has faced conservative backlash over what's been perceived as the company's 'woke' priorities in filmmaking and other endeavors, including the recent remake of 'Snow White and the Seven Dwarves,' which opened this month with a disappointing box office take.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
New Hampshire jury acquits consultant behind AI robocalls mimicking Biden on all charges
A political consultant who sent artificial intelligence-generated robocalls mimicking former President Joe Biden to New Hampshire Democrats last year was acquitted Friday of voter suppression and impersonating a candidate. Steven Kramer, 56, of New Orleans, admitted orchestrating a message sent to thousands of voters two days before the state's Jan. 23, 2024, presidential primary. Recipients heard an AI-generated voice similar to the Democratic president's that used his catchphrase 'What a bunch of malarkey' and, as prosecutors alleged, suggested that voting in the primary would preclude voters from casting ballots in November. 'It's important that you save your vote for the November election,' voters were told. 'Your votes make a difference in November, not this Tuesday.' Kramer, who would have faced decades in prison if convicted, testified that he wanted to send a wake-up call about the potential dangers of AI when he paid a New Orleans magician $150 to create the recording. He was getting frequent calls from people using AI in campaigns, and, worried about the lack of regulations, made it his New Year's resolution to take action. 'This is going to be my one good deed this year,' he recalled while testifying in Belknap County Superior Court. Prosecutors argued the calls amounted to an attack on the integrity of the primary, while Kramer's defense tried to direct outrage at the Democratic National Committee instead. At Biden's request, the DNC dislodged New Hampshire from its traditional early spot in the 2024 nominating calendar, but later dropped its threat not to seat the state's national convention delegates. Biden did not put his name on the ballot or campaign there, but won as a write-in. Kramer, who owns a firm specializing in get-out-the-vote projects, argued that the primary was a meaningless straw poll unsanctioned by the DNC, and therefore the state's voter suppression law didn't apply. The defense also said he didn't impersonate a candidate because the message didn't include Biden's name, and Biden wasn't a declared candidate in the primary. Jurors apparently agreed, acquitting him of 11 felony voter suppression charges, each punishable by up to seven years in prison. The 11 candidate impersonation charges each carried a maximum sentence of a year in jail. 'Our commitment to enforcing election laws remains steadfast," New Hampshire Attorney General John M. Formella said in a statement. 'We will continue to work diligently to address the challenges posed by emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence, to protect the integrity of our elections.' Kramer also faces a $6 million fine by the Federal Communications Commission, but he told The Associated Press that he won't pay it. Lingo Telecom, the company that transmitted the calls, agreed to pay $1 million in a settlement in August. The agency, which did not respond to requests for comment, was developing AI-related rules when Donald Trump won the presidency, but it has since shown signs of a possible shift toward loosening regulations. And though many states have enacted legislation regulating AI deepfakes in political campaigns, House Republicans in Congress recently added a clause to their signature tax bill that would ban states and localities from regulating artificial intelligence for a decade.
Axios
28 minutes ago
- Axios
Juneteenth celebration reflects progress and persistence
San Antonio's Juneteenth Festival returns Saturday to Comanche Park, continuing a decadeslong tradition. Why it matters: This year's commemoration comes as diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs face growing political backlash and rollbacks across the U.S. Flashback: Juneteenth marks June 19, 1865 — when Union troops arrived in Galveston to announce the end of slavery, more than two years after the Emancipation Proclamation. It became a federal holiday in 2021. Reality check: The holiday arrives amid a wave of DEI pullbacks, including President Trump's executive order ending federal diversity initiatives. Major companies like Walmart, Target and Meta have followed suit, scaling back racial equity efforts. State of play: Juneteenth Commission founder and CEO Byron Miller tells Axios that San Antonio's celebration hasn't faced direct fallout yet. Major companies like H-E-B, Frost Bank and Spurs Sports & Entertainment remain sponsors. What they're saying: Miller believes the rollback of DEI efforts signals a broader push to erase uncomfortable truths."They don't want you to remember your history," he says. "We're not here to tell the story about being a slave," Miller says. "We're here to tell the story about how far we've come, what our accomplishments are, and what's the action plan moving forward." What's next: Saturday's celebration — with a mental health symposium, food, and live music — kicks off a week of Juneteenth events across the city.
Atlantic
35 minutes ago
- Atlantic
Hollywood's Nostalgia Timeline Is Getting Shorter
There's a coincidental yet meaningful connection between two of this summer's buzziest movies. The new Lilo & Stitch and How to Train Your Dragon are both remakes; beyond that, they're both live-action adaptations of animated films—each of which happened to have been co-directed by Dean DeBlois and Chris Sanders. Lilo & Stitch has made a fortune at the box office since its late-May debut; How to Train Your Dragon, which opens today, seems similarly poised for success. The two features are, if a little lacking in visual stimulation compared with their forebears, reliably entertaining. But taken together, they signal something rather alarming in Hollywood's ongoing crisis of imagination: The timeline for nostalgia is growing shorter. Since Tim Burton's big-budget take on Alice in Wonderland grossed more than $1 billion in 2010, the live-action remake has become an inevitable, pervasive cinematic trend. Fifteen years later, it seems that capturing similar financial success requires a studio to look at progressively more recent source material to work with. Disney's attempt to update the nearly 90-year-old Snow White failed at the box office earlier this year; the company shuffled efforts such as a new Pinocchio and Peter Pan off to streaming, despite the recognizable directors and casts involved. The muted response to these modern takes on decades-old classics perhaps explains the move toward reviving properties that resonate with much younger generations instead. The original Lilo & Stitch is 23 years old; How to Train Your Dragon, produced by DreamWorks Animation, is only 15. Next year, a remake of Moana will hit theaters less than a decade after the original film's release. Is that even enough time to start feeling wistful about it? Clearly, the answer is yes, given how audiences have flocked to similar adaptations. The sentimental fervor around franchises such as How to Train Your Dragon is particularly unsettling to me, because the first entry premiered when I was fully an adult; the DreamWorks canon (which also includes such films as Shrek and Kung Fu Panda) was established when I was past the ideal age to become invested. However, I've seen How to Train Your Dragon many times because my daughter is a fan; that intense familiarity helped me out as I watched the live-action version, looking for anything that might feel different about it—which would thus justify its creation. Not so much. DeBlois, who also directed the two How to Train Your Dragon sequels, makes his live-action debut by adapting his own feature; as such, the end result is wildly similar to the earlier work. The new film is again set in a Viking village that is constantly besieged by different kinds of dragons. The plucky teen son of the chief, a boy named Hiccup (played by Mason Thames), befriends a sleek black dragon named Toothless and learns that fighting the beasts isn't the only answer. The actor who voiced Hiccup's father in the animated film, Gerard Butler, returns to perform the role on-screen; in all other cases, the film uses well-suited performers to replace the voice cast. To my own surprise, I liked the new version of How to Train Your Dragon about as much as I do its ancestor. Both, to me, are above-average bits of children's entertainment that struggle with the same problems: They start to sag near the end and suffer a little from their murky color palette. I got a little choked up at the exact same point that I do while watching the 2010 Dragon, when Hiccup and Toothless take to the sky together; the boy rides on a saddle he's made for his fire-breathing pal, and the composer John Powell's excellent score soars into inspirational mode, all strings and bagpipes. If there's a difference between these redone scenes and their inspirations, it's a remarkably minor one; only good theater decorum stopped me from pulling out my phone and running the two Dragon s side by side. Hollywood is struggling to get people to buy movie tickets, so I understand the impulse to offer something that a broad swath of viewers already knows and likes. But there's simply no sense of risk in making something like How to Train Your Dragon —nothing that will convince said theatergoers that the medium has a future beyond recycling. Yes, visual-effects technology is up to the task of re-creating a cartoon on a larger scale and dotted with real actors, and yes, these redos tend to turn a profit for their makers. These shouldn't be the only reasons for art to exist. Lilo & Stitch, at least, diverges somewhat from its source material. Because most of the characters are human beings, its world seems easier to translate to one composed of flesh and blood. The film, like How to Train Your Dragon, is about a shiftless youngster (Lilo, a Hawaiian girl who has been acting out since the death of her parents) bonding with a fantasy creature (Stitch, a blue alien experiment designed as a weapon of destruction). The director Dean Fleischer Camp's tweaks for his rendition didn't particularly click for me, however. One amusing character (another alien who is searching for Stitch) is absent entirely, and the revised ending has prompted some pushback, though Fleischer Camp has tried to defend it. In theory, I should be pro-change, given that I found the carbon-copy nature of How to Train Your Dragon so irksome—except that Lilo & Stitch doesn't really commit to its big alterations. The animated versions of Lilo and her older sister, Nani, forge a closer connection after meeting Stitch and his extraterrestrial hunters; the live-action Lilo enters the care of family friends at the end of the film, so that Nani can go off to study in California. These adjustments to the girls' relationship are a bit bold, because the prior film is so emotionally focused on their frayed sisterhood, yet the remake quickly undercuts their separation with the revelation that Nani can just visit Lilo anytime she wants, thanks to some space technology that Nani has borrowed. Such a cop-out is the underlying, depressing reality with all of these remakes: No change can be too daring, no update too significant. It's heartening that Sanders, a co-director of the original Dragon and Stitch, is one of the few people working in animation who's still committed to innovation. Last year, he directed The Wild Robot; much like How to Train Your Dragon, it is an adaptation of a children's book upon which Sanders found an exciting visual spin. The movie was a critical success, a box-office hit, and an Academy Award nominee. Cinema needs more entries like The Wild Robot —novel works that take chances and trust the audience to follow along. If nothing else, they provide fodder for more live-action remakes in the near future. Hollywood can't have these nostalgic adaptations without something to redo in the first place.
