2 ms·
GQ pulls article slamming Warner Bros. Discovery CEO Zaslav after complaint
- metadat 3y agohttps://archive.today/6o6nh https://archive.today/6o6nh
- psychphysic 3y agoGlad the author demanded article removed rather than heavily censored and keeping his byline. I haven't read the original article, but by the sounds of it it was pretty personal and took the option of describing what "others" have said to attack the CEO. Breaking even in terms of journalistic integrity in my judgement.
- 1attice 3y agoThis is terrible, actually. Even assuming the article was bad, the mechanism that you'd use if you had journalistic integrity would be to print an addendum or retraction, and, as necessary, suffix a link to this new document from the original article. Everyone with even a whiff of exposure to journalistic best practice knows this by rote. It's bog-standard, time-tested, standard operating procedure. The only reason to not do this is if you have something to hide. In this case, GQ had two things to hide: the original article itself, and its reasons for hiding the original article. In fact, this is so out-of-the-ordinary that it could be regarded as an action similar to the disappearance of a 'warrant canary': the author of the piece was concerned enough with the retrofitted censorship that he precipitated a world-visible incident, at the price of losing a valuable byline. Everyone, take note of who it is permissible to criticize, and who does the permissioning.
- 1attice 3y agoCompare, for example, the way that the NYT has handled its incredible, years-long upfuck of 'Caliphate'. They didn't disappear the content; they printed a retraction. https://www.npr.org/2020/12/18/944594193/new-york-times-retracts-hit-podcast-series-caliphate-on-isis-executioner https://www.npr.org/2020/12/18/944594193/new-york-times-retr... It would have cost GQ zero dollars to follow this pattern. But they didn't. For reasons. Think it through.