That is a fairly inaccurate, to the point of being dishonest, portrayal of the context. That last part, in the italics, that you claim makes no difference, is a huge difference in context here.
It wasn't my intent to misrepresent the context. As a comment on TFA I read TFA and I assume you read TFA.
But it's telling that you think... the threat to blacklist Disney from awards, unless they retract their blacklist of the LA Times, is justified, not because they blacklisted the LA Times, but because of why they blacklisted the LA Times. Namely, in response to the LA Times' piece critical of Disney.
So, a particularly violent response is justified by the MSM in this case, because Disney is retaliating against a news story which so far is being held up as factual. If they want to retaliate against a newspaper's dutiful and factual investigative reporting, then it's OK for the MSM to hit them where it hurts.
I actually get that people think this is justified and that the MSM actually did one right by defending themselves like this. I personally take no joy watching powerful interests try to out-leverage each other. A muscle exercised will be a muscle more quickly used and relied on in the future. I don't enjoy the mudfight and don't think either side comes out entirely clean.
