Why Are Media Outlets Targeting YouTubers?

The WSJ would gain by taking down YouTube's manchild? This is fake moonlanding/truther/birther territory.

 

Afaik people here said that the paper only wanted to stir controversy so as to sell a bit more. It doesn't matter how they would do it. I suppose that Pewd was just one decentish target for that.
There isn't just one youtube "manchild" either. Much like there is a multitude of manchild tv hosts.

 

Wanting to sell more? Who would do a stunt to get more eyeballs? Perhaps the WSJ and this Cutiepie guy can form some sort of partnership since they are playing the same game.

 

Isn't QTpie mostly positive energy?

 

The only bit I have seen from made me glad for once that I was dating a 47 year old instead of her 20 year old daughter that was a fangirl. He was atrocious. Of course the 20 year old didn't get Steven Wright any more than the parents of me and Ms. 47 year old did when we were 20, so a lot of what passes as humor is generational.

 

Obviously the Wall Street Journal feels it needs to expand its readership by taking from PewDiePie. I guess the WSJ doesn’t feel that its reader base, composed as it is of 41% millionaires, can compete with PewDiePie’s 13-19 male demographic numbers.

 

Given his so-called sense of humor, PewDiePie could write for the WSJ editorial page and the readership would take it seriously and nod in agreement.

 

That reminds me, did they do a stipple portrait of PewDiePie?

 

Perhaps the WSJ should have simply handed a copyright infringement takedown notice to YouTube.

 

Sorry, I was trying to be clever. I forget people have lives.

If I were to encounter a 20 year old watching QTpie, I would immediately develop at least a passing interest in what comes out of her mouth. Were I to encounter a 20 year old watching PewDiePie, I get the general impression the preponderance of interest would run the opposite direction.

 

So many plowing and tilling jokes, so little time.

 

It's the little things. I mean, that's not what she says, but whatever.

 

I went back and read the OP to check and I think you are right, thanks.

So that answers my question I guess... its just a good ol' fun conspiracy theory, along the line of what JR said... and Kyriakos is probably right that its just tabloid journalism. Neither is as interesting as I was hoping for

 

Of course it matters to readers of WSJ because it matters to shareholders of Alphabet (Google) and Disney. Nine instances is not an insignificant number. In particular, Disney and Alphabet are positively recognized by ESG (environmental, social and governance) investors which has gained enormous momentum as a strategy. The WSJ requested comment (as they do for all mentioned subjects) from Felix before it was printed and he didn't respond. Another big mistake on his behalf it seems.

 

So, for those keeping score at home, we have the WSJ & Disney being attacked for exercising general freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to contract, and freedom to act based on free market principles. All in defense of some foreign agitator corrupting the minds of our youth.

 

Is that the same Disney founded by a person who had his self cryogenically frozen?
Thought i read that is a myth. So we only have Disney's other crap to go about.

Besides, anime is better

 

Anime sucks... except for Fist of the North Star (Ghost in the shell is OK too... Dragon Ball, meh). Disney is Star Wars AND Marvel

Disney = FLAWLESS VICTORY

 

Does Disney have detectives with superpowers who lose their superpowers and don't do anything detective related?

 

Irrelevant

 

You're irrelevant