Stretching here, maybe trying to imply the raise comes due to cutting jobs or raises of lower level employees.

He can give himself a 25% raise worth several tens of millions of dollars which he made thanks to the hard work of the employees at WB, but these employees get next to nothing during a time where every basic needs like food and shelter are increasingly expensive.

A big part of that money should go to the employees.

I understood it to be mocking the headline's passive tone. The CEO is the one with much of the power to increase their own pay in a company, but the article is talking about it like some unknown magical entity just gifted this guy with $50 million.

And I think it's also combined with the general sentiment that anyone making that much is stealing from workers.

From a communist lens, the money to give the CEO a raise is the value of labor that workers provided, taken by the CEO instead of shared among the workers who provided it.

So (from that lens) the money going to the CEO is being stolen from the workers, the money is the car in the analogy. But the headline is framing the situation as "X got this thing worth a lot" without considering where the value came from.

Workers whose labor value have been stolen are like a person whose car was stolen, waking up to a positively-framed article about someone else receiving the stolen goods.

I think someone misinterpreted the Discovery network name, thinking it meant he found it. That was my initial impression.

I could def be wrong, but it might have to do with Zaslav's 'vision' to move focus towards 'unscripted programming', as in reality tv, true crime and live sports, less on scripted programming. My guess* is the car that's laying about is reality tv and regular people. He's not really helping create new shows, great storytelling, rather just using regular people to draw in viewers and rake in profits. I imagine the cost of unscripted programming is much less than truly scripted programming.

Yeah, that got me too