Something unusual, very unusual, happened in the journalism world this week.
Here’s the breakdown:
On Monday, GQ published an analysis piece about David Zaslav, the CEO of Warner Bros. Discovery. It was far from flattering. The story compared Zaslav to Richard Gere’s character in “Pretty Woman,” as well as the Logan Roy character in HBO’s “Succession.” The story said, “In a relatively short period of time, David Zaslav has become perhaps the most hated man in Hollywood.”
Then Zaslav’s camp complained to GQ about the analysis. That led to extensive edits to the story.
When the writer saw the edits, he asked GQ to remove his byline.
Now here’s the very unusual part: GQ then took the piece down entirely.
That’s everything we do know.
There’s plenty we don’t know, including the key question in all of this: Did GQ buckle to complaints from the powerful Zaslav by removing the story from its website?
The whole thing sounds bungled from the start.
Here’s an official statement from GQ to The New York Times’ Ben Mullin: “After a revision was published, the writer of the piece asked to have their byline removed, at which point GQ decided to unpublish the piece in question. GQ regrets the editorial error that led to a story being published before it was ready.”
So let’s go back to the beginning.
According to Mullin’s sources, GQ commissioned Jason Bailey, a freelance writer, to write an analytical piece about why Zaslav was “the most hated man in Hollywood.”
Bailey wrote the original piece, which you can read here. Then came complaints from Warner Bros. Discovery. According to a statement given to The Washington Post’s Will Sommer, a GQ spokesperson said the story “was not properly edited before going live.”
Among Warner Bros. Discovery’s complaints: “The freelance reporter made no attempt to reach out to Warner Bros Discovery to fact-check the substance of the piece before publishing — a standard practice for any reputable news outlet. As is also standard practice, we contacted the outlet and asked that numerous inaccuracies be corrected. In the process of doing so, the editors ultimately decided to pull the piece.”
Bailey told Sommer that he did not reach out for comment, but disputed that there were “numerous inaccuracies.” And one could argue that in a general analysis piece, Bailey didn’t have to reach out for comment.
Bailey told Mullin he did not participate in new edits to the story, but gave editors permission to make changes. After he saw those changes, he objected and wanted his name removed. The revised version, which you can read here, certainly was toned down from the original piece.
The “most hated man in Hollywood” line was removed and replaced with “Zaslav has become the face of a rocky and controversial new period in Hollywood.” The second, revised piece had no references to “Succession” or “Pretty Woman.”
Bailey told Sommer, “I wrote what I felt was the story I was hired to write. When I was asked to rewrite it after publication, I declined. The rewrite that was done was not to my satisfaction, so I asked to have my name removed and was told that the option there was to pull the article entirely, and I was fine with that.”
It’s not uncommon for any news outlet to update stories or fix mistakes or clarify something that wasn’t originally clear. But to overhaul the tone of a story is uncommon and to remove a story entirely is rare.
In general, and making no judgment on the GQ story, it’s ultimately better to take down a story than to leave up a flawed one. But the issue here is that if GQ wasn’t satisfied with the story, it should never have been published in the first place until it was properly edited. Even by GQ’s own admission, that didn't happen.
That’s the best thing that can be said about GQ here, that it published a story before it was ready.
The worst is that GQ took down the story because Zaslav just didn’t like it. Not saying that’s what happened here, but that would be journalistically irresponsible.
Is there any connection between Warner Bros. Discovery, Zaslav and GQ? Well, Sommer wrote in the Post, “GQ has a corporate connection to Warner Bros. Discovery. The magazine’s parent company, Condé Nast, is owned by Advance Publications, a major shareholder in Warner Bros.”
However, there’s no indication that Advance was involved in any of this controversy.
Then again, Variety’s Tatiana Siegel 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.”
Siegel wrote, “Sources say Welch was involved in the discussions surrounding the removal of Bailey’s initial story and made the call to pull the revamped story, which ran some 500 words shorter than the published version. Those same sources say Warner Bros. Discovery complained about the initial story to two GQ editors, one of whom was Welch.”
