All Disney all the time.

THE incessant question of Michael Eisner's future at Walt Disney Co. seemed to have finally been put to rest when it was announced that the combative, visionary, abrasive, seasoned, short-sighted, micro-managing chief executive had decided to step down when his contract expires in 2006. But like those horror movies that have you thinking the bad guy is down, only to rise again and again, the business and entertainment media is not prepared to see this epic end.

Before you could say Mouse House, a loose collection of reporters, editors, publicists, bloggers and other Disney-philes were speculating about what Eisner's plans really were. Might he make a play for the role of chairman, which he was forced to relinquish last spring in the midst of a mini-shareholder revolt? Would he at least stay on as a director and perhaps exert the kind of behind-the-scenes influence that might upend his successor?

Even a Fortune magazine piece quoting Eisner as declaring pretty definitively that he would not continue on the board CIt's just not in my time frame at this time") wasn't enough to quell the Disney-watchers in search of yet one more angle.

They'll at least have until next June. That's when the board is supposed to choose a successor, with Eisner stepping down at some point after that (date unspecified). That leaves plenty of time for stock gyrations, earnings surprises, proxy fights, box office bombs, courtroom revelations, TV rating disappointments and management infighting.

For some in the news business, covering Disney has been a lucrative career opportunity. In fact, several reporters cover little else, which tells you something about the lack of proportionality when it comes to Hollywood. Yes, of course Disney is an important company, but it' s not that important--the latest Fortune 500 rankings place it 60th, which is behind a lot of bigger-deal businesses that don't get a fraction of the attention. Or how familiar are you with Altria Group (15), AmerisourceBergen (22) or Medco Health Solutions (41)?

A couple of days after Eisner's big announcement, I did a Factiva search on the number of stories posted the previous 48 hours that had Eisner's name and President Bush's name. Bush won out by a 5-1 landslide, but the Disney CEO still got a few hundred mentions, which no doubt is way more than most any CEO on that Fortune list.

What we have here is a selective skewing of news based on the notion that just because a certain group of entertainment journalists believe Disney is the world's most important company, their readers and viewers are supposed to feel the same way. But with so much else to focus on these days--beheadings in Iraq, a presidential election, an uncertain economy, terrorism fears at home, even hurricanes--it's a questionable assumption. And since much of the entertainment industry has been appropriated by massive media conglomerates that lack mogul-type personalities, Disney as a story is feeling a tad stale.

Yet with Eisner's departure now in sight, more cover stories and interviews and behind-the-scenes revelations await. And plenty of backstory, with Walt the visionary, Michael the turnaround guy, Frank Wells the facilitator, Jeffrey Katzenberg the creative juice, Michael Ovitz the big mistake, Roy Disney the jilted nephew, etc. etc .....

Even the end may not be the end. With or without Eisner, it's only be a matter of time before some media company goes after Disney, which will lead to yet more tales from the Magic Kingdom. For those dedicated souls perched on the steps of 500 S. Buena Vista St., there can never be enough.

Mark Lacter is editor of the Business Journal.