BvBPL
Pour Decision Maker
Paying someone else to hold up offensive signs is not a joke.
Why Are Media Outlets Targeting YouTubers?
- Thread starter Commodore
- Start date
That's kind of up to the individual viewer to decide what is and isn't a joke.
The video made it seem like he was expecting to get a response from the people chastising him for trying to get people to show his "edgy" message (he had already received multiple rejections), and was horrified when they actually did it.
The video made it seem like he was expecting to get a response from the people chastising him for trying to get people to show his "edgy" message (he had already received multiple rejections), and was horrified when they actually did it.
I am not accusing the WSJ of anything, just that the way they produced the video makes their intentions seem a little suspect. The popular opinion among YouTubers though is that the WSJ did the latter because they see YouTubers as a threat to their business and are trying to turn people against them.
I'm not saying it absolves him, but it certainly doesn't make him a Nazi either. At worst, he is guilty of poor judgement in the execution of his joke.
Well, as I understand it, Pewdiepie had this one skit about how the media takes everything out of context to smear him, and there was a small part of a Hitler speech as a part of this skit. The WSJ then deliberately edited out the context to smear him. It is hard to believe that such a thing would happen by accident. I mean maybe that joke was in poor taste, but I do not believe that Pewdiepie deserves all the hate that he is getting. There is nothing hateful about his videos. As to why WSJ did this, one can only speculate.
So it seems like you are saying he did something stupid/wrong whatever... and it appears that these are the consequences. But you think that the consequences to him are unfair/too severe, right?
Is that because you think that there was no way he could have anticipated the consequences would be this harsh or along these lines? Or is it that the particular type of consequence he is suffering is unacceptable/unfair to you in all cases... ie you just don't like seeing this consequence happen to anyone regardless of what they've done? Or is is more that you feel that the people doling out the consequences have a disproportionate/unfair degree of malice towards him and guys like him so any punishment they dole out lacks credibility/is suspicious and tends to be inherently unfair due to their bias against him? All of these? Something else?
Last edited:
No, the consequences he faced were not too severe and are pretty par for the course for what he did. I do not take any issue with Disney severing ties with him or YouTube making the decision to remove him from their preferred advertisers program. What I have a problem with is that it appears as though the WSJ is, for whatever reason, trying to label him as something he is clearly not in order to smear his reputation and turn his audience against him.
And if it turns out that the WSJ is deliberately trying to smear him, then it worries me that large media organizations feel so threatened by YouTubers that they are now trying to use what power and influence they have left to stifle them.
EDIT: Not to mention it could turn out very badly for employees of the WSJ if they did do this deliberately. PewDiePie currently still has the support of most big YouTubers and anyone who follows what goes on on YouTube knows that when big YouTubers mobilize their fans against a target, it gets real ugly, real fast for that target. We're talking their employees getting doxxed and possibly harassed to the point of suicide by "Twitter hate mobs".
Last edited:
Lohrenswald
世界的 bottom ranked physicist
do you have a number
OK but this:
is also a consequence of his stupid/wrong whatever, conduct is it not? But for his conduct, the WSJ would not be able to as you say, smear him on this issue. So you are OK with the first two consequences, but you think that the last consequence... what the WSJ is doing... is too far/severe/unfair, correct? So that brings us back to my original question. Why?
Because they are misrepresenting the situation for their own gain, not out of some sense of justice. What burns me up even more is that because of the whole "freedom of the press" thing, there is almost no way to hold media organizations accountable for stuff like this. Now, I'm not saying we should scrap the whole free press thing, but just like freedom of speech, I think there needs to be limitations to that freedom and those limitations should be focused around ensuring that media organizations and those who work for them maintain their journalistic integrity.
Nick Carpathia
Unleash the HAARP
ahahahaha, are you seriously thinking that a bunch of idiots screaming on youtube are competing for the same audience as the wall street journal
At worse, WSJ is fanning up controversy to get attention and eyeballs and clicks. And it is noteworthy because PDP seems incapable of taking responsibility and lashing out at normies for forcing consequences upon his actions.
Not competing for the same audience, but the WSJ and other more traditional media organizations should definitely be worried about the future. Kids and teens today who look to YouTube and other social media for their news and entertainment are most likely going to continue to do so as adults. That means media organizations like the WSJ are going to see an ever diminishing audience unless they do something to fight back. In fact, we are already seeing media organizations being threatened by social media and YouTube. Ad revenue for most major media organizations has been steadily decreasing for a few years now as those advertisers prefer to buy ad space and ad time on social media sites since that's where the largest audience is now.
Nick Carpathia
Unleash the HAARP
Reminder that youtubers are already "establishment" or whatever the hell you think that means, they sign huge advertising deals. And big companies with actual cashflows are investing heavily into new media like Twitch (though that one is easy to monetize).
There is no conspiracy trying to sabotage youtubers. It's just that one particularly big name new media personality, running a fly-by-night operation without any competent managers or PR crew, did something idiotic and there was a backlash.
I know the alt right is trying to use this angle to recruit from Pewdiepie's audience pool of impressionable children, and so are promoting this insipid idea on the stupid blogs. And you are taking what they say without a grain of salt.
There is no conspiracy trying to sabotage youtubers. It's just that one particularly big name new media personality, running a fly-by-night operation without any competent managers or PR crew, did something idiotic and there was a backlash.
I know the alt right is trying to use this angle to recruit from Pewdiepie's audience pool of impressionable children, and so are promoting this insipid idea on the stupid blogs. And you are taking what they say without a grain of salt.
Papers generally sell worse than ever, and that is very clearly linked to the rise of web-based media/shows.
The effect is all the more obvious when the type of paper/magazine has been run out of business by the web, as in the case of computer magazines, or dictionary publications.
The effect is all the more obvious when the type of paper/magazine has been run out of business by the web, as in the case of computer magazines, or dictionary publications.
Calls the biggest YouTuber ever a "fly-by-night" operation, and still expects opinion to be taken seriously...
And I say good riddance to bad rubbish. TV news and entertainment is probably going to be the next pillar of traditional media that starts to crumble as more and more people become "cord cutters".
Nick Carpathia
Unleash the HAARP
Reminder that Pewdiepie got evicted from his apartment a while back because his neighbors were calling in noise complaints. And that he has no managers, he is not answerable to anyone, who would have vetoed the fiverr stunt, or his non-apology video. Who cares how many hits you get, it's a fly-by-night operation if you have these kinds of problems. Other youtubers don't seem to constantly run into these kinds of stupid issues.
I will say this: Pewdiepie is not redeemable, he's just incredibly immature. I believe he is capable of introspection and growing as a person, but that's hard to do if you ever surround yourself with fans and yes-men.
I will say this: Pewdiepie is not redeemable, he's just incredibly immature. I believe he is capable of introspection and growing as a person, but that's hard to do if you ever surround yourself with fans and yes-men.
OK I get it. You are essentially arguing that WSJ is in a conspiracy to destroy PewDiePie. OK, but why? You seem to be agreeing with Nick that he doesn't pose a threat to them. Is PewDiePie taking away WSJ subscribers? If not, then why would they be conspiring to destroy him?
Is this kind of just a gut feeling you have that as print media has lost its monopoly they are just descending into conspiracies to destroy all the other forms of media? If that's right, then are you purely speculating or is there more to it? If its speculation that's fine, I'm just asking.
It isn't convoluted enough to be a "conspiracy", though. If a paper needs to sell more, they usually find some trolling to do (called "sensationalist writing" in the past). Writing against a well-known youtuber is easy to stir up controversy with his fans. That Pewd is nothing good himself is not the issue here. No one would care if he wasn't known
Imagine a story about how "Colbert "jokes" about how Trump found the smell of Putin's genitals: how our media celebrities lower the quality of tv" etc. Colbert did make such a joke, on air (or leeked it on youtube, where Pewd is as well). In general there is a plethora of crap on all media, not just youtube, and such stories/polemics are never from a real moral high-ground.
Last edited:
Manfred Belheim
Moaner Lisa
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 8,404
Isn't this kind of just restating the OP? The whole question is why they did it. It's not like they were reporting on the news, they created it. They trawled through months of his videos to pick out some specific instances, bundled them all up into a hit piece*, then presented this to his superiors basically saying "what are you going to do about this then?", surely with the strong suspicion that they would respond by dropping him and costing him millions of dollars. Given that there was no existing controversy (as far as I'm aware), and they pretty much engineered it, it's reasonable to ask why they would do that.
*okay, "article" if you insist.
