In order to do so, it has been posing major threat towards democracy by the corporatization of public spheres and the limitation of avenues over the choice and expression of public. Of course, Disney does not appear to have the power for the unilateral engagement of armed warfare, dismantling the state of welfare, or elimination of basic social programs for the population of children. As a matter of fact, the influence of Disney is considerably subtle and extremely pervasive. It has been shaping the consciousness of the public by the enormous holdings of economy and the power of culture. It was once stated by former Disney executive, Michael Ovitz that Disney should not be a company but a state of the nation that exercises major influence across international constituencies. Influenced by a number of facets in the life of culture, Disney has been ranked among the top 200 companies listed under Fortune 500, while controlling ESPN and ABC, along with a number of radio and television stations, sites on the internet, studios of motion picture, major publishing houses and multimedia organizations.
It is significant to note that corporate policies of progress must reveal more about the business savvy of Disney in comparison with its alleged agenda of gays. When considering the case of Disney, these types of policies not only result in reinforcing the corporate identity of the company as a model of civic and social responsibility, but simultaneously, they end up turning the subversive strategy of the gay community into the one with the maximum potential to earn profits. The credit for promotion of social justice, as argued by Griffin, should go to those individuals who have been successful in using corporate space as the main opportunity of making bond and connections together perceiving a shared expression regarding the existence of vibrant oppression and hatred. Far ahead from being a model of social responsibility and moral leadership, the company has been co-opting subversive components increasingly in the culture of public, monopolizing the sources of media, limiting the freely flowing information, distorting memory from the past, undermining debate of substantive public, and constructing the identities of children primarily perceiving the overall ideology related consumerism.