Wall Street Journal vs YouTube

[Dewmonic Abyss]

If any of you have been keeping up to date with the media and how it impacts YouTube creators, one of the first things to pop into your mind may be the incident of when the Wall Street Journal took clips of PewDiePie videos, extracted satirical jokes and used them in a context to label him as 'anti-semetic' (despite having done collaborations with other YouTubers of Jewish background, who he publicly says are friends of his, in the past) and as a 'nazi'. Whether or not making Hitler jokes normalizes hate is a different controversial issue, but the common consensus is that the Wall Street Journal had malicious intent against PewDiePie to find specific clips and write that article in the way it was presented. After WSJ had gone directly to his brands with these clips, this resulted in him losing his position in Maker Studios and YouTube decided to drop his YouTube Red show.

One of the publishers of this article had a Twitter page. As their Twitter avatar, they had a South Park avatar (and as we all know, South Park is a satire adult show that uses edgy humor, along the same lines as PewDiePie) and had previously tweeted this:

This, said by one of the writers of that exact article by the Wall Street Journal, sounds like something far more offensive than anything PewDiePie has ever said in his videos.

Now, let's fast forward to the present. The Wall Street Journal broke the story of how several advertisements were appearing alongside offensive content on YouTube. This caused many big advertisers to pull their ads on YouTube, such as Coca-Cola, Pepsi, and Wal-Mart. And as such, YouTube had taken a huge punch to the gut. Many content creators were losing revenue and not having ads appear on their content, especially those of smaller channels who need the income to grow and support their channels. And today, it was revealed by h3h3productions that the WSJ used a fake screenshot of an advertisement. I cannot embed links in this forum, but you can watch that video by searching: Evidence that WSJ used FAKE screenshots by h3h3Productions

This here shows that the WSJ had to have actively been searching for a means to write these articles. They did not stumble upon those ads by chance, certainly not. They could not have. Because they weren't there. That video was not monetized. So what does this mean? Why is the Wall Street Journal actively attacking YouTube? First, they go after the biggest creator. By going to his brands. And then they attack the platform. By going to their brands. I think Google has a basis for a lawsuit. What do you think of these moves by the WSJ?

 

[Redterrors]

h3h3productions has taken the video down because it appears that it did have ads on it since it was claimed by a third party for content ID match. If this turns out to be the case, it will be another huge blow for youtube because how can they put an ad on a video with a title including such an evil racist word. The WSJ journalist involved, Jack Nicas, is basically bragging on twitter on how one journalist searching youtube is able to pull major company ads from the network. There is no question that WSJ is jealous of youtube and they are loving this. They will not bring down youtube though. Honestly, I think this will be a good thing as it will force a lot of creators to clean up some of the crap. In the end, youtube will become stronger and many in the younger generation will develop a hate for the WSJ which will really hurt them. They are making a huge mistake trying to be the leader of the mob racing to burn youtube.

The Wall Street Journal has now responded.
"The Wall Street Journal stands by its March 24th report that major brand advertisements were running alongside objectionable videos on YouTube. Any claim that the related screenshots or any other reporting was in any way fabricated or doctored is outrageous and false. The screenshots related to the article -- which represent only some of those that were found -- were captured on March 23rd and March 24th.

Claims have also been made about the revenue statements of the YouTube account that posted videos included in those screenshots. In some cases, a particular poster doesn't necessarily earn revenue on ads running before their videos.

The Journal is proud of its reporting and the high standards it brings to its journalism. We go to considerable lengths to ensure its accuracy and fairness, and that is why we are among the most trusted sources of news in the world."

 

[Lekjih]

The Journal is proud of its reporting and the high standards it brings to its journalism. We go to considerable lengths to ensure its accuracy and fairness, and that is why we are among the most trusted sources of news in the world."

What a load of sh*te, to be honest. We can see from their treatment of Felix that that's a complete lie.

 

[Dewmonic Abyss]

I actually didn't see the new video h3h3Productions uploaded until now. It was uploaded 2 hours ago. Honestly, I completely overlooked that, as well. I didn't realize that could have been copyright claimed. I wasn't sure how videos that could violate advertiser friendly guidelines could still be monetized under other networks. But that network that claimed the video made a very small amount of money, $12, for 100K+ views. It's still very unlikely to get 3 premium ads within the course of 2 days. So, while the screenshots COULD be doctored, there's still the very small possibility that just opened that ads did show those days, despite the very unfavorable likelihood. But because of this being a small possibility, that does confirm that the Wall Street Journal was actively searching for those ads, which was a malicious act on its own. But now it begs the question why they are going through such great lengths to get this 'evidence'?

 

[Gaijillionaire]

The mainstream media is a protected class they can say anything they want and get away with it because they are the establishment, the guardian of free speech, the truth and so on. If they ever get into trouble and apologize then that's fine because they are card carrying members of the established club and even though they misspoke, still mean well by being the media.

New media, i.e. The internet, is dangerous, scary, untrustworthy and full of bad people who aren't in the establishment and threaten to displace them. So they must be taken out so they can't take over.

With that in mind, it's fine to end careers of someone in new media for something unintentional or misunderstood while mainstream media can say much worse and that's ok