5 ms·

This trend of outrage journalism is disturbing. Where the goal seems to be about finding the worst possible interpretation for clicks and prestige points. The h

by Reedx 8y ago

This trend of outrage journalism is disturbing. Where the goal seems to be about finding the worst possible interpretation for clicks and prestige points. The headline is all that seems to matter, with few digging into the actual context. Which both fuels more uninformed outrage and erodes trust in journalism overall. It seems like a new form of witch hunting?

krainboltgreene 8y ago
Sounds like you've never read about "witch hunting". These journalists are just taking what he's done, putting it into context, and writing about it. The man has suffered nothing this entire time. He makes millions.
- manigandham 8y ago
  > putting it into context It seems like it's quite the opposite most of the time, which is the reason for the backlash against the articles.
  - krainboltgreene 8y ago
    Then I suggest you read up on the situation.
    - manigandham 8y ago
      I'm fully aware. Clearly people will believe what they want to believe so I'll stay out of that, but I do think there is a major issue with what "context" is and how it's presented.
- wyoh 8y ago
  Outside of any context you mean. I don't see what making millions has to do with it.
  - sascha_sl 8y ago
    An ironic nazi is still a nazi. No matter how you turn this, this guy: 1. Commissioned someone for 5 dollars to hold up a sign stating "Death to all jews" 2. Published the footage upon seeing it to an impressionable young audience, without putting why it'd be wrong to do into context. And thought this was an okay thing to do. That's all that was reported on. And rightfully so. I find it very sad that I get warned for "ideological posting" and yet quillette is a source allowed on here; easy to spot what ideology they support by their mention of Ben Shapiro as some sort of idol: reactionary. (If you're not convinced, find their sidebar for feminism bashing) You should really reconsider if your own bias is distorting your moderation policies, dang.
    - anon12345690 8y ago
      that was satire to show what you can do for just 5 bucks but he apologized for it whats wrong with the quillette and ben shapiro? arent you showing your bias here?
      - sascha_sl 8y ago
        >arent you showing your bias here? You're saying that as if a post unopposed is neutral, and opposition is "taking a side" and therefore showing bias. It's not. There is no neutral here. The article poster has taken a side and the moderation team has too, even if it's just a slight pro. I can say a lot about Shapiro, few things good. But I've been told to keep away from this sort of flame war and I'm convinced if you're willing to change your mind you can seek out the information I'd provide easily on your own.
      - gamer_throwaway 8y ago
        Precisely what mode of thought was he satirizing? "Satire" has a meaning - A Modest Proposal wasn't Swift going "haha what if we ate babies"
        anon12345690 8y ago
        that you can do crazy stuff for 5 bucks that didnt get stopped all by the services he tried and the people he hired
- Chazprime 8y ago
  No, they’re creating context... big difference.
- Reedx 8y ago
  He shouted out 28(!) smaller channels. 1 of the 28 he recommended for its essay about Death Note. That's why it was being promoted. He didn't realize the channel contained anything anti-semitic or otherwise. Once that was pointed out, he removed the shoutout from his video. The journalists in question are not reporting the nuance and context in their rush to burn the witch.
  - krainboltgreene 8y ago
    > He didn't realize the channel contained anything anti-semitic or otherwise. He's suggesting that, but it is extremely unlikely that he didn't know. > nce that was pointed out, he removed the shoutout from his video. Sounds like the journalists are doing their job.
    - uvatbc 8y ago
      > He's suggesting that, but it is extremely unlikely that he didn't know. Oh? Is there any evidence to back up that claim? > Sounds like the journalists are doing their job. Sounds like the death of investigative journalism.
toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
The issue is not that journalism has developed a new trend of ginning up outrage, that’s a constant in the history of journalism. The issue is that it’s rapidly becoming all that’s left, all that most people consume, and it’s unleavened with anything like responsibility, or balance from respectable journalists and politicians with at least some limits. It’s the degradation of all media rather than just a large portion of it, which is new and worrying.
- darkpuma 8y ago
  Whether it's all media or some media doesn't really matter so much, I think what's really important is how much influence is actually wielded by the bad actors. Good media existing doesn't do us much good if that media isn't the influential media. You're absolutely right about it being a constant in the history of journalism though. Recently I've heard a lot of talk about how the situation in this respect is getting worse, but I think it's important to remember that yellow journalism is nothing new, nor is the influence it wields. The Spanish American War was essentially started by yellow journalist media barons fabricating public consensus, and the ramifications of that war were fairly severe in both hemispheres. Maybe Vox picking on pewdiepie is unfair, or maybe they're justified. But viewed in the proper context it's inconsequential either way; neither Vox nor pewdiepie are provoking bullshit wars. Thank the gods for that.
  - bb88 8y ago
    I was thinking the same thing when I read this article. Who the fuck cares about what pewdiepie does with his platform for his speech? Trump, on the other hand, has far more power, but hasn't figured out how to anything other than being the center of everyone's attention. And while Fox News is ginning up fervor against immigration in the US, it's not like we're going to go into a serious war with Mexico over it. Thank God.
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    > Maybe Vox picking on pewdiepie is unfair, or maybe they're justified. But viewed in the proper context it's inconsequential either way; neither Vox nor pewdiepie are provoking bullshit wars. But they are provoking bullshit wars. Being an unreasonable extremist and drowning out the reasonable voices on your team gives the unreasonable extremists on the other team license to do the same. People being able to express contrary opinions in public is a release valve that allows a moderate consensus to form. Polarizing everything and then shutting down public debate is how you get into a war. Just because nobody is actively building munitions factories doesn't make this a benign development that it's reasonable to ignore just because the country is not yet literally on fire.
akhilcacharya 8y ago
I watched the video (and PDP's apology) and I was outraged that either a) A person with an incredibly impressionable, young, and naive viewerbase would shout out an obvious, virulent bigot because he shares their views or b) A person with an incredible impressionable, young, and naive viewerbase would shout out someone that is an obvious, virulent bigot because he's so divorced from reality outside of video games that he didn't understand that they would be offensive.
- anon12345690 8y ago
  or c) he just linked to video that he liked which came from an account that is verified by youtube so he felt it was safe and didnt spend days checking all the content his followers arent dumb and youre underestimating what young viewers are able to figure out. if they can see that its not a big deal then why are you so outraged for?
  - akhilcacharya 8y ago
    > he just linked to video that he liked which came from an account that is verified by youtube The video INCLUDED neo-nazi rhetoric. Literally click on any others and they include n-slurs in the title. Again, either he's a moron or he's a racist. I'm not sure if the former is that much better a look for him. Also, young kids can figure things out, yes, but the biggest YouTube star on the planet shouldn't be normalizing neo-nazi terrorism.
    - anon12345690 8y ago
      i watched the video and it was fine and has lots of views and plenty of comments that understand the dark humor without going off the rails on outrage. none of the videos have n-word in the title, are you making that up? did you read about how that channel is verified by youtube itself? now youre calling it terrorism? slow down there. i think you should learn to take a joke like the rest of the world. if everyone else can figure it out then maybe its you that has an extreme problem with it?
dgudkov 8y ago
It's not witch hunting. It's ad money hunting. Click-based advertisement has created incentives that are directly opposite to what drives good journalism. Therefore, paywalls and online subscription is actually the best thing that could happen to online journalism.

by Reedx 8y ago

krainboltgreene 8y ago

Sounds like you've never read about "witch hunting". These journalists are just taking what he's done, putting it into context, and writing about it. The man has suffered nothing this entire time. He makes millions.

manigandham 8y ago
> putting it into context It seems like it's quite the opposite most of the time, which is the reason for the backlash against the articles.
- krainboltgreene 8y ago
  Then I suggest you read up on the situation.
  - manigandham 8y ago
    I'm fully aware. Clearly people will believe what they want to believe so I'll stay out of that, but I do think there is a major issue with what "context" is and how it's presented.
wyoh 8y ago
Outside of any context you mean. I don't see what making millions has to do with it.
- sascha_sl 8y ago
  An ironic nazi is still a nazi. No matter how you turn this, this guy: 1. Commissioned someone for 5 dollars to hold up a sign stating "Death to all jews" 2. Published the footage upon seeing it to an impressionable young audience, without putting why it'd be wrong to do into context. And thought this was an okay thing to do. That's all that was reported on. And rightfully so. I find it very sad that I get warned for "ideological posting" and yet quillette is a source allowed on here; easy to spot what ideology they support by their mention of Ben Shapiro as some sort of idol: reactionary. (If you're not convinced, find their sidebar for feminism bashing) You should really reconsider if your own bias is distorting your moderation policies, dang.
  - anon12345690 8y ago
    that was satire to show what you can do for just 5 bucks but he apologized for it whats wrong with the quillette and ben shapiro? arent you showing your bias here?
    - sascha_sl 8y ago
      >arent you showing your bias here? You're saying that as if a post unopposed is neutral, and opposition is "taking a side" and therefore showing bias. It's not. There is no neutral here. The article poster has taken a side and the moderation team has too, even if it's just a slight pro. I can say a lot about Shapiro, few things good. But I've been told to keep away from this sort of flame war and I'm convinced if you're willing to change your mind you can seek out the information I'd provide easily on your own.
    - gamer_throwaway 8y ago
      Precisely what mode of thought was he satirizing? "Satire" has a meaning - A Modest Proposal wasn't Swift going "haha what if we ate babies"
      - anon12345690 8y ago
        that you can do crazy stuff for 5 bucks that didnt get stopped all by the services he tried and the people he hired
Chazprime 8y ago
No, they’re creating context... big difference.
Reedx 8y ago
He shouted out 28(!) smaller channels. 1 of the 28 he recommended for its essay about Death Note. That's why it was being promoted. He didn't realize the channel contained anything anti-semitic or otherwise. Once that was pointed out, he removed the shoutout from his video. The journalists in question are not reporting the nuance and context in their rush to burn the witch.
- krainboltgreene 8y ago
  > He didn't realize the channel contained anything anti-semitic or otherwise. He's suggesting that, but it is extremely unlikely that he didn't know. > nce that was pointed out, he removed the shoutout from his video. Sounds like the journalists are doing their job.
  - uvatbc 8y ago
    > He's suggesting that, but it is extremely unlikely that he didn't know. Oh? Is there any evidence to back up that claim? > Sounds like the journalists are doing their job. Sounds like the death of investigative journalism.

toufiqbarhamov 8y ago

The issue is not that journalism has developed a new trend of ginning up outrage, that’s a constant in the history of journalism. The issue is that it’s rapidly becoming all that’s left, all that most people consume, and it’s unleavened with anything like responsibility, or balance from respectable journalists and politicians with at least some limits. It’s the degradation of all media rather than just a large portion of it, which is new and worrying.

darkpuma 8y ago
Whether it's all media or some media doesn't really matter so much, I think what's really important is how much influence is actually wielded by the bad actors. Good media existing doesn't do us much good if that media isn't the influential media. You're absolutely right about it being a constant in the history of journalism though. Recently I've heard a lot of talk about how the situation in this respect is getting worse, but I think it's important to remember that yellow journalism is nothing new, nor is the influence it wields. The Spanish American War was essentially started by yellow journalist media barons fabricating public consensus, and the ramifications of that war were fairly severe in both hemispheres. Maybe Vox picking on pewdiepie is unfair, or maybe they're justified. But viewed in the proper context it's inconsequential either way; neither Vox nor pewdiepie are provoking bullshit wars. Thank the gods for that.
- bb88 8y ago
  I was thinking the same thing when I read this article. Who the fuck cares about what pewdiepie does with his platform for his speech? Trump, on the other hand, has far more power, but hasn't figured out how to anything other than being the center of everyone's attention. And while Fox News is ginning up fervor against immigration in the US, it's not like we're going to go into a serious war with Mexico over it. Thank God.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  > Maybe Vox picking on pewdiepie is unfair, or maybe they're justified. But viewed in the proper context it's inconsequential either way; neither Vox nor pewdiepie are provoking bullshit wars. But they are provoking bullshit wars. Being an unreasonable extremist and drowning out the reasonable voices on your team gives the unreasonable extremists on the other team license to do the same. People being able to express contrary opinions in public is a release valve that allows a moderate consensus to form. Polarizing everything and then shutting down public debate is how you get into a war. Just because nobody is actively building munitions factories doesn't make this a benign development that it's reasonable to ignore just because the country is not yet literally on fire.

akhilcacharya 8y ago

I watched the video (and PDP's apology) and I was outraged that either a) A person with an incredibly impressionable, young, and naive viewerbase would shout out an obvious, virulent bigot because he shares their views or b) A person with an incredible impressionable, young, and naive viewerbase would shout out someone that is an obvious, virulent bigot because he's so divorced from reality outside of video games that he didn't understand that they would be offensive.

anon12345690 8y ago
or c) he just linked to video that he liked which came from an account that is verified by youtube so he felt it was safe and didnt spend days checking all the content his followers arent dumb and youre underestimating what young viewers are able to figure out. if they can see that its not a big deal then why are you so outraged for?
- akhilcacharya 8y ago
  > he just linked to video that he liked which came from an account that is verified by youtube The video INCLUDED neo-nazi rhetoric. Literally click on any others and they include n-slurs in the title. Again, either he's a moron or he's a racist. I'm not sure if the former is that much better a look for him. Also, young kids can figure things out, yes, but the biggest YouTube star on the planet shouldn't be normalizing neo-nazi terrorism.
  - anon12345690 8y ago
    i watched the video and it was fine and has lots of views and plenty of comments that understand the dark humor without going off the rails on outrage. none of the videos have n-word in the title, are you making that up? did you read about how that channel is verified by youtube itself? now youre calling it terrorism? slow down there. i think you should learn to take a joke like the rest of the world. if everyone else can figure it out then maybe its you that has an extreme problem with it?

dgudkov 8y ago

It's not witch hunting. It's ad money hunting. Click-based advertisement has created incentives that are directly opposite to what drives good journalism. Therefore, paywalls and online subscription is actually the best thing that could happen to online journalism.