The Media Failed in its Coverage of the PewDiePie Controversy

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

The Media Failed in its Coverage of the PewDiePie Controversy

The responsibility of any journalist, even when penning opinions, is to do so as thoroughly and fairly as possible. We failed.

Read Full Article

It's good to see someone who will tell the truth and be completely even-handed, presenting the facts and admitting whatever biases/stake they have in what is being discussed (in your case, not really being a fan and ultimately not caring one way or another), and letting the people reading it come to their own conclusions after being given the facts as they are, not cherry-picked and skewed. I could care less about Pewdiepie, I've never been a fan, and have never even seen his stuff before. But what happened to him was wrong, and the Wall Street Journal should be ashamed of themselves, if they could feel shame, that is.

However, one thing I would like to point out, and it's something only tangential to the topic at hand, is that a lot of the things said against Pewdiepie and the over-the-top way he's been attacked by all corners of the media (game and otherwise), seems awfully familiar to the way certain politicians are treated and have been presented out of context and with no actual facts to back the charges up. I think that the best thing that could come out of this whole incident is that people will start to see just how awful and corrupt (and completely biased) the vast majority of the media is, and that nothing will stop them from trying to ruin the lives of people they don't like. Not facts, not ethics, and not integrity. The only thing that matters is their narrative and getting the results they want.

I wonder how long before we reach something resembling McCarthyism, but for Nazis instead of Communists. That certainly seems to be the direction things are headed lately.

P.S. Thanks, Lizzy, for not twisting reality for clickbait.

Honestly, I do think what he did was a shitty way to take advantage of some seriously economically disadvantaged and desperate people. That hardly makes him racist or anti-semitic though. I imagine $5 is quite a bit to someone with no other reliable income, especially if they have any family to support. We're too fast to forget these are real people with real lives when on the internet, and so I can't feel particularly sorry that PewDiePie is experiencing fallout from this. It does bother me that the fallout seems to be for the wrong reasons, though, since it detracts from the actual issue.

I've had people mention they don't understand how people wouldn't believe others would find this funny. I certainly believe they can, but it's disappointing, as it displays a startling lack of empathy. Satire should make fun of the situation, or the creator, which is why shows like South Park and Family Guy have often gotten a pass, though even they don't always 100% hit the mark. To me, this was something that I do believe was meant to be a form of satire, but honestly it just felt cruel, especially knowing those guys are no longer allowed to use Fiverr for any income. It should be noted PewDiePie did at least try to reach out to Fiverr on their behalf.

I think he'll be fine overall, he still has his channel and followers, and can make money that way. Whether or not Disney, which has its own history of anti-semitism to distance itself from, or his YouTube Red show, which was sponsored by Maker, themselves funded in part by Disney, will allow him back after the story opens up is unlikely. I do think he'll have little trouble getting an alternate sponsor to do something else going forward, though. Hopefully he takes this to heart and considers his actions going forward. If so, I wish him the best of luck. Everyone makes mistakes, but those who actually learn from them should always be granted a second chance.

If i was on Twitter id be linking this article to certain people so they could spread it around and get it some well deserved attention.

But still, you shouldnt feel the need to apologise for the failures of others. Let them dig thier own graves and learn from thier mistakes so that you do better than them in future.

...and that you dont rile up an internet mob to go pestering your ad providers telling them that they wont buy any of the products they see advertised on the site. Thats a bonus too.

MazokuRanma:
Honestly, I do think what he did was a shitty way to take advantage of some seriously economically disadvantaged and desperate people.

Im not too sure about that. First up, wouldnt people in genuine economic difficulty have more pressing things to spend thier money on than a camera and internet access? And even if they stole the camera, wouldnt they just sell it so they could buy tomorrows dinner?

The two Indian (as im told) teens in the 'Death to all Jews' video obviously must have known English (and therefore had an education) to sign up to Fiver and understand Pewdiepies commission when they recieved and accepted it.

About the only thing that might look a bit off to the casual observer is that they had very slight biulds. Well i dont know what you looked like when you were 14 years old, but that seems to be the norm unless youre on an extremely unhealthy diet.

Theres also the other, lesser known Fiver video he commissioned where he had a man dress up as Jesus and say 'Hitler did nothing wrong'. Doesnt strike me as a disadvantaged person at all. Just people doing stupid shit and putting it on the internet for fun, and earning a quick buck on the side.

gigastar:

Theres also the other, lesser known Fiver video he commissioned where he had a man dress up as Jesus and say 'Hitler did nothing wrong'. Doesnt strike me as a disadvantaged person at all. Just people doing stupid shit and putting it on the internet for fun, and earning a quick buck on the side.

...why did he commission that? What's the joke there?

Not surprised Disney cut out.

altnameJag:
...why did he commission that? What's the joke there?

Not surprised Disney cut out.

The joke is what the men said while they held up the sign Death to all Jews"

They said "Subscribe to Keemstar"

Keemstar is a famous for racist statements, and being the biggest slimeball on the internet.

The joke was that this is something to poke fun at Keemstar, as well as the service Fiver where you could get people to do demeaning things for $5.

But this whole thing just makes me shake my head and think:
"Pewdiepie is dead. Pewdiepie doesn't have to be your Youtuber anymore"

Of course, it's no surprise Disney left. They have cut off relations with numerous stars. Thing is, they owned the network which represented him, meaning they get a cut of his profit.

Now that he's less limited in what he can create and say, and doesn't have those obligations to them, he could end up making more profit and gain more influence.

That is why I get my news from reputable sources rather than face book. The articles I read have been quite balanced.

Id not heard about the swastika thing.

altnameJag:

gigastar:

Theres also the other, lesser known Fiver video he commissioned where he had a man dress up as Jesus and say 'Hitler did nothing wrong'. Doesnt strike me as a disadvantaged person at all. Just people doing stupid shit and putting it on the internet for fun, and earning a quick buck on the side.

...why did he commission that? What's the joke there?

Not surprised Disney cut out.

Im not sure, since i didnt watch the Fiver video in its entirety, but i believe he was testing just to see if they would.

And indeed its not a surprise Disney cut out. Its because they have all the timidness of a whipped dog when it comes to PR and the fact that they cut ties with PDP before the hacks at the WSJ published the first article without further investigation proves this.

The BBC article I read about it was pretty fair.

"PewDiePie dropped by Disney over anti-semitism claims" outlines the stuff that was considered unacceptable by Disney and PewDiePie's response about how it wasn't anti-semitic when taken within context as well as a semi-apology for some of his word choice and for offending people.

If you're going to blame "the media" as a whole then you need to put sources for the headlines. Otherwise how does anyone know whether you've just picked a random set of egregious headlines from piss-pot little click-bait sites or polemical activism blogs rather than an actualy sampling of the "mainstream" news. These could all be from whatever the left wing equivalent of Breitbart is for all I know.

K12:

If you're going to blame "the media" as a whole then you need to put sources for the headlines. Otherwise how does anyone know whether you've just picked a random set of egregious headlines from piss-pot little click-bait sites or polemical activism blogs rather than an actualy sampling of the "mainstream" news. These could all be from whatever the left wing equivalent of Breitbart is for all I know.

It did seem odd to me to include the exact headlines but not source them. They are from the NY Times, The Verge, Independent, Salon, and Wired, respectively

And honestly, the articles themselves weren't that bad. The only one I took issue with was the Verge one, I think he was reaching a bit for comparisons to Trump. Most of the articles include PewDiePie's comments and the context of the videos, but they still say they found them troubling, because they are opinion articles, and sometimes people have different opinions

I think the Salon article summed it up quite nicely: "At the end of the day, however, PewDiePie's content, and how others understand it, may matter more than his conscious intentions."
And then they included this quote from the Daily Stormer: "Some may ask "is Pewdiepie really racist? Is he really a Nazi? Does he really want to kill all Jews?" Who knows. He could be doing all this only to cause a stir things up [sic] and get free publicity. Ultimately, it doesn't matter, since the effect is the same; it normalizes Nazism, and marginalizes our enemies."

And that's how I feel about all this. I don't know what the dude has in his heart of hearts, but I think the way he treats Nazism as something to joke about so flippantly is really shitty, and I don't see a problem with journalists or bloggers calling him out for it

DrownedAmmet:

K12:

If you're going to blame "the media" as a whole then you need to put sources for the headlines. Otherwise how does anyone know whether you've just picked a random set of egregious headlines from piss-pot little click-bait sites or polemical activism blogs rather than an actualy sampling of the "mainstream" news. These could all be from whatever the left wing equivalent of Breitbart is for all I know.

It did seem odd to me to include the exact headlines but not source them. They are from the NY Times, The Verge, Independent, Salon, and Wired, respectively

And honestly, the articles themselves weren't that bad. The only one I took issue with was the Verge one, I think he was reaching a bit for comparisons to Trump. Most of the articles include PewDiePie's comments and the context of the videos, but they still say they found them troubling, because they are opinion articles, and sometimes people have different opinions

I think the Salon article summed it up quite nicely: "At the end of the day, however, PewDiePie's content, and how others understand it, may matter more than his conscious intentions."
And then they included this quote from the Daily Stormer: "Some may ask "is Pewdiepie really racist? Is he really a Nazi? Does he really want to kill all Jews?" Who knows. He could be doing all this only to cause a stir things up [sic] and get free publicity. Ultimately, it doesn't matter, since the effect is the same; it normalizes Nazism, and marginalizes our enemies."

And that's how I feel about all this. I don't know what the dude has in his heart of hearts, but I think the way he treats Nazism as something to joke about so flippantly is really shitty, and I don't see a problem with journalists or bloggers calling him out for it

I don't even think all the stated headlines are bad.

1 and 2 aren't great and seem to be putting a lot of effort into painting PewDiePie into a larger story of the political landscape which I think is stretching quite a bit (that is kind of a hallmark of opinion pieces though)

3 is fine apart from the word "cool" because that implies that PewDiePie aproves of fascism whereas if it said "funny" or "blase" or "casual" then that would get the point across better. Which is that talking about Nazis in such a causal and jokey way is disrespectful and props up genuine intolerance by making it seem more normal and less taboo. i.e. it's the thin end of the wedge.

4 is fine. When an article has a question like that in the title, the article will nearly always answer it with a "no" and the follow up sentence makes it clear that the answer is "no but he still shouldn't have done what he did"

5 is literally fine in every way. I can't even see why anyone would take exception to it based on the title.

The problem with this particular article that I see is that it claims to not be taking a stance and then goes on to criticise the articles from a particular stance i.e. that the context of PewDiePie's behaviour goes some way to excuse it. The main point of most of the articles is that there is no context when something like that is OK.

I don't agree with that personally. I think you can make a joke about any subject but you can't make any kind of joke about any subject. Sometimes you have to really think about what your really saying and who you're saying it to. Simply adding in a Nazi reference to a joke about something completely different is a rather cheap way to seem edgey and clever.

Comedy can be a great tool against extremism and hate. One of the best take-downs of Islamic extremism that I've ever seen is the film "Four Lions" which is a comedy about suicide bombers. It completely destroys the "glorious chosen Anti-Hero who is brave and just enough to deliver God's brutal vengeance on a world gone wrong" and shows a much more accurate view of Islamic extremists. That they are pretty sad alienated individuals with a limited understanding of the world or their own religion and few life prospects who are one of the few people gullible enough to be seduced into committed violent acts against random defenseless people because they want to feel important.

Liz, I think I'm falling in love with you. This is a great and quite reasonable article. Keep on being awesome!

In my short time in this line of work, I've found that far too many people insert personal opinions into news coverage

Bogos is far more guilty of this, far more frequently. However, as a whole, the Escapist really needs to adjust on this. It's too frequent for people who're supposed to be professional journalists.

The hilarious part of all this is that it's actually helped Felix's channel; his subscription numbers have jumped considerably since this kerfluffle happened. He's also a free agent now, which may turn out to be more beneficial for him in the long run.

This is why the media should stick to covering actual news instead of trying to orchestrate character assassinations.

Kibeth41:

In my short time in this line of work, I've found that far too many people insert personal opinions into news coverage

Bogos is far more guilty of this, far more frequently. However, as a whole, the Escapist really needs to adjust on this. It's too frequent for people who're supposed to be professional journalists.

Believe it or not, it actually used to be a whole lot worse. It got so bad and enough people complained about it that they finally dialed it back in recent years.

I'm not saying things are perfect around here; I think the site still has a ways to go regarding impartial news articles. Still, it's a lot better than it used to be.

Not sure why everyone so readily lets Disney and Google off the hook. If you're duped by hack reporting or allow yourself to be bullied by even the mere possibility of PR backlash because some blogger has an axe to grind, that's just gutless pandering.

Feels like some kind of ingrained corporation worship where you just throw up your hands and say "well, they're a business, the can do whatever they want" without any further thought. This is exactly the same kind of indifference that lets websites like Twitter get away with treating people differently based on their political views instead of how they actually behave.

Didn't really need any more reasons to say 'fuck Disney', but I'm kinda disappointed in youtube.

Isn't it a little uncomfortable to think that we all need to be so completely in lockstep? That millions upon millions of people saying "Nazism is evil" isn't enough to quell any fear that one person thinking Nazism is a joke "normalizes Nazism"?

It seems to me that this kind of thinking causes more problems than almost anything a single person could say; it propagates the notion that it's no longer necessary to justify your belief system, so long as it falls within "normal" parameters; it's enough to sand down anyone who falls outside of those parameters until their edges are rounded off, no matter how much they might bleed in the process. And Salon's comment that PewDiePie's "content may matter more than intentions" is a fine examplar of the mindset that will never ask someone's intentions, let alone take any statements of same at face value; it's more important that it be interpreted in a way that supports the narrative they wish to echo.

It brings two big bugbears to the surface for me: the ongoing notion that there's "subjective" and "objective", with the implication that there's no gray area (e.g. subjective statements supported by objective facts and/or prolonged experience with the subject at hand) and all subjective statements are of equal value. And the notable willingness of some to pat themselves on the back for embracing things once considered abnormal, but refuse to give up the right to newly classify and castigate things as "outside normal", often with little to no evidence of actual harm other than their own revulsion (which was probably about the same rationale used to justify pushing out those things now embraced in the first place).

All in aid of saying: I appreciate the insight, Ms. Finnegan. Good show.

I'm a little irked by the fact that if Muslims protest a caricature of their prophet Muhammad in a newspaper, the western world upholds the righteous torch of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. But when somebody criticizes Israeli foreign policy or makes satire about anything involving Jews, he is an anti-semitic and a Nazi.

The feelings and sensitivities of some groups seem to be more important than those of others.

Having said that, I couldn't care less about PewDiePie. I think it's a sad reflection of humanity that his is the most subscribed channel on YouTube. I watched a few of his videos and all I could see was a young guy rambling on and on about trivialities and just talking foul mouthed nonsense in general. The appeal of his channel is beyond me.

Tiamat666:
I'm a little irked by the fact that if Muslims protest a caricature of their prophet Muhammad in a newspaper, the western world upholds the righteous torch of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. But when somebody criticizes Israeli foreign policy or makes satire about anything involving Jews, he is an anti-semitic and a Nazi.

The feelings and sensitivities of some groups seem to be more important than those of others.

Well, with one we've had a bit of a different history than with the other. One involving systematic eradication. And that guilt is still quite alive. It's the same as why it's less controversial to make a disparaging joke in America toward asians than it is toward black people.

But beyond that, jews have been the go-to safe "controversial" target in comedy for the past decade. I can't remember the last time someone (prominent) got called anti-semetic or a nazi for making a jew joke... until now, and that seems to stem from a combination of traditonal media not understanding a youtube personality and the culture around it, and people just wanting to knock a celebrity of his column. Islam and musilms are a much more touchy in the world of satire. Jews, christians, and Jesus in comedy are as tame as a baby manatee by comparison.

bjj hero:
That is why I get my news from reputable sources rather than face book. The articles I read have been quite balanced.

Id not heard about the swastika thing.

This whole mess started with the freaking Wall Street Journal posting a smear job on him! There are no reputable sources anymore!

Metalix Knightmare:

bjj hero:
That is why I get my news from reputable sources rather than face book. The articles I read have been quite balanced.

Id not heard about the swastika thing.

This whole mess started with the freaking Wall Street Journal posting a smear job on him! There are no reputable sources anymore!

I tend to flick between the Independent and the BBC...

Then the mail when I dont know what I need to be mad about this week :)

Very well written. What I'm getting out of this is that the National Enquirer method of news reporting is slowly becoming the standard.

bjj hero:
I tend to flick between the Independent and the BBC...

Would that be the same Independent that recently published a hit piece about Trump's Supreme Court nominee starting a fascism club when he was in school, a claim that was debunked within hours by a trivial amount of inquiry? Yup, top notch reporting and no agenda pushing there at all.

To me, at least, in order to determine actual anti-Semitic hatred from a flopped joke are two important factors: intent and effect.
To the point, there are flimsy cases for both. If we went around dog piling on every single parody or thinly veiled reference to Nazi's we'd be pilling up outside the houses of George Lucas, Marvel, DC comics, and the writers at Games Workshop for Warhammer. And yet, we are not. Because in all cases above, barely changed representations of Nazi's are either A: the villains, B: in the case of Warhammer a slightly less messed up nation in a messed up world, or C: an obvious parody, as in multiple WWII comedies. As for effect, I highly doubt any actual Nazi's stood up and shouted "MY BELIEFS ARE VILIFIED!". Let's be honest with ourselves, anybody who seeks vilification of their stances from Pewdiepie is likely looking in the wrong place. And before someone brings up the Daily Stormer subreddit: they are trolls. They are doing this to troll you. And their banner is now advertising the WSJ, last I checked. They are clowns.

StreamerDarkly:

bjj hero:
I tend to flick between the Independent and the BBC...

Would that be the same Independent that recently published a hit piece about Trump's Supreme Court nominee starting a fascism club when he was in school, a claim that was debunked within hours by a trivial amount of inquiry? Yup, top notch reporting and no agenda pushing there at all.

All papers/new sources will sometimes get it wrong. Look at Trumps recent comments on Swedens crime rate and immigration. I guess we all make mistakes.

Yeah, it got no coverage at all down here in Australia. I thought the amount quite appropriate.

DrownedAmmet:

K12:

If you're going to blame "the media" as a whole then you need to put sources for the headlines. Otherwise how does anyone know whether you've just picked a random set of egregious headlines from piss-pot little click-bait sites or polemical activism blogs rather than an actualy sampling of the "mainstream" news. These could all be from whatever the left wing equivalent of Breitbart is for all I know.

It did seem odd to me to include the exact headlines but not source them. They are from the NY Times, The Verge, Independent, Salon, and Wired, respectively

And honestly, the articles themselves weren't that bad. The only one I took issue with was the Verge one, I think he was reaching a bit for comparisons to Trump. Most of the articles include PewDiePie's comments and the context of the videos, but they still say they found them troubling, because they are opinion articles, and sometimes people have different opinions

I think the Salon article summed it up quite nicely: "At the end of the day, however, PewDiePie's content, and how others understand it, may matter more than his conscious intentions."
And then they included this quote from the Daily Stormer: "Some may ask "is Pewdiepie really racist? Is he really a Nazi? Does he really want to kill all Jews?" Who knows. He could be doing all this only to cause a stir things up [sic] and get free publicity. Ultimately, it doesn't matter, since the effect is the same; it normalizes Nazism, and marginalizes our enemies."

And that's how I feel about all this. I don't know what the dude has in his heart of hearts, but I think the way he treats Nazism as something to joke about so flippantly is really shitty, and I don't see a problem with journalists or bloggers calling him out for it

That's a good summary. It's ironic that the escapist condemns click-baity headlines and unfair coverage of PewDiePie, and then fails to be fair to those articles (taking their headlines alone, not sourcing them, and not providing much info on them beyond a dismissive statement that they all say the same thing).

Dan Girard:
Keemstar is a famous for racist statements, and being the biggest slimeball on the internet.

The joke was that this is something to poke fun at Keemstar, as well as the service Fiver where you could get people to do demeaning things for $5.

So the joke is a millionaire paying a couple of poor people $5 to do some racist shit?
But what makes it *REALLY* funny is they're also promoting a racist website too ... you know, 'ironically' ... to millions of people.

Yeah, sorry, no.
Even if I'm giving PewDiePie the benefit of every doubt I've ever had, this is at best insanely irresponsible, and so far beyond tone deaf that it beggars belief that he didn't know exactly what he was doing.

bjj hero:
All papers/new sources will sometimes get it wrong. Look at Trumps recent comments on Swedens crime rate and immigration. I guess we all make mistakes.

At what point in this discussion were we citing Trump as a reliable news source?

Fact is, for all of their incessant chirping about "fake news", left leaning media outlets traditionally held up as reliable have pretty much abandoned any pretense of objectivity these last couple years. WaPo had to issue two retractions in the span of a week after the bullshit they were peddling was debunked by the Intercept.

StreamerDarkly:

At what point in this discussion were we citing Trump as a reliable news source?

Fact is, for all of their incessant chirping about "fake news", left leaning media outlets traditionally held up as reliable have pretty much abandoned any pretense of objectivity these last couple years. WaPo had to issue two retractions in the span of a week after the bullshit they were peddling was debunked by the Intercept.

Apparently Mr Trump has a whole raft of advisors, intelligence agencies, etc. You might expect him to be clued up on current world affairs. It is part of his job. You would hope he knows there has been no recent terror attack there, and that it is a far safer place than America, even with its more open stance on immigration.

You have already dragged us off topic, I said Id not heard anything about nazi salutes from PP in the papers I read. I like the Indi as it does try to be a real paper. Yes, there will be errors but they tend to come out and say when theyre wrong.

They are Left but they also gave Nigel Farage a regular slot during the last general election when the other papers took his nationalist views as poison. Sometimes it is good to hear what you dont like.

I was ignoring all videos about him because I'm not a fan to begin with but I had no idea it was an angry mob forming over hitler jokes.

bjj hero:
You have already dragged us off topic, I said Id not heard anything about nazi salutes from PP in the papers I read.

Curious claim. I've talked only of the news media's failings, which is very much on topic. You've been rambling on about Trump for reasons unapparent.

bjj hero:
I like the Indi as it does try to be a real paper.

It's easy to conflate liking a website/publication because they're high quality vs them telling you what you want to hear. This is confirmed by the fact that many thousands still maintain the delusion that the BBC is a quality, objective source for news.

I can't stand the guy, personally, but the media is being kind of crap about this. Good article.

K12:
The BBC article I read about it was pretty fair.

"PewDiePie dropped by Disney over anti-semitism claims" outlines the stuff that was considered unacceptable by Disney and PewDiePie's response about how it wasn't anti-semitic when taken within context as well as a semi-apology for some of his word choice and for offending people.

If you're going to blame "the media" as a whole then you need to put sources for the headlines. Otherwise how does anyone know whether you've just picked a random set of egregious headlines from piss-pot little click-bait sites or polemical activism blogs rather than an actualy sampling of the "mainstream" news. These could all be from whatever the left wing equivalent of Breitbart is for all I know.

One of the points mentioned is the potentially misleading use of headlines (As an aside, I've noticed BBC headlines have gotten into the habit of changing a couple of times through a day, growing gradually more accurate - for instance, an article on kids getting cyber security lessons was originally labelled "teens to help defend against cyber-attacks"). A lot of people probably wouldn't read more than that, and would go away thinking PewDiePie is a massive racist. Which damages his career no matter what the truth is. It's not fake news, it's lousy headlines and lazy people.

...man, I'm hoping the criticism of those article titles for attempting to invoke an emotional response before reading while utilizing a similar emotional title was intentional, otherwise that's just gonna be embarrassing. :D

Ok, on a more serious note - Did the media fail? Or was it the readers? 'Cause, to be perfectly honest, outside a few click-baity titles and some Standard Issue Shit Pieces, the general response to this 'controversy' has been quite... well, reasonable. A lot of the articles are well thought out, either discussing what's happened, criticizing the humour he used or exploring the problems the jokes he made has while not actually attacking him. If anything, the response towards the media has been overblown - accusations of directing an attack, collaboration, of calling PDP a Nazi/Anti-Semite/Turbo-Hitler, making up facts, just all kinds of crap that the vast majority haven't actually done. The most scathing attack I've seen so far on PDP is that he's a shit comedian who doesn't think of the consequences of his actions, and given he himself considers he'a still a rookie... yeah.

It just... feels like people have responded more to their own biases towards the news coverage rather than the actual coverage itself. This can be blamed on the click-bait titles being the first thing people are seeing of even a well-written, reasonable article, an unfortunate necessity in the 24/7 news cycle where you compete with everyone else reporting on the same story, but at the same time I feel there is a failing on behalf of the person who, say, sees an article titled 'Is X racist?' and automatically assumes the article IS calling X racist, without actually engaging with the material. Click-bait titles might be shitty but you can't blame anyone but yourself if you fail to engage with the material critically and end up looking a fool for it.

So, did the media fail? Yes and no - yes, in that the click-bait titles did a disservice to the content of the articles and drew unnecessarily emotional responses from lazy, biased or uncaring readers, but no in that the articles themselves handled the situation mostly (there's always one or two shitpieces) intelligently and reasonably, criticizing PDP's actions without assaulting him relentlessly. Did the readers fail? Depends on how critically they engaged with the articles and saw what was being said, or if they let their emotions and biases get the better of them.

...What biases, you may ask? Well, how positively did you react to this article when you first saw the title? :P

Or, to put it shortly - @ The Media (rather nebulously used in this article, wasn't it?) - Quit it with the click-bait titles, yes you need to stand out in the 24/7 news cycle but it's just getting annoying now.
@ The Readers - engage with shit critically, don't just read a title and assume. Think, don't just consume. If you see an article whose title tickles all your biases and makes you want to get angry, maybe read it first before you go posting about how The New Yorker thinks everyone is a Nazi Vampire.

Life lessons: if you want to be part of Disney's brand, maaaaaybe don't make eighteen overtly anti-semitic and badly formulated jokes over a short span of time.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here