Mediola

Ovitz On The Stand: Don't miss this testimony about Michael Eisner

This is from today's New York Times, and paints a pretty ugly picture of Michael Eisner. Sit back and enjoy it.

October 27, 2004
Ovitz Testifies He Was Sabotaged at Disney
By LAURA M. HOLSON

GEORGETOWN, Del., Oct. 26 - Michael S. Ovitz, the former president of the Walt Disney Company, vigorously defended his 14-month tenure on Tuesday, saying his efforts to expand and improve the company were undercut at nearly every turn by recalcitrant senior executives and the man who lured him there, Michael D. Eisner, the chief executive.

Mr. Ovitz was a witness in the trial of a lawsuit filed by Disney shareholders, who contend its board of directors breached its fiduciary responsibility when Mr. Eisner hired Mr. Ovitz as president in 1995 and then signed off on a severance package valued at $140 million 14 months later.

Mr. Ovitz, who waved to reporters in the back row when he entered the courtroom, spent much of his four hours of testimony describing how his vision for a substantially different Disney was thwarted. To bolster Disney's relatively weak Hollywood Records division, he said, he tried to sign the pop singer Janet Jackson and explored acquisitions of or joint ventures with the EMI Group and Sony Corporation's music operation. Mr. Eisner rejected those prospective deals as too expensive, and then used Hollywood's poor performance as a reason to fire him, Mr. Ovitz said.

Round 2: Bush vs. Kerry

I waited overnight to pen this because I wanted to to let the debate sink in, and to clear my head of the usually fatuous and biased comments of the news commentators on ALL networks and cable channels.

Two interesting first notes:

Two reliable polls showed Kerry the winner albeit narrowly.

The President woke up and came to play.

This president is no debater, regardless of whether an individual believes in him and supports him or not. His mind is not quick enough, and he is not articulate. If he were debating Clinton, he would be demolished.

Here is what I see as the defining factor in this debate. Kerry is far taller than Bush. As a marketer I see that as a key differentiating factor in Kerry's favor.

Kerry wore a dark blue suit; Bush pale gray. HUGE win to Kerry. It's a basic rule in television anchoring as I've taught it for years that you ONLY wear deep blue and charcoal suits. Pale gray makes you look washed out. Reagan, God bless him for his daring, broke the rule occasionally by wearing dark brown suits.

Cheney vs. Edwards: TKO to Cheney

John Edwards' performance at the Vice Presidential debate was horribly disheartening, and frankly he disqualified himself from being one dead white man away from being President.

Was this the wowzer trial lawyer I've been propagandized about? I think not. By that standard, I'd rather vote for Nancy Grace. His attack was all softball, and he actually deferred to Gwen Ifill when she messed up and gave him extra time. Is that what he's going to do at a summit meeting? "Oh, pardon me, I'll interrupt my point you despicable scumbag dictator because you would rather I shortened my answer".

Cheney is a fat evil bastard. Here's a question nobody asked: "Where the hell have you been since 9/11?" Now they drag him out of hiding to TKO Edwards.

This was a bad bad mistake for the Kerry campaign. With Bush set to hammer out his anti-American policy on foreign affairs tomorrow, the stage is set for incredible pressure on Kerry at Friday's debate. Can he recover from the Edwards fiasco?

It's anybody's guess. The good news is nobody was probably watching Cheney/Edwards. But that leaves me with the question: OK, I'm beginning to believe Kerry can be President, but I damn well know Edwards can't be. And that means Bush wins.