GQ Cowers Under Wrath from Warner Bros. Discovery

How, with all that meat on the bone to cover for a story at GQ,
did this just get quickly but not very quietly swept under the rug?

The following article is from guest writer, Culture Casino.

Here’s a story you won’t see every day. GQ magazine surprisingly removed a very unkind and critical article about Warner Bros. Discovery CEO David Zaslav. The unflattering story, that some might characterize as a hit piece, by film critic Jason Bailey, labeled Zaslav as “the most hated man in Hollywood.” From there, a notable sequence of events took place that not only led to changes in content, tone, and structure of the article, but ultimately spelled its complete and swift removal. Now the only way to view the original in all its glory is through archived versions tucked away and linked on social media. Fortunately, I have them handy here and here.

As an aside, it’s worth mentioning that this was a lengthy piece of writing—over 500 words. Very opinionated but also well-informed and armed with facts. If you know anything about my worldview, I appreciate facts and numbers in support of the truth. So this story has caught my attention for the following reasons.

I am often critical about the mainstream media. Today will be no different. In fact, this story only reinforces my resolve to point out the many faults of modern corporate media, chief among them being corporate favoritism.

Unlike the folks in Hollywood, I think David Zaslav is taking the correct steps in an effort to right the ship over at Warner Bros. Discovery. Yet, in this instance, I have to say, I am quite taken aback.

Never before have I seen this kind of magic trick pulled on a corporate profile hit piece. Now you see the hit piece, now you don’t. That is a disappearing act even the White House hasn’t mastered yet.

Yet, the recent removal of the article about Warner Bros. Discovery CEO David Zaslav by GQ magazine has kindled a flicker of intrigue and speculation. The piece was authored by freelance film critic Jason Bailey, painting a critical picture of Zaslav’s leadership decisions at Warner Bros, Max, and TCM, dubbing him “the most hated man in Hollywood.”

While that sentiment may be true in some circles, in the business world, it just doesn’t ring the bell. Many business leaders have been rather inspired by the bold, rational moves Zaslav has taken in his brief tenure at the helm of this newly merged entity. We will get into that shortly I assure you but I digress.

The series of events here with GQs reactions is what marks this story almost entirely unprecedented. An article, after initial publication, underwent a series of edits but was eventually taken down from the GQ website following objections from the subject of said article.Those objections were detailed; seemingly reasonable and yet still suspect.

Context requires the following information to be added. Once the first edits fell in place, freelance writer Jason Bailey requested the removal of his byline. Now that’s more than a little bit odd. Why would he do that? Paraphrasing, he claims that the changes made to the article removed his participation in crafting the story and that it was no longer his article. It is even suggested that he was at the center of pulling the article entirely. There are even quotes to that effect attributed to Mr.Bailey in the WaPo story. Possibly, this account floats, but I don’t buy it in full.

Next, as if by magic, archived versions of the original and revised article started to circulate widely on social media platforms, almost in viral fashion. This seemingly provided another story which brought some to question GQ’s integrity. What a mess.

Bizarrely, it all culminated in the decision to remove the article without providing any explanation to its readers. This spurred multiple stories in other mainstream publications covering the incident, thus leading to more exposure for the story than it would have received originally. Have none of these players ever heard of the “Barbara Streisand Effect”?

To say that’s a highly unusual occurrence for a publication like GQ to do something like this would be an understatement. Like many publications of similar stature, it typically takes a lengthy process to retract an article, sometimes months or even years. However, in this case, the removal transpired swiftly.

A GQ PR spokeswoman was trotted out to say the article “was not properly edited before going LIVE.” Which is what a lot of publications probably ran with but I’ll summarize it a bit differently.

The Condé Nast publication statement acknowledged errors in the article by Bailey after it was prematurely published. You can read that as, “The tone of the article was far too harsh from someone we have a vested interest in succeeding.” The magazine stated that a revised version was released, but upon the writer’s request, they chose to unpublish the article entirely, citing those editorial errors. You can read that as,” The author rightly removed their name from the article and ultimately the article due to compromised values at our publication.”

It’s important to add this bit of context here that is not getting enough attention. The writer of the article was asked specifically to produce said article. So there’s that.

Reportedly, Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD), the primary subject of the piece, expressed their main concern: the lack of contact from Bailey during the writing process, which is standard practice for corporate coverage. They also highlighted the absence of fact-checking and contacted GQ to request numerous inaccuracies to be corrected. Strangely enough, I’ve now read the various forms of the article and it seemed to me it was focused on Zaslav primarily. Ultimately, the result was embarrassment all around and growing suspicions about the relationship between Condé Nast and WBD.

There is no doubt that the spotlight on David Zaslav, particularly since the $43 billion reverse Morris Trust merger of Discovery and WarnerMedia in 2022, has intensified. Overseeing valuable, timeless assets such as Warner Bros. Pictures and HBO, Zaslav has faced both financial improvements and managerial conundrums few CEOs have to handle in a well-managed mature company. Recent incidents, including a controversial commencement address at Boston University and staff cuts at TCM inspired sharp criticism from prominent filmmakers, furthering scrutiny.

So how, with all that meat on the bone to cover for a story at GQ, did this just get quickly but not very quietly swept under the rug?

Well…

The Newhouse family, which owns Condé Nast, has connections to Warner Bros. Discovery through board seats and ownership stakes. Uh Oh. They have a substantial conflict of interest here that can’t be ignored then. Of course, a representative from WBD denied any influence in the events surrounding the article’s removal. But can you actually believe that? I’ll leave that one for you to answer personally.

In any event, the layers of this controversy are many and leave us here, examining the role of media conglomerates, editorial practices, and the challenges faced by high-profile CEOs like David Zaslav. It’s important to separate fact from speculation and gain a deeper understanding of the complex dynamics that shape media narratives and corporate responses. Yet, in this case, I would suggest in my conclusion that this story is puddle deep and exactly what you think it is.

Anyway, what do you think?

Is there something to the idea that this was killed off by WBD making an appeal to the influential owners of Condé Nast?

Can we take at face value the statement of events from the writer and spokesperson at GQ?

Here’s a funny question. Did you even realize GQ was still around?

For all the latest news that should be fun, keep reading That Park Place.