PewdiePie vs Mainstream Media

[Aeroblast]

(Originally I was going to post this on the Entertainment & Media section but I figured this does raise questions for some serious discussion that I don't think is appropriate for that section.)

So You all probably know what happened by now, but Pewdiepie is under another attack by the mainstream media for "espousing antisemitism" with his jokes.

If you aren't in the know, basically Pewdiepie has been dropped by Disney and Youtube for making what some people can consider off-colored jokes, which he has apologized for already. But arguably the bigger story in this is that WSJ and many other mainstream media news outlets have used this to "prove" that Pewdiepie is racist anti-semite.

My opinion on this is, well, I've been lacking trust in mainstream media more and more in recent years and this incident further illustrates to me why.

What are your thoughts?

 

[Pinkie-Dawn]

I find it ironic that Disney dropped PewDiePie for "being anti-Semite" when Walt himself was one too. But yes, mainstream media has been becoming least trustworthy since the digital age as the world has become more connected through the internet.

 

[pkmin3033]

Well, much as I despise the man, he did make a very valid point in his semi-mature response video: he has made an awful lot of money for charities, and that is never reported on. He has done a lot of good in the past, and he deserves credit for that. It might not justify his recent behaviour in any way, but it is still nonetheless something that should be observed and commended.

So, whilst I think he more than deserves being dropped by Disney and having his show cancelled by Youtube for his "jokes" about things, I do believe that mainstream media has been unnecessarily unfair and portrayed him in an excessively negative light recently. Attack him for these things all you like; he more than deserves it and he shouldn't be allowed to just pass it off the way he has attempted to, especially given how influential he is. But at least acknowledge that, like him or hate him, he's done some good as well.

 

[Ivysaur]

I think there is a confusion between PDP being criticized for saying Nazi slogans out loud (which is bad) and him being personally bad or whatever. Disney didn't drop him because of his personality, but because he put up nazi slogans asking for the death of millions of people- what the OP calls "an off-coloured joke". Even in the most sane context, asking for the death of millions of people and praising Hitler in the same video is not something any major company wants to have in their books. I don't care if Walt Disney himself was a closet nazi- the company itself is not known for being fascist, their current CEO isn't a nazi and when you think "Disney and nazis", the most you can recall is the Donald Duck clip mocking Hitler à la "The Great Dictator", not anything flattering. So obviously Disney wanted to get away ASAP.

And, at that point, saying that he donates money for charities, while good on him, isn't really going to fix anything. He fucked up massively and started posting nazi slogans in his videos as an extremely dumb and misguided joke. Okay. He fucked up his carreer at Disney, that's what he did. Maybe he won't go to hell, though, because he really didn't mean it and he does good deeds in his free time. But that's not something that concerns Disney- they don't want to be related to someone who happily asks for the death of millions of people "as a joke" and they are legally entitled to firing him. That's the end of the story.

And at this point, saying that the responsibility is not PDP's, but the media's, for reporting about his videos, is as extremely dumb and irresponsible as Trump saying that Flynn talking with the Russians was okay but the problem is that the media reported on it. If PDP/Flynn did nothing wrong, there shouldn't be anything wrong with their stories being reported, right? In the end, we are reaching a point in which we don't just want news to be reported objectively and professionally- we want the news to say exactly what we want to hear, or else they are "fake news" and "biased".

In the end, the main problem with mainstream media is that, thanks to the internet, now there are a hundred small websites that will offer news written by people with X ideology, for people with X ideology, essentially telling them that X ideology is right and good and the correct way to look at the world, and that everything they believe in is correct. There are so many small media tailored to essentially every place in the ideological spectrum, and we love to hear people saying that everything we believe in is right, that when we look at the "one size fits all" big media behemoths who try to appeal to everybody by being as objective as possible, we end up finding them "biased" because, every once in a while, they'll present us with news and facts at odds with our beliefs and our ideology. It's much more confortable to hide at Fox/MSNBC/Occupy Democrats/Breitbart/Natural News/ you name it and be told that we are always right and call everything else "Fake News".

 

[Hands]

The Wall St Journal deliberately misrepresented and edited footage of him, removed all context and presented it as his outright views.

Pewdiepie is an idiot who says potentially risque things because shock value sells. He isn't a Nazi and he isn't genuinely racist. He deserves flak for the fiver crap, he deserves a hiding for the holocaust jokes, but he doesn't deserve what is happening to him because the WSJ are an abysmal joke of an outlet.

 

[gimmepie]

The Wall St Journal deliberately misrepresented and edited footage of him, removed all context and presented it as his outright views.

Pewdiepie is an idiotic who says potentially risque things because shock value sells. He isn't a Nazi and he isn't genuinely racist. He deserves flak for the fiver crap, he deserves a hiding for the holocaust jokes, but he doesn't deserve what is happening to him because the WSJ are an abysmal joke of an outlet.

He might not deserve it and the WSJ might have brought this on him, but you can't really fault businesses who now need to distance themselves from him nor can you completely absolve him of blame for the situation.

 

[Hands]

He might not deserve it and the WSJ might have brought this on him, but you can't really fault businesses who now need to distance themselves from him nor can you completely absolve him of blame for the situation.

I don't blame Disney for distancing themselves, although it would've been a decent blow to the WSJ if Disney had came back fighting their mockery of journalism.

 

[Somewhere_]

I think this can be a big lesson learned for other Youtubers and entertainers. Do not say such awful things in front of the public and many younger viewers. I definitely thinks he deserves to be dropped by Disney, which as a child-friendly reputation to hold. And a history of being anti-Nazi, even using Donald Duck to encourage citizens to pay taxes with patriotism to help fund the US war effort in WWII.

But at the same time, I think the media companies should not be misrepresenting Pewdiepie. Perhaps there is enough evidence to sue WSJ for libel or slander?

 

[Aeroblast]

I think there is a confusion between PDP being criticized for saying Nazi slogans out loud (which is bad) and him being personally bad or whatever. Disney didn't drop him because of his personality, but because he put up nazi slogans asking for the death of millions of people- what the OP calls "an off-coloured joke". Even in the most sane context, asking for the death of millions of people and praising Hitler in the same video is not something any major company wants to have in their books. I don't care if Walt Disney himself was a closet nazi- the company itself is not known for being fascist, their current CEO isn't a nazi and when you think "Disney and nazis", the most you can recall is the Donald Duck clip mocking Hitler à la "The Great Dictator", not anything flattering. So obviously Disney wanted to get away ASAP.

And, at that point, saying that he donates money for charities, while good on him, isn't really going to fix anything. He ****ed up massively and started posting nazi slogans in his videos as an extremely dumb and misguided joke. Okay. He ****ed up his carreer at Disney, that's what he did. Maybe he won't go to hell, though, because he really didn't mean it and he does good deeds in his free time. But that's not something that concerns Disney- they don't want to be related to someone who happily asks for the death of millions of people "as a joke" and they are legally entitled to firing him. That's the end of the story.

And at this point, saying that the responsibility is not PDP's, but the media's, for reporting about his videos, is as extremely dumb and irresponsible as Trump saying that Flynn talking with the Russians was okay but the problem is that the media reported on it. If PDP/Flynn did nothing wrong, there shouldn't be anything wrong with their stories being reported, right? In the end, we are reaching a point in which we don't just want news to be reported objectively and professionally- we want the news to say exactly what we want to hear, or else they are "fake news" and "biased".

In the end, the main problem with mainstream media is that, thanks to the internet, now there are a hundred small websites that will offer news written by people with X ideology, for people with X ideology, essentially telling them that X ideology is right and good and the correct way to look at the world, and that everything they believe in is correct. There are so many small media tailored to essentially every place in the ideological spectrum, and we love to hear people saying that everything we believe in is right, that when we look at the "one size fits all" big media behemoths who try to appeal to everybody by being as objective as possible, we end up finding them "biased" because, every once in a while, they'll present us with news and facts at odds with our beliefs and our ideology. It's much more confortable to hide at Fox/MSNBC/Occupy Democrats/Breitbart/Natural News/ you name it and be told that we are always right and call everything else "Fake News".

I assume you're calling me (OP) out because you're seemingly chastising me for calling this an off-colored joke... which it is and people want to pretend otherwise because according to some people it's never okay to joke about certain topics. I suppose this is also an opportunity for me to present a more nuanced opinion on this issue.

Here's the thing, black comedy has existed for god knows how long, so unless you really hate dark humor in general, there's nothing more to chastise Pewdiepie about, especially since he said he's gone too far and has apologized for it since. It's pretty obvious from watching the videos that he's not anti-semite nor has actually advocated for all jews to die. Context matters.

With regards to mainstream media, the problem is that most outlets are deliberately misleading its viewers to think that Pewdiepie is a racist antisemite when anyone with 5-10 minutes of free time can look at the actual videos and see that he's anything but and it was a joke, because reporting that he made a joke isn't as much of a juicy headline as he made a "post" and use that against him. It's obviously a slander and his making an off-colored joke doesn't excuse many news outlets to post slander for the sake of getting clicks and/or bringing down the "biggest youtuber".

As for his endorsements being dropped, it's the companies' decision and there's nothing anyone can do about that and like you said Pewdiepie can't complain about that (and he didn't), although I doubt he even cares that much about losing some money as he can retire this instant and still be set for rest of his life and he knows this, which is why I've put this issue on the back burner as a lot of people here haven't here. It was actually surprising to find out that he was partnered with Disney in the first place as pewdiepie's style of humor isn't exactly child-friendly.

 

[pastelspectre]

i honestly just find this whole thing hilarious and i have a very dark sense of humor so i think the jokes he makes are funny. i do find it ironic disney dropped him bc they were against jews or whatever too but eh. what did he even have to do with disney in the first place ._.

i just sort of think the media has blown this out of proportion. that's all i'm gonna say

 

[Esper]

I'm no fan of corporate media, but that's because of their biases toward issues that relate to corporations and what subjects they choose to cover. I do trust them to be able to relay basic facts and events. So if the WSJ, BBC, FOX, ABC, or any other acronym says that some Youtuber was let go by Disney for Nazi-related comments then I feel I can read one of their articles and get enough of a gist to understand what happened. Since it all revolves around things that are highly visible I can check on my own and/or check the probable screencaps/videos an article would include or find an additional article to clarify.

I feel like I have enough media literacy to know when an article is presenting a conclusion not supported by the evidence they cite. I don't know a thing about this particular story, but if it amounts to the WSJ saying "Youtuber is actually a Nazi. Look, he said this Nazi slogan in a video." then I'd want to read the quote, perhaps watch the video in question, before accepting their conclusion.

A media company or reporter isn't necessarily untrustworthy if they draw reasonable conclusions based on the facts. To some people making Holocaust jokes does make you a racist. (The argument about what makes or doesn't make a person a racist is a much larger issue.)

And also, re: black humor. Is it still funny to make Holocaust jokes when there have been dozens of bomb threats at Jewish temples and centers in recent months? Antisemitism is on the rise and if you were Jewish wouldn't you be worried and a little reluctant to believe someone who follows up their Holocaust joke with "just kidding?" Context is important.

 

[Sir Codin]

The biggest problem with American journalist media in general - mainstream or otherwise - is that none of them are legally obligated to present multiple viewpoints, be unbiased, or tell the entire story.

They used to be as per the Fairness Doctrine, but it was repealed in '87 and the end result is...well, this. The repeal of this doctrine combined with social media is arguably the biggest reason for the continued polarization of the country.

There's no real incentive for remaining unbiased anymore, to the point where the only reliable American news source that I can think of is PBS and possibly NPR and even then they aren't completely void of bias.

 

[Aeroblast]

I'm no fan of corporate media, but that's because of their biases toward issues that relate to corporations and what subjects they choose to cover. I do trust them to be able to relay basic facts and events. So if the WSJ, BBC, FOX, ABC, or any other acronym says that some Youtuber was let go by Disney for Nazi-related comments then I feel I can read one of their articles and get enough of a gist to understand what happened. Since it all revolves around things that are highly visible I can check on my own and/or check the probable screencaps/videos an article would include or find an additional article to clarify.

I feel like I have enough media literacy to know when an article is presenting a conclusion not supported by the evidence they cite. I don't know a thing about this particular story, but if it amounts to the WSJ saying "Youtuber is actually a Nazi. Look, he said this Nazi slogan in a video." then I'd want to read the quote, perhaps watch the video in question, before accepting their conclusion.

A media company or reporter isn't necessarily untrustworthy if they draw reasonable conclusions based on the facts. To some people making Holocaust jokes does make you a racist. (The argument about what makes or doesn't make a person a racist is a much larger issue.)

And also, re: black humor. Is it still funny to make Holocaust jokes when there have been dozens of bomb threats at Jewish temples and centers in recent months? Antisemitism is on the rise and if you were Jewish wouldn't you be worried and a little reluctant to believe someone who follows up their Holocaust joke with "just kidding?" Context is important.

Accusing someone of being a nazi is a very serious accusation that should not be made so hastily like so many of these journalists did. You might have the media literacy to check behind the headlines but not everyone does, not especially in today's society where people instant gratification and reading 5 second headlines is preferred to actually taking the time to look at the articles and the source materials for yourself. Though I'm glad in this case many youtubers have spoken out in support for Pewdiepie and most of internet have seen through the BS and call out the mainstream media on it. They should do better than to double down on their TMZ-esque clickbait yellow journalism that I've seen in alarmingly increasing frequency since the peak days of Gamergate couple years ago.

Making holocaust jokes doesn't automatically make you a racist, end of. And such words shouldn't be used so flippantly as it has been the case recently as it diminishes the impact of the word when you have to actually use the word as it is intended for (e.g. neo-nazi skinheads), as if the word hasn't been overused to death already.

 

[Sir Codin]

Again, another big problem is that modern society has adopted "nazi" to mean "anyone who doesn't agree with me."

Same goes for "fascist" "snowflake" "millennial" and "fake news."

 

[Hands]

A media company or reporter isn't necessarily untrustworthy if they draw reasonable conclusions based on the facts.

That isn't the case though, they edited footage of him, added some sad music, made it a pay-to-view article and then advertised the crap out of it.

 

[Esper]

Making holocaust jokes doesn't automatically make you a racist, end of. And such words shouldn't be used so flippantly as it has been the case recently as it diminishes the impact of the word when you have to actually use the word as it is intended for (e.g. neo-nazi skinheads), as if the word hasn't been overused to death already.

What kind of words or actions would you say do make one a racist then?

That isn't the case though, they edited footage of him, added some sad music, made it a pay-to-view article and then advertised the crap out of it.

If that's the case then that doesn't sound like good journalism.

But I do want to say that unless that is what a media company does most of the time I wouldn't want it to be used to disparage the whole of media. What I mean to say is, I worry that recently there might be some cherry picking of bad journalism to paint all journalism as untrustworthy. I don't think that viewpoint (all media is biased and can't be trusted) is any better than the opposite (swallowing it whole as unvarnished truth). Like, I worry that it's creating a false sense of security, Like, "Ha, I see through you, lying media. Now I'm free." I worry it means people will stop checking themselves for their own biases as well as not trusting media when it's okay to trust them. I worry that it will make it more difficult for the truth to get out because, instead of critical thinking and critical reading, we'll just take a stance of immediate disbelief.

 

[Aeroblast]

What kind of words or actions would you say do make one a racist then?

You know, someone who actually believes that he/she is superior to those who have a different skin color.

Unfortunately these days the word has become so overused and bastardized to the point where it has become a totally different meaning than it originally had. If you voted for trump? racist. If you don't support BLM's narrative? racist. If you think you should worry about your country first before others? racist. If you think Europe has taken too many refugees? racist. Just a few examples.

 

[Esper]

You know, someone who actually believes that he/she is superior to those who have a different skin color.

What about the idea of implicit racial bias? As in, someone who doesn't think they are racist or biased but still shows some kind of bias in their actions.

 

[Aeroblast]

What about the idea of implicit racial bias? As in, someone who doesn't think they are racist or biased but still shows some kind of bias in their actions.

Unless said actions are explicit, I wouldn't jump to conclusions, especially based on one action. For instance, if my friend made a joke about me not getting an A in certain subject bringing disgrace to my family or whatever, I wouldn't automatically assume he's a racist.

Edit: I think I need to see some examples of implicit bias in order to get a clearer picture of your argument because I'm not sure if I fully understood your argument... I don't think I did

 

[Aeroblast]

But I do want to say that unless that is what a media company does most of the time I wouldn't want it to be used to disparage the whole of media. What I mean to say is, I worry that recently there might be some cherry picking of bad journalism to paint all journalism as untrustworthy. I don't think that viewpoint (all media is biased and can't be trusted) is any better than the opposite (swallowing it whole as unvarnished truth). Like, I worry that it's creating a false sense of security, Like, "Ha, I see through you, lying media. Now I'm free." I worry it means people will stop checking themselves for their own biases as well as not trusting media when it's okay to trust them. I worry that it will make it more difficult for the truth to get out because, instead of critical thinking and critical reading, we'll just take a stance of immediate disbelief.

I've been very critical of mainstream media in this thread but I want to clarify that I'm not saying I'm above the media and everything the media says is untrustworthy, although truth be told it's getting pretty damn hard to find good and/or even slightly unbiased news outlets these days.

With advance of social media like twitter and youtube etc, the need for old media to report the news is increasingly diminishing. I'm assuming this is also why I'm starting to see more clickbait garbage from even the likes of WSJ not only to stay relevant but also to try to bring down icons of new media like Pewdiepie. Whether this tactic works in favor of the old media or against them remains to be seen I guess.