The mainstream media takes on PewDiePie (a name which I imagine nobody ever expected would become famous) and promptly annoys the entire Internet in a signature moment that the left keeps falling into over, and over, and over. It creates potential for another set-piece battle in the current propaganda war.
What’s the best way to make sure you don’t have anywhere to work tomorrow?
You so offend your customers that they refuse to come and buy stuff from you anymore.
It’s possible that the liberal media—otherwise known as the mainstream media, which includes CNN, CBC, MSNBC, FOX News, the Huffington Post, the Washington Post, the New York Times and other notables—has no idea that people consume from sources other than themselves.
It’s possible that these outlets truly, honestly believe that people in the world are literally lost without them. Like, rudderless, lost on calm seas and without purpose or direction except that the mainstream media is telling them where to go. In all honesty, it’s not a completely insane position for them to have.
Let’s look at one of the great things they’ve done.
They totally got the United States out of Vietnam. That’s a very real phenomenon. Experts trace the collapse of public belief and opinion in the US Military’s effort in Vietnam directly back to the liberal media’s coverage of the events therein. People began to realise how brutal the war was, and how pointless wars often are if they’re not being waged with the total destruction (until surrender) of the enemy in mind.
As cameras focused in on prisoners being executed and ripped-to-shreds American soldiers, Americans safe and warm back on the mainland tuned in and realised what they were funding. They began to demand withdrawal, and the world began rapidly to liberalise.
This is an example of why media is fantastic. The military or the government was never going to tell anybody what they were doing in Vietnam. More, if either one had revealed it was unsure about the efficacy or morality of their actions in Vietnam, everyone would have been fired and replaced.
It’s very difficult to win a war when even the leadership has no morale.
Instead, the media took the logical step that, if war is as I’ve said—two sides which include everyone on each side expending resources to bankrupt and persuade the other—then people at home deserve a say in whether they want to do that or not.
By liberalising discourse during this extremely conservative era in Western history, the media created a niche for itself.
Unfortunately, the moment they abandoned it, the West gave birth to the neoconservatives and we wound up embroiled in pointless wars against desert tribes all across the Middle-East.
That is what has happened, of course. As the media matured and became a globe-spanning set of institutions, it began to require things to happen so that it could report on them—the essence of conservatism, except that it was a new world—neoconservative. This addiction to strife and interesting television would eventually lead it to begin providing extensive coverage of whatever the interests of the nation seemed to want.
Apparently, recently, their market research suggests that what people want—the best thing for them to cover—is bigotry. I’ve pointed out before that this is the most strife-laden set of events currently working in society now that any major wars are largely out of the question. When conflict becomes unavailable and you have huge numbers of employees and corporate budget to justify, you had better find something to do, haven’t you?
Enter RACISM! Enter Trump! Enter all this find-the-bigot trash which had been a low-key theme during prior presidencies, but exploded into primacy during Obama’s reign as he was promising to reduce racial tensions, perhaps understanding that ethnic strife was the source of many of the most violent conflicts in history.
Enter someone named PewDiePie.
I’m not personally familiar with the man, myself, but apparently he’s started satirising anti-semitism, and that’s fine. You know this blog’s position: free speech is any speech at all, so long as the audience isn’t constrained or captive. Context is everything, and people voluntarily watching his videos doesn’t mean everyone agrees with everything he says, because it’d be ridiculously stupid to say anything like that.
The key here is that the mainstream media, upon hearing about this, immediately started a hit campaign on the man. It got him removed from a deal with Disney and has, in all likelihood, began to impact his economic fortunes. In other words, the liberal media has gone from covering war to waging war against people with names like “PewDiePie” in the interests of censorship and blood on the sand—something to keep the Great Mass entertained and paying attention.
What they may not have counted on is that PewDiePie and his audience? They’re young. This is the Internet. When you offend them, you are legitimately ensuring that the next generation of potential customer will not be engaging your services.
And that’s just PewDiePie who had something like fifty million subscribers (which doesn’t even count anyone who isn’t subscribed and just follows the man). The way this is interpreted by every single content creator on YouTube and the Internet and their massive audiences of sub-30-year-olds (as a trend) was the realisation (maybe somehow, a realisation they hadn’t already been aware of) that any of them could be targeted like this for making the wrong joke.
I don’t know how many people use YouTube, Twitch, or other content-hosting sites on the Internet to get their jollies, but I can tell you most of them are what you’d call the next generation. In other words, the people the media would be depending on to pay them a subscription in order to still exist.
This permanent war against bigotry that they’ve created? It’s self-defeating. It’d be like the government starting a war on pregnant women, not realising that if no women give birth, there’ll be no one to uphold their legitimacy or form government.
So why? Why?
Outside the immediate gains that I’ve already focused on, you have the other problem. The media, as a corporate ideology, now has funding. It has interests and it has made promises that it has to fulfil, much less whatever it thinks its mission is.
One of them appears to be that it must always cheer on the left. I mentioned that the liberal media needs immediate gains. They need them because they backed the wrong candidate in the Presidential Election. And yes, they did back Hillary Clinton. You can tell; you never get an even neutral word on President Trump no matter how far back you go; it’s all negative—the Huffington Post covered his primary run in its “entertainment” section.
Meanwhile, Hillary’s many war crimes and controversies are completely ignored, and all her affairs are delivered neutrally and with large swaths of information obfuscated or missing entirely.
Because of this, trust in the liberal media has dropped to a low point in history.
Who still trusts the liberal media? Well, anyone who agrees with them, and the people who were raised to watch the mainstream media as the only way to get reliable information out of places like—for example—Vietnam.
Now, who doesn’t trust the media? Half the country, which supported President Trump, and now most young people who have any involvement with the Internet (and the statistics for Internet access in the West makes it fairly ubiquitous and includes more or less everybody, everywhere) are also in the anti-media formation.
So now that you know what they did and why, are you still going to support these monolithic monsters that prey on their own customer base of the future in order to supply their fading customer base in the present?
If that doesn’t seem like a smart move to you, maybe you should start looking elsewhere for your information. Give free speech and chance, and help us #MakeCanadaFun.