The Soul of the Story—HBO’s Human Curation Offers a Lesson for the Algorithmic Age

By Sally Vazquez-Castellanos, Esq.

Published on September 7, 2026 at approximately 9:18 am.

HBO survived changes in ownership, distribution and technology because its programming was selected and developed by people accountable for the identity of the service. As streaming becomes increasingly governed by algorithms, advertising and data sharing, that human judgment, or “soul of the story” —may be more valuable than ever.

I sometimes present myself, with a degree of humor but there is also intention, as I have reimagined myself an investigative journalist “ish.” The expression caught my attention in the advertising for the forthcoming film The Social Reckoning. I will reserve judgment about its meaning in that film until American audiences see it. In describing myself, however, the qualification reflects an unusual professional journey through law, television, technology, content acquisition and digital distribution—and, thought leadership.

That journey informs the questions I ask.

While attending New York University, I worked at a little known company called John Blair Communications in New York City, reporting to the Chief Information Officer, whose team supported technical operations and training across multiple television stations. I later worked at HBO, first in program planning and scheduling during the multiplex stage and then in film acquisition. My career eventually extended into the developing business of distributing digital music over the internet. I became an attorney examining how legal systems, regulators and established institutions respond—often at different speeds—to technological and commercial change. My career eventually extended into digital music distribution.

I am a Puerto Rican woman raised first in the Bronx and later in a suburban community just north of New York City—West Nyack, New York to be exact. The location of a very serious incident in New York history that came to be known as the Brinks job. That is a separate discussion, but in my personal history as a child in New York and in West Nyack at the time of that event—it’s another important data point. These are the lessons for children of all ages of which I am one.

Becoming an attorney was no ordinary undertaking for a kid from the Bronx. Dare we to dream—which I am most certain is another extremely important data point. Together with my experience in television, programming, film acquisition, technology and digital media, these are not incidental biographical details. Each may appear discrete, but collectively they form a significant personal and professional profile—one that reflects identity, knowledge, associations and the development of an informed voice.

That concern is not theoretical for me. In my experience, aspects of my work and voice have been used, reframed or exploited in ways I did not authorize or control. I state this history not to make the article autobiographical, but to establish the experience underlying my analysis and to illustrate what can happen when personal data, professional history and creative expression are aggregated into a profile. As an attorney, I examine how legal systems, regulators and established institutions respond—often at different speeds—to technological and commercial change, including the consequences for privacy, authorship, attribution and control over one’s own voice.

I am having part of this conversation with generative artificial intelligence. That is a deliberate and informed choice, not an abdication of professional judgment. AI can assist with research, organization and testing an argument. It cannot replace source verification, legal analysis, reporting judgment or responsibility for what is published.

Because my work and qualifications have at times been addressed with a broad brush, it is appropriate to state this history plainly. It is not offered to place my conclusions beyond scrutiny or turn this article into a résumé. It discloses the basis of my analysis. Media, technology and law are competitive—and occasionally shark-infested—waters. Thought leadership in this environment requires openness to new technology together with the experience necessary to question who controls it, what data it consumes and whose interests it ultimately serves.

That brings me back to HBO.

HBO provides an unusually valuable case study in how a media company can repeatedly change its means of distribution without abandoning the fundamental source of its value. Technology helped HBO reach the audience. Original programming gave the audience a reason to follow. Human curation connected the two.

A disclosure the American public should not have to search for

Before examining HBO’s history, one present fact deserves prominent disclosure.

The proposed Paramount Skydance acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery—which owns HBO, HBO Max, Warner Bros. and CNN—is expected to include significant investments associated with sovereign wealth funds from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Abu Dhabi. Reuters reported that Democratic senators raised concerns about those investments, possible participation by China’s Tencent and the implications for a company that would control CBS television stations and major cable-news operations, including CNN. (Reuters⁠)

Other Reuters reporting indicates that current and expected foreign investors could hold slightly less than half of Paramount’s equity following the investments, while the Ellison family would retain control through voting shares. (Reuters⁠)

The distinction between economic ownership and voting control matters. A nonvoting investment does not necessarily confer editorial authority, and the investment is not proof of improper influence. But voting rights are not the only issue relevant to public disclosure. Americans have a legitimate interest in the source, amount and conditions of foreign sovereign investment in a company that may control both CNN and CBS News.

For members of the 9/11 community, the proposed Saudi investment carries particular gravity. Families of people killed on September 11, injured survivors and other plaintiffs have pursued civil claims against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia alleging that Saudi officials or agents provided support connected to the hijackers. Saudi Arabia denies responsibility. In 2025, a federal judge rejected the Kingdom’s motion to dismiss and permitted the litigation to proceed. That ruling allows the allegations to be tested; it is not a final determination of liability. (Associated Press⁠)

The Reuters article does not itself connect the proposed transaction to the 9/11 families. The connection arises from two separate facts: Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund is among the reported investors, and litigation brought by members of the 9/11 community against the Kingdom remains unresolved.

Responsible disclosure requires stating both facts, distinguishing allegation from adjudication and allowing the American public to evaluate their significance.

HBO’s multiplex system depended on human judgment

During HBO’s multiplex stage, additional channels did more than increase channel count. They addressed one of linear television’s principal weaknesses: a subscriber could pay for HBO and still miss a desired program because it aired at an inconvenient time.

Multiplexing created additional opportunities to see films, specials, sports and original programs across complementary schedules. It was not yet video on demand, but it reduced the rigidity of a single linear feed. Within the technological limitations of the period, HBO was already shifting greater convenience toward the subscriber.

The system depended on people.

From inside program planning and scheduling, one could see that a schedule was not merely a grid. It was a form of product design. Programs had to be placed in relation to contractual exhibition rights, audience behavior, repetition, channel identity, competitive programming and the overall value of the subscription.

The schedule reflected judgment about context. What should lead into a premiere? When should a film return? How often could a program be repeated before repetition diminished rather than increased its value? How should the multiplex channels complement the principal HBO service? How could the company offer greater choice without making the service appear indiscriminate?

Data informed some of these decisions. Ratings, subscriber research and viewing patterns were not irrelevant. But the data did not make the final judgment. People interpreted it and remained accountable for the identity of the service.

That distinction is increasingly important.

Original programming created HBO’s durable asset

Film acquisition was essential to the HBO model. Licensed theatrical films provided recognizable attractions and supplied the programming volume needed to sustain multiple schedules. But acquired films carried finite exhibition periods, substantial costs and competition from other buyers. A film could be valuable to HBO without being uniquely identified with HBO.

Original programming changed that equation.

The Sopranos demonstrated that television could support narrative complexity, moral ambiguity and production values associated with serious cinema. Tony Soprano was not designed to be conventionally likable, and the series did not have to resolve its contradictions to satisfy advertisers or the expectations of a mass broadcast audience.

Sex and the City established a different but equally important part of the brand. It placed women’s friendships, sexuality, professional lives and urban experience at the center of a commercially successful series. It became a cultural and franchise asset whose value continued through syndication, films and subsequent extensions.

Girls represented another generation and another willingness to accept creative risk. It was often polarizing, but that was part of its significance. HBO permitted a particular authorial voice to provoke discussion rather than requiring every program to appeal to every potential viewer.

The same programming philosophy can be seen in Six Feet Under, The Wire, Game of Thrones, Succession and other HBO originals. These programs differed in subject, scale and audience. What connected them was an institutional willingness to invest in creative voice, development and production quality.

HBO Sports expanded that identity. Boxing gave HBO exclusivity and a reason for subscribers to watch at an appointed time. Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel, Hard Knocks and 24/7 demonstrated that premium sports programming could include investigative reporting, documentary access and narrative craftsmanship.

Real Sports, which concluded in 2023 after 29 seasons, used sports as a lens through which to investigate corruption, labor conditions, concussions and human exploitation. It showed that a premium entertainment service could support serious journalism not confined to scores or daily ratings. (Associated Press⁠)

These programs were not selected by a personalized feed. They were commissioned, developed, promoted and scheduled through human decisions. Some succeeded immediately. Others required patience. Some attracted controversy. Collectively, they created an expectation that the HBO name represented programming sufficiently distinctive to justify a separate payment.

That expectation became HBO’s durable asset.

COVID accelerated a contest already underway

The chronology of the streaming launches is critical.

Netflix began streaming in 2007. By 2020, it had spent more than a decade building direct billing, international distribution, recommendation technology, behavioral data and original programming. (Netflix⁠)

Amazon entered internet video even earlier. Its service began as Amazon Unbox in 2006 and evolved into Prime Video. Amazon’s position differed from that of a traditional media company because video could attract and retain customers within a much larger Prime relationship involving commerce, delivery and devices. Amazon could operate simultaneously as a producer, streaming service, transactional store and aggregator selling outside subscriptions through Prime Video Channels.

Apple TV+ launched on November 1, 2019, emphasizing original programming rather than a deep inherited library. Apple could distribute the service across its hardware ecosystem and use established billing relationships with millions of consumers. (Apple⁠)

Disney+ followed on November 12, 2019, bringing Disney, Pixar, Marvel, Star Wars and National Geographic into one direct-to-consumer service. (The Walt Disney Company⁠)

Both services launched before the World Health Organization characterized COVID-19 as a pandemic on March 11, 2020. COVID did not produce their strategies, but it accelerated consumer adoption as households searched for entertainment at home and traditional theatrical distribution was disrupted.

HBO Max launched on May 27, 2020, during the first intense months of the emergency. WarnerMedia had announced it in 2019, and HBO was already offering internet access through HBO Go and the standalone HBO Now service. HBO Max was therefore not HBO’s first encounter with streaming. It was an attempt to combine the premium HBO identity with the breadth of the WarnerMedia library.

The competitors entered COVID with different advantages:

Netflix had streaming maturity, behavioral data and global scale.
Amazon had commerce, devices, Prime membership and an aggregation platform.
Apple had hardware, billing relationships and the resources to develop an original-programming service.
Disney had globally recognized franchises and a substantial family-oriented library.
HBO had decades of brand equity created through original programming and human curation.

COVID compressed the timetable and intensified the competition. It also accelerated the transfer of programming decisions from schedules shared by an audience to feeds personalized for individuals.

The feed has replaced much—but not all—of the schedule

Streaming did not eliminate scheduling. Services still decide when to release a series, whether episodes should appear weekly or all at once, what receives a prominent home-page position and which titles are promoted during a particular season.

But the visible schedule is increasingly supplemented—and sometimes displaced—by an invisible one.

That invisible schedule is the recommendation system. It decides which titles appear first, which images are displayed, what is recommended after a program ends and what content is likely to keep an individual watching.

Unlike HBO’s multiplex schedule, this schedule is not necessarily the same for every subscriber. It may be shaped by viewing history, search activity, location, device use, household profiles, advertising categories and inferences about preferences or personal characteristics.

The algorithm itself is not inherently evil. A well-designed recommendation system can help a viewer find a worthwhile program in a large catalog. The danger arises when an opaque system is optimized primarily for engagement, advertising revenue or data extraction without adequate regard for context, creative integrity, privacy or the welfare of the audience.

The question is not whether platforms should use algorithms. It is whether anyone remains accountable for what those algorithms promote.

Data is becoming part of the programming decision

The Federal Trade Commission has examined the data practices of major social-media and video-streaming companies. Its 2024 staff report concluded that the companies collected extensive personal information and monetized it through systems that included targeted advertising. The report also identified inadequate protections for children and teens. (Federal Trade Commission⁠)

The FTC reported that companies shared information with service providers and other third parties for analytics, advertising, marketing and measurement. It also found that descriptions of some data-analytics practices were vague. (FTC staff report⁠)

This matters because data collection and programming distribution are no longer separate subjects.

A streaming service may know what title was watched, when viewing began and ended, which device was used, what was searched for and whether the viewer completed the program. When that information is combined with data from other services, advertisers, devices or data brokers, the system may infer far more than a simple preference for comedy or drama.

Personalization can be useful. But usefulness does not justify unlimited collection, indefinite retention or unrestricted sharing. Nor should a consumer have to submit to extensive profiling simply to locate a film or allow a child to watch an age-appropriate program.

HBO’s original premium model offers a useful contrast. Its programmers sought to understand audiences, but the company’s value did not depend on constructing an individual behavioral profile for every subscriber. Its principal promise was collective and editorial: this is HBO, and these are the programs we believe belong here.

What algorithmic distribution can do to creators

Opaque feeds affect creators as well as viewers.

A platform’s ranking system can determine whether a work is discovered, ignored, demonetized or placed before an audience for whom it was never intended. A creator may technically retain ownership while losing meaningful control over context and visibility.

A recommendation system can also associate a legitimate work with sensational, misleading or harmful material. Clips can be separated from their original context. Images, dialogue, music and performances may be used to generate imitations or train AI systems, raising developing questions involving copyright, contractual authorization, attribution and rights of publicity.

The harm is not limited to lost revenue. A creator’s work can be repurposed to misrepresent the creator, manipulate an audience or target an individual. Synthetic media can make authorship and authenticity harder to establish. Automated enforcement can remove lawful work while leaving harmful copies online. An appeal may be routed through another automated system without meaningful human review.

For creators, the modern distribution bargain can become deeply asymmetrical. The platform possesses the audience data and controls the recommendation system. The creator often sees only the result.

Human curation cannot eliminate every dispute. But it provides something an opaque feed frequently does not: an identifiable decision-maker capable of understanding context and being held accountable.

Children require more than a personalized feed

The risks become more serious when the audience includes children.

A creator may produce material for adults, but an automated recommendation system can deliver excerpts, imitations or related content to a child. A child may be moved from one item to increasingly disturbing or compulsive material through a sequence no programmer consciously selected as a whole.

California’s Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act, Senate Bill 976, addresses this problem by restricting covered platforms from providing minors with addictive feeds and certain features without verifiable parental consent. The law requires regulations concerning age assurance and parental consent, although implementation and litigation remain ongoing. (California Department of Justice⁠)

California’s regulations concerning automated decision-making technology, risk assessments and cybersecurity audits became effective January 1, 2026, with some compliance deadlines phased in later. (California Privacy Protection Agency⁠)

Europe has taken a related approach through the Digital Services Act. The European Commission’s guidance for protecting minors addresses addictive design, recommender systems, harmful commercial practices and age-appropriate safeguards. The DSA also prohibits targeted advertising to children. (European Commission⁠)

These measures differ in scope and legal structure, and not every streaming service or recommendation feature falls within every provision. But they reflect a shared recognition: the design of the feed is itself a consequential business decision.

A platform should not be able to say that no person selected the harmful sequence and therefore no person is responsible. The company designed, trained, deployed and profited from the system that made the selections.

HBO, Warner Bros., CNN and The Newsroom

HBO’s relationship with Warner Bros. and CNN is a history of corporate alignment, not creative or editorial interchangeability.

HBO originated within Time Inc. Warner Bros. became its corporate sibling when Time Inc. and Warner Communications combined to form Time Warner in 1990. CNN joined the corporate family when Time Warner acquired Turner Broadcasting in 1996.

The combination brought together three different businesses:

Warner Bros. supplied film and television production, distribution, studio infrastructure and an extensive entertainment library.
HBO supplied a premium subscription service and a distinctive original-programming culture.
CNN supplied a worldwide news organization supported by cable distribution and advertising.

Common ownership created opportunities for financing, licensing, production and distribution. But HBO maintained its programming identity. CNN maintained a separate news operation. Warner Bros. continued to function as a studio and distributor.

The Newsroom illustrates the distinction. It was produced by HBO Entertainment, not CNN. It was created and principally written by Aaron Sorkin, with Sorkin, Scott Rudin and Alan Poul serving as executive producers. The series portrayed a fictional cable-news organization confronting ratings, commercial pressure, corporate ownership, political polarization and journalistic responsibility. (HBO Max⁠)

The modern newsroom faces those same pressures while also competing with recommendation systems, synthetic media and a continuous stream of information optimized for reaction. Even after journalists decide what to investigate, algorithms can determine whether the reporting is recommended, buried, monetized or surrounded by misinformation.

A newsroom, like a premium programming service, requires an intelligible editorial identity. Its long-term value lies in verification, context, institutional memory and accountable human judgment.

DOJ clearance does not answer every public-interest question

The Department of Justice reviewed Paramount Skydance’s proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery for approximately eight months. In June 2026, its Antitrust Division cleared the transaction, concluding that it was unlikely to harm competition or consumers. (Reuters⁠)

The DOJ conducted an antitrust review. It did not certify the future political neutrality of CNN or CBS News, resolve every question concerning foreign investment or adjudicate the allegations raised by 9/11 families against Saudi Arabia.

The Federal Communications Commission’s inquiry is distinct because Paramount possesses CBS broadcast licenses and has sought approval related to foreign investment. Senators have asked regulators to examine national-security concerns and obtain assurances against foreign interference in content decisions. (Reuters⁠)

The proposed acquisition also remains subject to litigation brought by California and other states and by the Writers Guild of America. As of September 7, 2026, Paramount has agreed not to close the transaction until a court rules or June 2027, whichever occurs first.

Disclosure does not require prejudging those proceedings. It requires identifying the participants, investors, governance rights and unresolved questions without forcing Americans to assemble the information from scattered filings and news reports.

The HBO Max reversal reaffirmed the value of identity

When Warner Bros. Discovery renamed HBO Max as “Max” in 2023, it attempted to create a broad umbrella for HBO programming, Warner Bros. films and Discovery’s unscripted content.

The rationale was understandable. The platform was broader than traditional HBO.

But the decision removed the company’s strongest indicator of quality from the service’s name. “Max” described a container. “HBO” described why the contents might be valuable.

The restoration of the HBO Max name in July 2025 acknowledged that distinction. (Associated Press⁠)

The same lesson should apply to the design of the service. Restoring the HBO name is not enough if an opaque recommendation system makes HBO programming indistinguishable from an undifferentiated feed. The brand must be expressed through programming decisions, presentation and continued investment in original work.

A practical solution: algorithms governed by people

The solution is not to recreate a 1990s programming department or abandon personalization. Modern catalogs are too large, audiences too varied and distribution too global for human scheduling to perform every function alone.

The better solution is a hybrid model in which technology assists discovery while people remain responsible for the values and consequences embedded in the system.

That model should include several business practices.

1. Identifiable editorial responsibility

Every major streaming service should have senior personnel accountable for recommendation standards, not merely engineers accountable for system performance. Someone should be responsible for what the service promotes, how sensitive material is classified and whether repeated recommendations create foreseeable risks.

2. Genuine curated alternatives

Subscribers should be able to choose a human-curated interface, a chronological or scheduled feed, or a profile that does not depend on extensive behavioral tracking. Personalization should be an option—not the unavoidable price of finding content.

3. Data minimization

Platforms should collect and retain only the information reasonably necessary for a defined purpose. Data used to resume a program or recommend similar titles should not automatically become available for unrelated advertising, profiling or third-party use.

4. Clear separation of recommendation and paid placement

Viewers should be able to tell whether a title appears because an editorial team selected it, an algorithm predicted engagement, a corporate affiliate owns it or an advertiser paid for placement.

5. Meaningful rights for creators

Creators need understandable information about how works are ranked, promoted, restricted and monetized. Material decisions should include notice, an explanation and access to a human appeal. Contracts should address AI training, synthetic use, metadata, attribution and the permitted audiences for promotional excerpts.

6. Child-protective defaults

Profiles reasonably likely to be used by children should begin with privacy-protective settings, limited data collection and carefully reviewed recommendations. Autoplay, compulsive notification systems and endless algorithmic feeds should not be treated as neutral defaults.

7. Provenance and context

Streaming services should preserve reliable information about who created a work, whether it has been altered and where excerpts originated. AI-generated or materially manipulated content should be identified in a way ordinary viewers can understand.

8. Independent testing and audit

Platforms should test not only whether a recommendation system increases viewing time, but whether it produces discriminatory outcomes, exposes children to harmful sequences, misappropriates creative work or systematically disadvantages particular speakers and creators.

These practices would not eliminate algorithms. They would restore responsibility.

The human element was part of HBO’s competitive advantage

My experience at HBO matters to this analysis because I was part of a team that supplied the human element to programming, scheduling and acquisition. We did not possess perfect information or make every decision correctly. But the decisions had context, purpose and identifiable responsibility.

That human element is not nostalgia. It is a possible solution to a modern crisis.

Streaming companies possess far more data than HBO’s planners did during the multiplex era. But possessing more data does not necessarily produce better judgment. An algorithm can identify correlations in behavior. It cannot independently decide what a premium brand should represent, what obligations a company owes a child or when a creator’s work is being placed in a harmful context.

Those remain human and institutional decisions.

Multiplexing made HBO’s subscription more useful. On-demand viewing reduced dependence on the schedule. HBO Now reduced dependence on the cable operator. HBO Max carried the company into direct competition with Netflix, Disney, Amazon and Apple.

Original programming made HBO worth carrying into each new era. Human judgment created the environment in which that programming could become valuable.

The next stage of media development should not require choosing between human curation and technological efficiency. It should require technology to remain answerable to human judgment, creative rights, consumer privacy and the protection of children.

Technology delivered HBO’s signal. Programming created its value. People gave the service its identity.

That may be HBO’s most important lesson for the algorithmic age.

Legal and Editorial Disclaimer

This article is provided for informational, educational and editorial-commentary purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and reading, sharing or responding to it does not create an attorney-client relationship.

The author writes in her individual capacity. The views expressed are her own and should not be attributed to any present or former employer, client, business partner or affiliated organization. References to professional experience explain the perspective informing the analysis. No confidential, privileged or proprietary information is intended to be disclosed.

This article discusses pending litigation, contested allegations, developing technologies, proposed corporate transactions and continuing regulatory proceedings. Saudi Arabia denies responsibility for the September 11 attacks. The denial of its motion to dismiss permits the plaintiffs’ claims to proceed but is not a final determination of liability. No allegation of unlawful conduct should be inferred beyond the claims expressly identified and attributed to public sources.

Descriptions of pending matters reflect publicly available information reviewed through September 7, 2026 and may require updating before publication.

Generative-AI Transparency Statement

This article was developed through an iterative conversation with generative artificial intelligence used as a research, organizational and drafting aid. The author directed the analysis, reviewed the cited sources, revised the resulting language and accepts responsibility for the final editorial judgments. Generative AI was not treated as a substitute for independent reporting, legal analysis, source verification or human judgment.

PERSPECTIVES