Breaking News: Disney Magazine is No More!

[ah schucks]

I think that this is the interesting thing about the "Tales from the Laughing Place" magazine. In an age where our news is being delivered to us instantly, they have chosen to move towards a medium that delivers news slowly.
However, perhaps the topics they are choosing to cover are less "time sensitive", much in the way that "The E- Ticket" is a historical magazine.
I breifly browsed through the first issue at Jim's plce a couple months back and enjoyed some of the beautiful photography. Yet the coverage of such events as the opening of DCA's Tower of Terror just seemed old news at the time.

However a magazine offers portability and flexability to the majority of online readers who might not have a laptop or if they do it might not be wifi ready or set up for wifi connections...so a casual reader, a hardcore fan and everyone else in between can enjoy reading Disney articles. Furthermore, to place ultimate trust in websites is ridiculous. In most academic organizations students are limited to quoting websites or even prohibited. Magazines offer a far stronger basis for accuracy and reputation. Just like a newspaper had even more reputation and books have the most.

[Cory Mitchell]

In most academic organizations students are limited to quoting websites or even prohibited. Magazines offer a far stronger basis for accuracy and reputation. Just like a newspaper had even more reputation and books have the most.

If I were in high school or college, I wouldn't use any of the sites we have been discussing as a source. Although more and more institutions are begining to allow the internet as sources for research.

[ah schucks]

If I were in high school or college, I wouldn't use any of the sites we have been discussing as a source. Although more and more institutions are begining to allow the internet as sources for research.

Allowing but limiting...most MLA type guidelines provide for less than 2 websites and require that it be a site maintained by an educational or gov organization to avoid the common .com from becoming a source that anyone can edit and use to his or her advantage. The point of comment was to say that writing off magazines because of speed compaired to the internet is not a completly valid example for this dissolvement of the Disney magazine.

[WDW1974]

Aside from Wired, Disney Mag was the only one that I would sit down and read all the way through when it arrived. Of course, it was pretty thin in content and not very objective.

It was usually super thin in content (most of the time, although the last issue was quite good) and not at all objective. A few years back they did a piece of visiting the parks with young children. Who was one of the interviewees? A WDW publicist!

I hadn't heard anything about an LP mag. It does sort of make their agenda clear. How can they provide you an honest view of Disney if Disney is going to sell it in the parks? Wouldn't they be inclined not to show you pictures of run down attractions and trash at WDW if they were afraid of loosing the Disney sales revenue?

Yes, doesn't it? One thing that got me booted off the LP.com boards was trying to engage the money-man behind the magazine/site to utter even one negative thing about Disney. Never did ... just made snide comments about the OLC's Tokyo Resort (because we all know they still practice Disney Quality, instead of giving it lip service). When I tried to engage the dude about blatant lies (like saying TDL started as a very incomplete park in discussions about the paltry slate of attractions debuting in Hong Kong DL this fall) he just ignored me and got nasty. Also, bragged about his invitation to the Grand Opening ... so he can act like HKDL and TDL are comparable at opening and enjoy his free trip on the Mouse.

... but to get back to your point, LP.com (and the magazine, I'm sure) act as if everything Disney does is perfect. They don't engage in anything negative. It;'s like they're all overdosed on pixie dust. I have been to WDW hundreds of times since 1974 and I do know that things were considerably better in the 70s and 80s and that from 1995-2003, it was almost all negative changes (yes, I know DAK opened and is a great park but my point stands), things the Anaheim crowd (and I include the Moseleys in that) simply don't have the perspective to handle in any kind of realistic way.

E-Ticket Mag works because it is just an archive of attractions and interviews with imagineers. But a topical Disney Mag should be . . . well . . . topical, shouldn't it?

This is all so strange.

-Dusty

Yes it is. And it should show all aspects of things. I just got back to my hotel from a lovely afternoon/evening at Epcot (and some time at the Beach Club Resort where I spotted a couple of B-C List Celebs as well). Almost everything I saw was of a positive nature. But two negatives stood out to me -- first, the HKDL Preview Center was very disappointing (no CM, no merchandise, no plasma screens showing development, talking with execs/designers, showing city scenes, and no brouchures to tell you how to make plans to visit) and second, the Village Traders African art shop has become another place to buy Disney crap like pins, lanyards and tees.

No, it didn't ruin a terrific visit. But I certainly don't turn a blind eye to negative changes.

Sorry, for being longwinded. Again, I just feel certain sites are
disingenuous with their agendas. If you want to make a buck (or many) off of Disney, or you want to attend media bashes (and they are NOT all they are cracked up to be) at all costs, I think you should just state that.

[WDW1974]

LaughingPlace has never liked to include any negative information, regardless of whether or not it's "honest". And really, why should focusing on only the good be considered dishonest? I personally don't see anything wrong with LP's pollyanish view given it's desire to feed off of a brand like Disney. It's clear that the people who run LP love Disney and they want to maintain a positive message. I imagine that's why they call it the Laughing Place.
:

I only find them dishonest when they host discussion boards and then bannish folks who report negative items. Oh, and when the LP.com owners aren't honest and upfront about their agenda. Again, I don't find them bad people ... maybe misguided. But I do find your term 'feeding off Disney' to be very appropriate.

[WDW1974]

I think that this is the interesting thing about the "Tales from the Laughing Place" magazine. In an age where our news is being delivered to us instantly, they have chosen to move towards a medium that delivers news slowly.
However, perhaps the topics they are choosing to cover are less "time sensitive", much in the way that "The E- Ticket" is a historical magazine.
I breifly browsed through the first issue at Jim's plce a couple months back and enjoyed some of the beautiful photography. Yet the coverage of such events as the opening of DCA's Tower of Terror just seemed old news at the time.

Yes. Slow is putting it mildly ... but the second issue is supposed to focus on DL's 50th -- basically everything we already know, but likely more in depth. I have heard two good things about the magazine, that the pictures (taken by the publisher's husband and partner) are excellent and that the paper it is printed on is high quality paper stock.

Still, unless there is something truly unique about it (and it sure doesn't seem like it) it's only going to last as long as the publisher throws his own money into it.

[WDW1974]

But Disney is cutting back on giving media credentials to "internet" sites, but still gives them out to print reporters....

Well, WDW has had a longstanding policy against credentialing Internet fan sites as legit 'media' for their events/parties/announcements. You can't fault them for that, these sites are many things and often 'report' news ahead of reputable/traditional journalism outlets, but they are not legit press.

DL has had a different policy, which I believe had a lot to do with Cynthia having a lot of influence over certain Internet folks during her disasterous tenure and tried to use the influence to her advantage.

And you'd be quite surprised at who Disney credentials for events and why and how they rank those folks in terms of everything from hotel selection to gifts to media hosts. Might make a good chapter in a book one day

[BoneDaddy]

I only find them dishonest when they host discussion boards and then bannish folks who report negative items. Oh, and when the LP.com owners aren't honest and upfront about their agenda. Again, I don't find them bad people ... maybe misguided. But I do find your term 'feeding off Disney' to be very appropriate.

If you got banned from LP, it probably wasn't because you "reported" negative items, but rather is was because of the way that you did it. One quick look around that board showed me that there are plenty of different opinions.

As for the "feeding" comment, every site is doing that, including Miceage. Nothing wrong with it just as there's nothing wrong with a travel guide or agency that assists customers with trips to a Disney destination.

And there's nothing dishonest about remaining positive. You're the misguided one if you think that everyone who visits a Disney park or participates in a Disney-related forum feels the need to acknowledge peeling paint. Personally, if I'm paying a lot of money for a vacation, the last thing I'm going to do is obsess over something that's not exactly perfect.

With regards to the LP magazine, I've had the opportunity to look at it. It's a boutique magazine, a keepsake. It has a nice layout with a slant towards glamour over substance. The target audience clearly isn't somebody like yourself who has to have all of the details.

[Nephythys]

the Village Traders African art shop has become another place to buy Disney crap like pins, lanyards and tees.

No frelling way!


grrrrrrr...... yeah..that's annoying

[WDW1974]

If you got banned from LP, it probably wasn't because you "reported" negative items, but rather is was because of the way that you did it. One quick look around that board showed me that there are plenty of different opinions. :

I was asked to not post on LP.com because I asked questions of the publisher of the magazine that he didn't feel like answering ... this was after he'd attack my points of view with emotion (not fact) and then refuse to debate when I corrected things he said that were factually not true.

He also was probably less than thrilled that a few posts of mine where (without my knowledge) quoted in the Orlando Sentinel in a VERY balanced story on WDW's declining maintaince, specifically at the MK. After that, I felt I was living on borrowed time. To assume that I did something to deserve being asked to leave, just isn't correct. I could have simply switched to another account and continued to post (which many do), but I don't believe in being underhanded. Also, when folks found out what transpired, I received over a dozen emails from other posters (many who I had had disagreements with) and not one of them felt I was being treated fairly or that they were given the whole story. That's really all I want to say about my relationship with those people. I'd much rather discuss Disney.

As for the "feeding" comment, every site is doing that, including Miceage. Nothing wrong with it just as there's nothing wrong with a travel guide or agency that assists customers with trips to a Disney destination. :

No. But I sincerely doubt Al Lutz is making a living off of this site. Getting some media attention? Yes. Making noise and helping bring about change? You better believe it? But making $$$? I don't think so. A magazine is a different matter. Also, Al didn't move across the country with the hopes of making a living off WDW.

And there's nothing dishonest about remaining positive. You're the misguided one if you think that everyone who visits a Disney park or participates in a Disney-related forum feels the need to acknowledge peeling paint. Personally, if I'm paying a lot of money for a vacation, the last thing I'm going to do is obsess over something that's not exactly perfect.:

No, there isn't. But failing to acknowledge negatives exist is showing no basis in reality either. I also kind of feel like the peeling paint comment is a shot at me (or folks that care about Disney quality). If I'm wrong, I'm sorry. If I'm right, please don't read my post on the WDW boards about how FILTHY the MK was tonight. And I don't know about you, but I work very hard for my money, and I expect to get a premium product when I pay a premium price. Disney used to always exceed my expectations. Now it often doesn't even meet my (severly) diminished expectations. I do have a problem with that. And no, I'm not going to simply stop going (in addition to holding a large amount of Disney stock, having many friends that work for the company and holding an emotional tie to the parks, I feel that argument is like the 'America, love it or leave it, BS you often hear in this country.'

With regards to the LP magazine, I've had the opportunity to look at it. It's a boutique magazine, a keepsake. It has a nice layout with a slant towards glamour over substance. The target audience clearly isn't somebody like yourself who has to have all of the details.

I haven't looked at it, so I will reserve judgment. You obviously feel you know what I like. I do believe in substance over style. Are you saying the mag is basically fluff?

[Tinkerbell]

God, I'm just rather incensed about this!
I know the magazine hasn't been quite up to par in recent years, but I look forward to each new issue (especially for the recipes) and will miss it very much.
Gotta wonder... what's next?

[PumpkinKingJack]

so what happens to those who have subscribed when they purchased a premium ap?

[cellarhound]

If I were in high school or college, I wouldn't use any of the sites we have been discussing as a source. Although more and more institutions are begining to allow the internet as sources for research.

Universities do allow online articles... But it wouldd depend on the site source and the credibilty of the author... And the context of the citation...

Anyone can write a book and have it published... and there are pleanty of periodicals as well... So accuracy in print form is often as dubious...

It has to do with popularity and "peer-review."

[hornplayer]

sad sad sad

[BoneDaddy]

No. But I sincerely doubt Al Lutz is making a living off of this site. Getting some media attention? Yes. Making noise and helping bring about change? You better believe it? But making $$$? I don't think so. A magazine is a different matter. Also, Al didn't move across the country with the hopes of making a living off WDW.

I have no doubt that if Al Lutz could make his living from doing what he's doing with Miceage, he'd be one very happy guy.

I haven't looked at it, so I will reserve judgment. You obviously feel you know what I like. I do believe in substance over style. Are you saying the mag is basically fluff?

Like cotton candy.