David Zaslav and the Separation of Church and State
In having (or simply allowing) one of his associates pressure GQ into altering its coverage, Zaslav stepped on an ethical rake.
Hello, readers. It’s your friendly neighborhood Parker with today’s newsletter.
I hope everyone had a fun and safe Fourth of July (if that’s something you celebrate; if you don’t celebrate it, then, uh… I hope that you had a pleasant Tuesday, July 4th, generally). Today’s newsletter is on ethics in media.
You may not know his name, but Warner Bros. Discovery CEO, David Zaslav has almost certainly ruined something you love.
From the ongoing executive-level erosion of CNN's reputation as a leader in the world of news media, HBO Max's peculiar “Max” rebrand, to the tax-related abandonment of completed films such as Batgirl and Scoob!: Holiday Haunt before their public release, to the residual-skirting removal of existing content from HBO Max's library, layoffs and budget cuts at Turner Classic Movies, and the decision to classify directors and writers as mere “creators” on the new Max app, there's plenty for critics, audiences, and industry insiders to dislike about how Zaslav has changed the news and entertainment industries for the worse.
And somehow, he remarkably manages to stay extraordinarily touchy about any backlash or criticism he encounters.
One would think that Zaslav, the penny-pinching CEO who made a ludicrous $246.6 million in 2021, should be able to cope with a single negative article. He couldn’t.
Earlier this week, GQ magazine ran a piece by freelance film critic Jason Bailey, criticizing Zaslav. Within hours, the article had been heavily edited to be far less critical of Zaslav, leading Bailey to request that his byline be removed from the piece. Instead of reverting the article to its original form or removing Bailey’s name from the piece, GQ responded by taking the entire piece down.
Fortunately, thanks to the Internet Archive, both the original and the edited versions of the article survive. While there are edits throughout the piece, let's examine a single paragraph to get a sense of the minor (yet significant) alterations that were made. I've highlighted lines that were changed from one version to the next.
In a relatively short period of time, David Zaslav has become perhaps the most hated man in Hollywood. Few people who weren’t industry insiders even knew his name two years ago, when Discovery merged with WarnerMedia to become Warner Bros. Discovery. Zaszlav had been CEO of Discovery Communications since 2006, where he oversaw the transition from, in his words, “no longer a cable company, (but) a content company.” What that meant, from a viewer’s perspective, was Discovery’s transition from educational programming to reality slop—which is, of course, a much more lucrative business model.
David Zaslav has become the face of a rocky and controversial new period in Hollywood. Few people who weren’t industry insiders even knew his name two years ago, when Discovery merged with WarnerMedia to become Warner Bros. Discovery. Zaszlav had been CEO of Discovery Communications since 2006, where he oversaw the transition from, in his words, “no longer a cable company, (but) a content company.” What that meant, from his critics perspective, was Discovery’s transition from educational programming to low-effort reality programming—which seems to be a much more lucrative business model.
Whether you agree or disagree with Bailey’s characterization of Zaslav, it’s extremely unethical for a media outlet to modify its coverage post-publication without an update explaining the changes made — especially at the behest of corporate leadership. According to new reporting, it appears that’s exactly what occurred.
Will Sommer of The Washington Post reports that, unsurprisingly, the post-publication turmoil was triggered by “a Zaslav associate.” Sommer elaborates on the corporate connection between Zaslav and GQ, stating, “The magazine’s parent company, Condé Nast, is owned by Advance Publications, a major shareholder in Warner Bros. Discovery.”
On Wednesday, Deadline obtained a statement from GQ that it was an “editorial error” for the piece to be published in the first place. Deadline also reported that Warner Bros. Discovery’s complaint centered around Bailey not contacting WBD directly to “fact-check the substance of the piece before publishing.” And while this is good form for reported pieces, I’d argue that Bailey didn’t need to, as his article was an opinion/analysis-type story that didn’t have any noticeable factual errors in it.
Much more concerning for me is the blatant disregard for the separation of “church and state,” the wall between editorial operations and the business side of news brands. As the world of journalism has fallen on hard times, this barrier has weakened across the industry.
Adding to the chaos and potentially unethical behavior, Variety reported, “GQ editor-in-chief Will Welch is producing a movie at Warner Bros. titled ‘The Great Chinese Art Heist,’ which is based on a 2018 GQ article by Alex W. Palmer.”
None of this is a good look for Zaslav, GQ, Condé Nast, or Warner Bros. Discovery. Will it matter? Will any of them care?
If you’re looking to understand why media conglomerates are bad, this serves as one reason among many.
In 1996, the BBC’s Andrew Marr interviewed Noam Chomsky about how the press operates as a “censoring organization.” The general premise is that the type of post-publication censorship that occurred with Bailey at GQ is typically unnecessary because the affluent and influential, like Zaslav, can often filter out those who would deviate significantly from their preferred narratives. Yes, there might be some token opposition added for one reason or another, but it's rarely sufficient to genuinely disrupt the status quo.
Here’s the part I feel is important. Transcript below. The bolded emphasis is mine.
ANDREW MARR: If the press is a censoring organization, tell me how that works. You're not suggesting that proprietors phone one another up, or that many journalists get their copies spiked, as we say?
NOAM CHOMSKY: Orwell, you may recall, has an essay called Literary Censorship in England, which was supposed to be the introduction to Animal Farm, except that it never appeared, in which he points out, look, I'm writing about a totalitarian society, but in free democratic England it's not all that different.
And then he says unpopular ideas can be silenced without any force. He gives a two-sentence response, which is not very profound, but captures it. He says two reasons. First, the press is owned by wealthy men who have every interest in not having certain things appear. But second, the whole educational system, the beginning on through, just gets you to understand that there are certain things you just don't say. Well, spelling these things out, that's perfectly correct. I mean, the first sentence is what we expand on.
MARR: This is what I don't get because it suggests that— I mean, I'm a journalist, people like me are self-censoring.
CHOMSKY: No, not self-censoring. There's a filtering system that starts in kindergarten and goes all the way through. And it doesn't work 100%, but it's pretty effective. It selects for obedience and subordination. And especially, I think that's...
MARR: So stroppy people won't make it to positions of influence?
CHOMSKY: There'll be “behavior problems,” or if you read applications to a graduate school, you see that people will tell you, "He doesn't get along too well with his colleagues." You know how to interpret those things.
MARR: I'm just interested in this because I was brought up, like a lot of people, probably post-Watergate and so on, to believe that journalism was a crusading craft and that there were a lot of disputatious, stroppy, difficult people in journalism. And I have to say, I think I know some of them.
CHOMSKY: Well, I know some of the best and best-known investigative reporters in the United States. I won't mention names because I don't want to—whose attitude toward the media is much more cynical than mine. In fact, they regard the media as a sham. And they know, and they consciously talk about how they try to play it like a violin. If they see a little opening, they'll try to squeeze something in that ordinarily wouldn't make it through. And it's perfectly true that the majority—I'm sure you're speaking for the majority of journalists who are trained, have it driven into their heads, that this is a crusading profession, adversarial, we stand up against power, a very self-serving view. On the other hand, in my opinion, I hate to make a value judgment, but the better journalists, and in fact, the ones who are often regarded as the best journalists, have quite a different picture, and I think a very realistic one.
MARR: How can you know that I'm self-censoring? How can you know that journalists are...
CHOMSKY: I don't say you're self-censoring. I'm sure you believe everything you're saying, but what I'm saying is if you believed something different, you wouldn't be sitting where you are.
The crucial point is that last line: “I’m sure you believe everything you’re saying, but what I’m saying is if you believed something different, you wouldn’t be sitting where you are.”
This phenomenon isn’t confined to mainstream media. In 2017, right-wing commentator Tomi Lahren expressed support for abortion in certain circumstances and was promptly fired from her job at Glenn Beck’s The Blaze. In a similar fashion, Rod Dreher lost his column at The American Conservative after the sole financier of his columns for years thought Dreher had strayed too far from his preferred narrative. All the “free thinkers” at partisan media organizations know that if they express an opinion not aligned with their funders, they might lose their jobs. So few do unless they’ve secured new funding.
Many individuals in media understand this and think, “Well, naturally, they’ll lose their jobs if they upset their funders; that’s just common sense. They were hired because they espoused positions their funders wanted to promote," while believing this same principle doesn't apply to their own roles. It absolutely does.
In the case of GQ, it's hard to believe this won't lead to an increase in editorial self-censorship, whether conscious or not. It will impact how stories are reported, edited, who gets hired, promoted, which freelancers are commissioned, and what viewpoints are permitted. And this might all occur on a subconscious level.
From Orwell’s Literary Censorship in England, which was referenced by Chomsky above:
The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary. Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban.
The moment Zaslav’s people contacted GQ, the damage was done.
Employees, not just at GQ but across all Condé Nast properties, will have to consider if there's a figurative axe hanging over their heads. They will, consciously or subconsciously, respond accordingly. As Orwell wrote, a formal "ban" on certain ideas isn't necessary to keep them suppressed.
Some might respond to this piece with, "But Parker, isn't 'don't upset your boss' a standard practice across industries? Why is it different here?" Yes, "don't upset your boss" is sensible advice for most individuals in most fields. The issue here is that, in the media world, upsetting the boss (and the boss's boss, and so on) can sometimes be part of the job — if done correctly.
Often, people choose the path of least resistance and avoid directly addressing issues that might upset their employers, as Howard Kurtz at Fox News did with the Fox/Dominion lawsuit, for instance. It's weak and lacks principles, but the reason behind it is an understandable one of self-preservation.
Until the company addresses this in a direct and substantive manner, every Condé Nast brand must be viewed through that same Kurtz lens concerning the separation of business and editorial sides.
Outlets have reputations, both good and bad, deserved and undeserved. The Washington Post, for years, has made a big show of work that has been critical of owner Jeff Bezos and his other businesses as part of an effort to counter public perceptions about the mega-billionaire and his influence on coverage. It’s all part of trying to improve its reputation. And then Bezos might show up and do something like sit in on an editorial meeting while hinting at layoffs, as he did in January.
It's actions like these that affect credibility. Just as Bezos's January visit should rightly increase skepticism of the Post's ability to report on the Amazon founder, Zaslav's intervention at GQ should heighten skepticism of news outlets tied to him — including Warner Bros. Discovery brands such as CNN— to keep the business out of the news and vice versa. Even if an associate of Zaslav did this without his knowledge, it won't change the fact that his influence was used unethically to stifle unfavorable coverage.
The GQ piece is in many respects the worst of all possible worlds. Instead of the censorship happening before hand (as Chomsky noted) it took place clumsily and ridiculously right out in plain sight. And was preserved for future generations to see
And the story got more attention (and confirmation ) by being censored than it would have if Zaslav had left it alone.
And the magazine managed to not only lose whatever journalistic credibility it had, but looked pathetic in the process.
My takedown of the "arguably most hated man in Hollywood" article is raising questions answered by my takedown...