GQ Clowns Itself, Weakens (Then Deletes) Story Critical Of Incompetent Discovery CEO David Zaslav

from the the-streisand-effect-will-never-die dept

We’ve documented extensively how the AT&T—>Time Warner–>Warner Brothers Discovery mergers have been a gargantuan pointless mess, resulting in tens of thousands of layoffs, widespread animosity across Hollywood, the death or decay of numerous popular brands (from Mad Magazine to HBO), weird holes in streaming catalogs, and just a shittier, dumber product overall.

While the first half of the mess fell squarely on the shoulders of incompetent executives at AT&T, the second half of this parade of dysfunction has been largely the fault of Warner Brothers Discovery CEO David Zaslav, who has come under particular fire for his (and cable industry mainstay John Malone’s) bumbling attempts to make CNN more friendly to Republican interests.

GQ recently commissioned freelance film critic Jason Bailey to write about Zaslav’s disastrous tenure. But after an unnamed Zaslav ally complained to GQ editors, they started retroactively pulling punches and “softening” the article’s overall tone post publication:

Archived versions of the original and edited versions of the article show significant changes that had the effect of softening its tone. A line calling Zaslav “the most hated man in Hollywood” was deleted. The “Succession” comparison was removed, as was a segment where Bailey called the reality shows that Zaslav oversaw while running Discovery “reality slop.”

The final paragraphs of the original article compared Zaslav to the pitiless businessman played by Richard Gere in “Pretty Woman,” with Bailey writing that the executive is “only good at breaking things.”

Bailey wasn’t pleased with the extensive wimpy rewrite of his article, so he asked GQ editors to pull his byline. GQ editors responded by pulling the article offline entirely, resulting in the entire mess (and article) enjoying the Streisand Effect. As a result both the piece — and GQ’s cowardice — is seeing significantly more attention than ever before.

Editors only pull a story offline completely if there’s some very major problems with a story. Even then, you’ll often leave an editorial note. That wasn’t the case.

Additional reporting has since indicated that the guy who made that call, GQ editor-in-chief Will Welch, has a movie project underway at Warner Bros Discovery that they’re slated to both produce and direct; an obvious conflict of interest. GQ owner Condé Nast is in turn owned by Advance Publications, which has an ownership stake in Warner Bros Discovery.

We’ve noted repeatedly how mainstream media coverage of the whole AT&T/Time Warner/Discovery mess routinely tends to either downplay or ignore the destructive pointlessness of media consolidation and giant mergers. It also tends to downplay or ignore how the blistering incompetence of violently overpaid high level executives is regularly at the real heart of the problem.

When the endless chaos in U.S. media is covered, it’s usually blamed on ambiguous externalities. Brutal cost cutting is portrayed as savvy and necessary cold calculus. Often ignored is the untold billions wasted on pointless merger debt, executive compensation, or executive mistakes. Employees or customers get to pay the bill in the form of layoffs and higher costs, while executives fail upward to the next disaster.

With the kind of editorial “courage” displayed by GQ (which has a significantly bigger legal budget than numerous tiny news outlets routinely threatened by agitated billionaires), it’s not hard to see how this billionaire-coddling dynamic cements itself institutionally.

The entire saga perfectly exemplifies how media consolidation is often idiotic, and most of the “savvy deal-making” executives at the heart of these efforts are only remarkable in how unremarkable they are. These aren’t leaders or visionaries; they’re more interested in slash-and-burning, short term tax breaks, resume building, and protecting power than building a quality, lasting product.

Letting media consolidate at the hands of said incompetent billionaires poses a direct threat to healthy journalism and Democracy itself. Journalism that speaks truth to power is an obvious threat to men like Malone and Zaslav, so instead we get doused in feckless pseudo-journalistic simulacrum at a moment in history where courageous, quality journalism is more important than ever.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , , ,
Companies: advance publications, warner brothers discovery

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “GQ Clowns Itself, Weakens (Then Deletes) Story Critical Of Incompetent Discovery CEO David Zaslav”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
23 Comments
Ninja says:

Recently a fraud of over 60 billion was discovered in a retailer here that sells all sorts of products, from grocery to tech stuff that generated at least 20 billion in profits to 3 billionaires. At least one of them is involved in the acquisition of a public electricity company in a privatization choke full of fraud suspicions starting with the cost of acquisition, much lower than the assets actually are worth¹. They also used GOVERNMENTAL financing from BNDES, a development State bank that should, in theory, provide cheap financing to promote small businesses and important infrastructure project from governments nationwide.

¹ small note to help understand the magnitude of the fraud: the state company owns a few large hydroelectric plants was sold for US$ 5 billion. That’s the size of the fraud.

It’s always billionaires and very rich companies. It’s always super rich doing stuff choke full of fraud, lies and bullshit. And they own the government.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

The current ones should be taxed into oblivion.

Considering that most of their wealth is in stocks and shares, especially of the companies that they run, taxing them would force them to sell their controlling stakes in companies. Why do you think Elon used loans to buy Twitter? It was because most of his wealth is shares in the various companies that he owns, and not cash in the bank. Share prices in Tesla dropped because the stock market though he would have to sell a large bundle of them.

Gary Mont says:

Re: Money

Millionaires, Billionaires and the race to be the first Trillionaire!

Can someone explain to me why hoarding billions of dollars is not considered to be a threat to the national economy, since that money has been literally removed from circulation.

If you have 1000 billionaires with 10 billion each, does that not mean that $10,000,000,000,000.00 has been removed from circulation?

Why is this not considered a bad thing?

nerdrage says:

ever heard of the Streisand Effect?

I would never have heard about this kerflufffle if GQ hadn’t made a big issue out of it via attempted censorship. The original article is pretty boring, just stuff we’ve already heard about. Whether it’s a terrible thing is another matter.

Overall, Zaslav has been bad for creativity and good for business, which is actually his job: to manage the dicey transition from a good business model (linear TV) to a worse one (streaming) while under a mountain of debt.

And the move to rename HBO MAx just Max was a good one. It’s Marketing 101. HBO doesn’t mean any old crap lying around so if the service is a grab bag of everything, it should not be named HBO. Max is a nice generic name that can be an umbrella for HBO, Discovery, classic Warners etc.

The fact that the writer is whining about this really shows he doesn’t understand business basics. AT&T made the original mistake in naming their grab bag platform HBO Max and Zaslav is correcting the error before the HBO brand is as meaningless as Max.

In all the stuff Zaslav has done, I can’t find much to fault business-wise. Even tossing some HBO content in Netflix’s direction is not a bad idea as long as he knows not to toss anything people are still watching or that has big IP attached. If he gives Game of Thrones, Harry Potter or DC to Netflix then sure, string him up.

freakanatcha (profile) says:

Re: What Were Once Vices Are Now Habits...

Zaslav has also sold content to Tubi & Roku (free streaming). Once you get into the habit of satisfying your need for cash with a quick fix by selling to a competitor, it’s hard to break. Your resistance to selling your anchors wears down.

Also, once you condition consumers to pass on the next MAX price hike and wait until it comes to Tubi or Netflix (or Amazon Prime) it’s game over.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“Zaslav has also sold content to Tubi & Roku (free streaming)”

Which is an interesting wrinkle. Tubi is supposedly one of the most profitable services out there, and most of what they do is collect random catalogue titles people might stumble across. They have some newer titles and some “original” content being produced nowadays, but a lot of people do just go there to check out some old Bronson movie.

“Also, once you condition consumers to pass on the next MAX price hike and wait until it comes to Tubi or Netflix (or Amazon Prime) it’s game over.”

The way people interact with the different services is key, and I think that’s where a big mistake comes in. Amazon Prime is almost a given because it’s included with a service people pay for other reasons. Netflix was the standard default and although it’s lost its shine, it’s still there. Disney is almost a must if you have kids, and it’s great value if you’re outside the US because of the extra stuff included in “Star”. But, the rest? They have to compete, and disassociating HBO with that brand makes it seem easier for some people to disconnect.

We’ll see how it goes, but if he’s devaluing brands, trying to throw away content (not just deals you mentioned but TCM) and still expecting people to pay a premium? Might not work so well.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Kevin A. Carson (user link) says:

Re:

Nah, the renaming was a horrible idea. If you have a widely recognized name, changing it is a failure at Marketing 101. If every single commercial has to remind people that “Angie’s List is now Angi,” you made a big mistake.
And if your “job” consists of destroying value in order to increase profits, you’re a textbook example of vulture/strip-shop capitalist and your job should not exist.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re:

“Overall, Zaslav has been bad for creativity and good for business”

Which might be problematic when he’s literally in charge of a creative industry.

“Zaslav is correcting the error before the HBO brand is as meaningless as Max.”

HBO is a brand that’s stood for quality entertainment that people pay a premium to access since the 80s. Max is.. what? Half of Skinemax or part of a 90s slogan?

“he knows not to toss anything people are still watching or that has big IP attached”

Unless it’s Batgirl or something.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re:

He certainly doesn’t seem to understand what he’s in charge of. Hint: if you’re rebranding an app with least prestigious brand, (MAX vs HBO), defunding channels that immediately gets people in the industry trying to save them (TCM) or entire genres (animation), cancelling one movie people wanted to see but pushing ahead with the one few people wanted to support the toxic star in (BatGirl vs Flash), there’s a trend that suggests that he’s in the wrong business. There might be business strategy I’m missing, but I don’t get the impression he knows what customers want, which is always bad.

About the only positive move I’ve seen recently is with Evil Dead Rise (was originally meant to be straight to HBO, released theatrically after positive test screenings, made nearly $150 million worldwide), but I have the feeling that was overlooked rather than approved by him.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re:

He certainly doesn’t seem to understand what he’s in charge of.

I think he understands…and ultimately doesn’t care. Remember, he’s trying to turn WBD into a (more) profitable enterprise. If he thinks WBD can make more money by being an enemy of the arts and culture⁠—by whittling down WBD’s output to lowest common denominator bullshit and writing off entire shows and movies for tax breaks⁠—he’ll do that shit regardless of how that makes him look.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...