Media is attacked all the time. Even the president does it, irrelevant to whether or not its warrented at times. I doubt they'll go after Ethan for a video
Anyone have a backup of the second video? I didn't get to see it.
[editline]3rd April 2017[/editline]
I would be surprised if Google doesn't crack down on this guy and/or the WSJ, this isn't ethical behavior at all.
[editline]3rd April 2017[/editline]
Found it myself: [url]https://mirror.ninja/6329c5[/url]
He posted an apology video where he still kinda blames WSJ for causing this but I guess he will drop it since he just looked like a straight fool because of that video
It's sad to see someone usually really on top of it make a mistake like this
[QUOTE=Zombinie;52051539]It's sad to see someone usually really on top of it make a mistake like this[/QUOTE]
I'd rather he admit his mistake than be disingenuous.
[QUOTE=YouWithTheFace.;52051525]He posted an apology video where he still kinda blames WSJ for causing this but I guess he will drop it since he just looked like a straight fool because of that video[/QUOTE]
Yeah
[video=youtube;L71Uel98sJQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L71Uel98sJQ[/video]
Ethan has honor- all this little blunder did was just make me respect him more.
I think Ethan could've been more careful, this isn't your average dumbass YouTube PRANKSTER, I think he most likely got a bit excited about getting it out as soon as possible while this whole topic was hot.
I also had a feeling that the video was off in a way, but I honestly didn't bother watching the whole thing, I just closed the video at one point. I really don't care about the extra drama.
At least he admitted that he had some doubts about it, it would've been worse if he just sat on it while not doing anything about it, still a channel as big as his could be a bit more careful before talking shit about large media websites, because you REALLY need solid proof or you end up looking like a big doof if you mess up in the eyes of most people.
I'll still watch h3h3 videos but I'm sure in the views of others this is most likely a deal breaker, but I doubt they even liked most of his other videos in the first place anyway and they were probably waiting for an excuse to talk shit.
Either way I don't care if he messed up, this whole thing is kinda stupid anyway and it's all temporary, it's not content I really care about seeing as I kinda hate when things get a bit too personal, but as long as Ethan just makes another video I'm sure most people will have forgotten about this in a day or two.
[QUOTE=myng;52051998]Ethan has honor- all this little blunder did was just make me respect him more.[/QUOTE]
Maybe he should have checked his shit BEFORE making the video???
[QUOTE=RaTcHeT302;52052300]
Either way I don't care if he messed up, this whole thing is kinda stupid anyway and it's all temporary, it's not content I really care about seeing as I kinda hate when things get a bit too personal, but as long as Ethan just makes another video I'm sure most people will have forgotten about this in a day or two.[/QUOTE]
It's not stupid and temporary to him. This is someone who's inexplicably losing almost all his income and it's the same for basically every other youtuber out there. He's beyond frustrated and lashing out for answers.
[QUOTE=Streecer;52052418]Maybe he should have checked his shit BEFORE making the video???[/QUOTE]
All of this unfolded after the video was uploaded though
[QUOTE=myng;52052535]All of this unfolded after the video was uploaded though[/QUOTE]
Ethan was entirely within his power to hold off of uploading this until he was sure it was legit, he doesn't have the facts to make an assessment on this issue, that much is clear. His apology comes off a bit shallow as a result.
The reason this video went up was because he wanted to get that youtube outrage money, because WSJ is the new big thing to hate because of that PDP thing. Ethan jumped the gun here.
I also highly doubt the WSJ, a media outlet primarily focused on business news for older audiences, are worried about Pewdiepie and H3H3 cutting into their audience numbers so far as to concoct a campaign of misinformation and sabotage in an attempt to destroy YouTube.
Yeah, the whole "traditional media is seeking to destroy Youtube" is ridiculous because Youtube is not a competitor to traditional media, the closest thing to news on Youtube is Keemstar.
WSJ just wants that clickbait cash, Youtubers' ad revenues are collateral
[QUOTE=Primigenes;52052712]Maybe Ethan should stop being edgy and give up on prolonging an attack on the Wall Street Journal. It's like he thinks this is Gawker or something. WSJ has a reputation for being thorough and I say that despite disagreeing with the whole Pewdiepie thing.
It's even more hilarious when I read the comments and see people calling the WSJ names like SJW. It really makes it easy to see who's a reactionary dumbass when videos like this are released.
Also lol at old media vs new media. Yeah newspapers are looking to kill youtubers for some reason. You know instead of just some dumbass reporting news that they think is worthy of reporting.
People on youtube are getting dumber and dumber each day I feel[/QUOTE]
Whether you believe WSJ has a good reputation or not, you should be smart enough to realize that WSJ as an entity isn't "thorough", maybe a lot of the people who write there are? This guy who has been writing these articles clearly isn't. Considering WSJ hasn't done anything about him or his friends that made the hit-piece on PDP shows that they stick with him and have no intention of removing him or his articles anytime soon, aka, they deserve any flak they get for this.
Is it really ridiculous to believe that "old age" media would have some competitive hostility towards "new age" media? Why else would they publish and allow articles like this to stay? They make Youtube look bad and are seen as heroes for it (at least they probably believe that).
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;52053231]Yeah, the whole "traditional media is seeking to destroy Youtube" is ridiculous because Youtube is not a competitor to traditional media, the closest thing to news on Youtube is Keemstar.
WSJ just wants that clickbait cash, Youtubers' ad revenues are collateral[/QUOTE]
To use Keemstar as a comparison for Youtubes source of information and news seems like a strawman, considering there are better channels out there that actually report on news and even some that go really deep into particular subjects on trending news. However, I do agree that WSJ wants clickbait out of this entire shit storm, thats not to say they don't have an agenda.
[QUOTE=SonicHitman;52053232]To use Keemstar as a comparison for Youtubes source of information and news seems like a strawman, considering there are better channels out there that actually report on news and even some that go really deep into particular subjects on trending news. However, I do agree that WSJ wants clickbait out of this entire shit storm, thats not to say they don't have an agenda.[/QUOTE]
But those channels just regurgitate news from traditional media, they don't do their own journalism.
[QUOTE=SonicHitman;52053232]
Is it really ridiculous to believe that "old age" media would have some competitive hostility towards "new age" media? Why else would they publish and allow articles like this to stay? They make Youtube look bad and are seen as heroes for it (at least they probably believe that).[/QUOTE]
Well yeah, they have no reason to do it. Why not do it earlier? It's not like we suddenly have news on YouTube. That stuff has been happening en masse since 2008 without problem, and WSJ has done some of it themselves. Why would they target PDP instead of someone who actually did the whole news on YouTube thing? What good would even come from ruining YouTube? It's not like they're going to get more subscribers to their paper or site if YouTube closes. Makes no business sense.
[QUOTE=Streecer;52053113]I also highly doubt the WSJ, a media outlet primarily focused on business news for older audiences, are worried about Pewdiepie and H3H3 cutting into their audience numbers so far as to concoct a campaign of misinformation and sabotage in an attempt to destroy YouTube.[/QUOTE]
i mean that's exactly what they did to pewdiepie though? im not 100% informed on the situation, but from what i've gathered - any person with a functioning brain knows very well that pewds isn't a nazi but WSJ wrote articles claiming that he is. this eventually led to a lot of important sponsors either leaving youtube or heavily moderating what videos their ads run on, causing a lot if not every notable youtuber to make about 20% of what they were originally making. im sure the sponsors leaving part wasn't something WSJ was intending to have happen, but it still happened and it was because of the lies they spread
WSJ went directly to sponsors with the "information" about pewdiepie before running their article. They 100% intended on attacking youtube ad revenue. And the daily mail is now doing exactly the same thing.
Edit: Forgot to also add. The less value youtube ad revenue has, the more ad revenue from traditional media is worth.
People seem to forget there were 2 arguments Ethan made in the video? The 2 screen caps of the same video had the same view count. Jack Nicas says he found ~20 racist videos with ads in the span of 5 hours, you would think he would choose different videos, not the same video with the same view count to better support his claim? I'm still suss of WSJ
[QUOTE=Exploderguy;52056287]People seem to forget there were 2 arguments Ethan made in the video? The 2 screen caps of the same video had the same view count. Jack Nicas says he found ~20 racist videos with ads in the span of 5 hours, you would think he would choose different videos, not the same video with the same view count to better support his claim? I'm still suss of WSJ[/QUOTE]
There's still no doubt in my mind the pictures were doctored. They're far, far too perfect.
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;52053251]But those channels just regurgitate news from traditional media, they don't do their own journalism.[/QUOTE]
that could be said for many other media news outlets though? at what point is a news outlet considered to be regurgitating news? there are channels besides keemstar and phillydf that are news outlets with a lot of support and followers. there are also channels that not only report on news, whether its "reguritated" or not, but as said before, they also explain topics thoroughly and even educate people.
whether you agree on what they broadcast to be news is entirely your opinion, but be aware that there are a lot of "official" media outlets many see as having good reputation that churn out hot garbage and hit-pieces like this on others on a daily basis, like for example, the slingshot channel was targeted earlier by a UK tabloid. they said he supported terrorists and the killing of some officer because he made a video testing out a stab-proof vest, then they even interviewed him and still published something like that.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.