Not Even Sesame Street Is Safe From David Zaslav And Time Warner Discovery Incompetence
from the enshittify-ALL-the-things! dept
We’ve documented in detail how the whole AT&T–>Time Warner–>Warner Brothers Discovery merger process has been a pointless mess, resulting in no limits of layoffs and damage to the underlying brands. What was supposed to be a gambit by these companies to dominate streaming TV, wound up being a very expensive act of seppuku by over-compensated executives clearly out of their depths.
With streaming subscription growth saturated, the market has been forced to get “creative” in order to feed Wall Street its expected quarterly returns. That has meant sagging quality control for streaming services like Max, and a steady parade of price hikes and weird new restrictions that generally make subscribing less and less worth it.
Max execs are now consistent cheapskates. LIke when they simply shut down the entirety of the Comedy Central archives with zero concern for consumers or history. Or when the company pulls popular show archives offline because it’s too cheap to pay artist residuals. Or last week when Max executives made it clear they were no longer willing to pay for new episodes of Sesame Street, now in its 56th season:
“The long-running children’s series is looking for a new home for its original episodes, after Warner Bros. Discovery opted not to renew the Sesame output deal with HBO and Max…The decision not to continue the deal for new episodes stems from a change in strategy, with Max pivoting to focus more on adult and family programming, and placing less emphasis on kids fare like Sesame.”
Again though, there’s no real indication that Max brass or Time Warner Discovery CEO David Zaslav have any idea what they’re doing or who they hope to appeal to. They’re just mindlessly chasing lowest common denominator scale without any concern about the actual underlying product.
Yes, the last merger generated a brief stock bump and tax breaks, but product quality has very clearly been eroded and customers have increasingly been headed for the exits as streaming steadily gets enshittified. That’s driving more and more users back to piracy, which these executives are far more likely to blame on generational entitlement than their own incompetence.
Zaslav, like most media execs in streaming, is all out of any sort of original ideas. The kind of stuff that truly pleases customers (low prices, higher quality, improved customer support, better feature sets) costs money and erodes quarterly earnings. Instead Zaslav sees Trump 2.0 as an opportunity for more harmful consolidation, which will only continue to make the underlying products worse. That opens the door to entirely new waves of otherwise avoidable disruption.
Filed Under: competition, david zaslav, enshittification, piracy, streaming, tv, video


Comments on “Not Even Sesame Street Is Safe From David Zaslav And Time Warner Discovery Incompetence”
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Given the Sesame Workshop’s partnership with an organization dedicated to the eugenic elimination of people like me,* I don’t even care.
*Source.
Re:
Autism Speaks is, yes, garbage, but that blog post and your own hyperbole don’t do anyone any favors.
Re: Re:
You know, the fact you deliberately mischaracterized my comment as “hyperbole” to (successfully) get it flagged into invisibility says a lot about you and your stance not only on the rights of autistic people like me, but also the rights of non-speaking autistic people and especially the rights of autistic people with diagnoses of intellectual disability.
Re: Re: Re:
Dude, your comments get flagged by multiple people who only read your comment. They don’t need encouragement from others. It’s also obviously not invisible since people are still responding, like me.
All that said, as another person on the spectrum, you don’t get to speak for all of us and weaponize us against others.
Re: Re: Re:2
Not everyone clicks on flagged comments to read them. To those individuals, the comment is indeed invisible so AC is right and your own anti-autism rights stance is not a good look, especially for someone claiming a higher level of empathy than the average human.
Re: Re: Re:3
That’s their choice. Do you think people should be forced to click it and read flagged comments?
Every time you post this pretending to be someone else agreeing with your own post, it just makes you look more absurd.
Oh hey, you have the exact tone of the AC and the exact logic that anyone who disagrees with you is able to be smeared with the same “You’re anti-x” brush the way you claim Stephen hates minorities just because Stephen calls you out for being an asshole.
I’m autistic, dumbfuck. I can’t have an anti-autism rights stance. I do have an anti-troll stance however.
Autism Speaks can be awful and you can be a trollish asshole. Two things can be true. You don’t speak for other people on the spectrum. Your accusations only say bad things about you.
Re: Re: Re:4
? I’m autistic, dumbfuck. I can’t have an anti-autism rights stance.
Said Jonathan Mitchell and Twilah Hiari to no one ever, lying dumbfuck.
If you are indeed autistic that is true, since having an anti-autism rights stance means you’re against having the right to life.
Re: Re: Re:5
I don’t know who those people are. I’m not those people. I’m not clicking your irrelevant links, non sequitur dumbfuck. Address my claims, not those of other people.
I’m against trolls like you making these terrible, illogical arguments. “If you disagree with me, you think [insert bad stance here].” Fuck off with your attempts at telling people what they think and value.
Re: Re: Re:4
And yet you’re the only one claiming that AC believes they do. Also, your accusation of them weaponizing autistic people in response to them basically saying that everybody on the spectrum has all the same rights as non-autistic people regardless of (perceived) level of intellect reflects a dearth of affective empathy not consistent with a diagnosis of autism, meaning my only question to you remains: Who hurt you?
Right back atcha, hypocrite.
Re: Re: Re:2
You know, reading your comment over again, it occurs to me that your your behavior is the same as that of the troll who constantly attacks anybody daring to advocate for any minority by claiming they’re “using the language of inclusion to weaponize [insert particular minority here]”. Since such behavior requires a complete dearth of affective empathy and autism is associated with an abundance of it, I don’t think you’re actually autistic at all. In fact, you come across as a neurotypical parent of a “severely autistic” person falsely accusing AC of your own bad behavior as a form of attack.
TL:DR; Every projection a confession.
Re: Re: Re:3
“You accuse people of weaponizing neurodivergent people for selfish reasons, so I’m going to weaponize the diagnosis of neurodivergent people for my own selfish reasons by telling you you’re not neurodivergent, which I can tell because I got an internet doctorate in making up bullshit. Also, I’m not a troll, you’re a troll!”
Keep going. That you think you can diagnose people through an anonymous comment is your confession of being a troll.
Re: Re: Re:4
Wow! Projection much? First of all, David posted under a name, so his comment is possibly pseudonymous, but that’s not at all the same as it being anonymous except to a troll. Second, ‘neurotypical’ is nowhere to be found in the DSM-5, so David did not even attempt to diagnose you with anything. In fact, your own behavior is more than sufficient to provide your diagnosis, which seems to be callous and unemotional traits, something that cannot co-exist with autism.
Re: Re: Re:4
FYI, my stating you come across as neurotypical is only pointing out how unempathetic your behavior is, not saying you’re not autistic. I’ll tell you what does say you’re not autistic, though: your ability to read between the lines to receive messages that aren’t there in the plain text, something that no autistic person I’ve ever worked with is capable of, and I’ve worked with hundreds in all my decades as a special ed teacher.
Re: Re: Re:
I’m pretty great, but I don’t have the magical powers you seem to assume to force others to flag you. I didn’t even flag you myself as I have no problem letting people be foolish for everyone to see.
I had a lot written about how I disagree with you, going into various subjects, but decided this is no place to air all of it. I’ve removed it save for below.
And as an Asperger’s diagnosed former Young Mensa And special education student through high school, I’ll ask you to take care before throwing around big claims about “people like me”. There is no greater Autistic Society (and no Deaf Society, etc) that excuses not treating, and when possible preventing, conditions that negatively effect the lives of the sufferers and those around them.
Re: Re: Re:2
I know someone who was diagnosed as having hyperglycaemia until they washed the sugar off their hands. Your actions say a hell of lot more about you than whatever label you have, especially since misdiagnosis is more likely in the case of neurodivergence.
Re: Re: Re:3
And I know someone who hid in their house during a tornado and ended up flying to another land over a rainbow and they got silver slippers and killed a witch and lived happily ever after! Don’t we all have great fantasy stories to tell!
Re: Re: Re:4
TIL: Finger-prick tests cannot be fooled by sugar on hands.
Re: Re: Re:2
The quotation above most clearly shows your position, which is clearly anti-autism rights. Nothing said by the original commenter indicates they oppose treatment for conditions such as epilepsy or amelioration of any disability, whether or not associated with autism, yet you’ve clearly tied them to a version of neurodiversity not recognized by any member of the Neurodiversity Movement, but rather espoused by anti-autism rights individuals that include the likes of Jill Escher, Amy S.F. Lutz, and Twilah Hiari. This makes you an anti-autistic bigot, and your claim to a position on the autism spectrum does not excuse you of that.
Re: Re: Re:3
Oh, I apologize. I didn’t know we were in the presence of the grand lord of neurodivergence! Please, continue to persecute people on the spectrum with your absolute judgment of what other people are allowed to think and say. That’s very equitable and inclusive of you!
This is the funniest part of it. You think you can just declare shit like that makes it true and everyone will believe you if you just say it again and again. Do you think you’re at a Trump rally? Your bullshit is a testament to itself.
Re: Re: Re:4
Something you have done to multiple commenters already, so you are clearly projecting.
You mean this ‘bullshit’? As I’ve already stated, you have a real problem with projection.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
The link in your very short comment is to a short partial article based from another long personal and oriented article trying to review a very long PDF from a very decent association that is Autism Speak. Both two articles misses the point that theses PDFs are simple guides for parents and not some medical training.
If you read the two different “100 Day Tool Kit”s, you’ll see there is a lot of good advises, with very few errors, but nothing there as “eugenic” as you pretend.
Re: Re:
This would work better if there didn’t seem to be a lot of people who think Autism Speaks is “very decent association”, the in much the same way as the people standing with the folks chanting “Jews will not replace us”, were “Very fine people”
i.e. they’re not..
The 100 day guides seem to be a particular problem…
https://intheloopaboutneurodiversity.wordpress.com/2019/08/12/a-look-at-autism-speaks-100-day-kit/?fbclid=IwAR2gMLnT29bg3x6NkHi9Ko7lY1mr-DBDbfdgmpl7fzJbCeti-Jq0yL89zyE
Re: Re:
Said an anti-autism rights bigot who has clearly never read either of them themself. Check out pages 14 and 15 for the kind of “good advice” you’re pushing.
Re: Re:
Autism Speaks explicit goal is curing autism, and treating autism as a problem to be fixed. This is a problem. Among other issues I’ve heard, this overall goal has put focus not on helping those with Autism but on helping caregivers, which contributes to struggles for independence, encourages trauma responses, and a culture of infantilization.
Among the more overt claims to this attitude is when Autism Speaks compared Autism to cancer and aids, putting the focus on the efforts of caregivers, indicating to persons with Autism the desire of AS to cure this as though it were life threatening disease, and implying discomfort, harm, and the risk of death to the person with Autism are acceptable not for the quality of life of the Autist but to reduce the burden on caregivers.
Autism speaks is a caregiver advocacy organization disguised as an Autism advocacy organization. The organization has explicitly stated its desire to eliminate Autism via genetic manipulation (i.e. eugenics), which is why it partnered with Google on genetic research. AS focus is on easing the burden of caregivers.
But sure, its books help caregivers, so it must have the best interests of Autists at heart.
Re: Re: Re:
Trying to understand what genetic factors influence autism is not Eugenics. That’s basic science we do for most disorders that affect people. Also the problem I have with a lot of people who are trashing Autism speaks because they are mildly autistic don’t actually give voice to those whose condition is much worse. Is it bad to want to try and make sure no one is born severly autistic. Those that can actually type and communicate presenting as a neurotypical person are not the ones parents grieve about. It’s those kids who will likely never talk or tell their moms that they love them. My autistic cousin is verbal at the level of a 3 year old and that is as far as he will ever advance and it has taken 30 years to get there. He was beyond difficult as a child.
Re: Re: Re:2
Right, just like trying to understand what genetic factors influence Down Syndrome isn’t eugenics. Let’s not mention the fact that many pregnant parents receiving a positive result on an amniocentesis test are frequently coerced into having an abortion.
Re: Re: Re:3
Would you accuse the 90% of parents in your citation who do choose to get an abortion instead of carry a child with Down Syndrome to be eugenicists?
Re: Re: Re:4
That’s clearly not the point AC was making at all, but you knew that.
Re: Re: Re:4
No, but I would consider the individuals responsible for that 90% rate* to be eugenicists, as you could have worked out if you didn’t lack reading comprehension.
*The medical personnel pushing abortion in the face of a positive amniocentesis result.
Re: Re: Re:5
People performing a service requested by the parents choosing to get an abortion isn’t “pushing abortion.” Or would you assert (without any evidence) that all parents would continue to carry a child with Down Syndrome if it weren’t for someone else suggesting an abortion?
It also isn’t eugenics if the concern isn’t about Down Syndrome but about the financial, mental, and emotional stress that carrying such a child could and likely would entail. You have to have some amount of financial and mental stability to do that, so you’re otherwise calling poor people and people with mental health issues eugenicists for not being able to handle the weight of that experience.
Re: Re: Re:6
AC provided a link to the evidence, but you clearly haven’t bothered to click on it because you’re too busy pushing your bigoted point of view down everybody else’s throats. Either that or you’re just being a piece of shit troll. Or both.
Re: Re: Re:7
AC didn’t provide a link to evidence. AC provided a link to a single article that included a anecdotes from a few people about their particular experiences, which also didn’t demonstrate coercion because none of them accepted the suggestions, proving that they weren’t coerced. AC didn’t provide any links to the accounts from those 90% of people who choose the abortion. That overwhelming statistic alone shows that the anecdotes in the article were not typical and the article was written with a bias.
But sure, accuse me of being a troll because you think I couldn’t possibly disagree with a biased source linked from a weak, illogical argument.
Re: Re: Re:8
FYI, AC posted a link to a starting point for evidence, but I guess you’re one of those individuals that won’t enter a race unless you get to start at the finishing line.
Smart move. Removing kids from the “family programming” equation is a great business idea since kids don’t have money to spend a useless products they’ve seen on ads… Oh wait!
If only there was a PBS streaming service.... oh.. wait..
https://help.pbs.org/support/solutions/5000121793
Re:
PBS doesn’t have the budget to produce new episodes, though. That’s the reason Sesame Workshop partnered with what is now Warner Bros. Discovery in the first place. David Zaslav cut Sesame Street from the WBD budget because…I’unno, I guess doing a public service without an expectation of profit was too much to ask? Or maybe he really is so fucking stupid that he couldn’t find a way to make a profit from the show. Either way: Zaslav is an enemy of the arts and culture, and I know I won’t be alone in celebrating when he eventually leaves WBD.
Sesame Street should never have moved to HBO in the first damn place; it’s a betrayal of the show’s purpose and a slap in the face to Jim Henson’s memory.
Unfortunately, I don’t imagine that whatever Sesame Workshop does next will be an improvement.
That said: I have a one-year-old; I watch a lot of PBS Kids. And it’s clear to me that the people making Sesame Street still really care about what they’re doing, even if the people who own it don’t.
Re:
Not anymore, they don’t.
Well how else can the rich pedos find kids? Smart kids aren’t going to end up in their basements.
Re:
You’re right. The Catholic Church sure ain’t what she used to be.
It's not even worth piracy at this point.
Between the price increases, the cancellation of good ongoing content, and the removal of good older content, all that’s left if the garbage filler content. There’s little point in even looking at pirating.
There are a handful of shows with new seasons that are worth watching but there’s so little that I can just create a new email address and binge them during the trial period as soon as the “full” 8 to 10 episode “season” is fully released.
Some of these people hardly have any depth at all.
I vote “out of their shallows” be a new term we uses.
“Like when they simply shut down the entirety of the Comedy Central archives[…]”
Correction:
* 1) That was Paramount’s doing, Comedy Central hasn’t had ownership ties to Warner Bros. Discovery since its predecessor Time Warner sold HBO’s 50% stake in the network to Viacom (predecessor to the current Paramount Global) in 2004.
* 2) The link within that sentence also directs to a previous article on Cartoon Network shuttering its website and redirecting it to Max, which happened around the time Paramount purged archived streaming content from Comedy Central’s website in a similar redirection of that network’s content exclusively to Paramount+.
WOW,
This sounds about as Stupid as the past Movie industry. Cutting shows They personally didnt like, but the Customers DID.
So many shows and movies from the past that were Cut down, before they would be created. Finding private Agency that would LET them create, and then PAY to be Published on TV or the movie screen. And NEver get the credit they deserved.