More proof that constantly insulting and lecturing one's audience on politics is an unsustainable business model in every industry. Nice job, Frosk. Really drove the nails into that coffin.
More proof that constantly insulting and lecturing one's audience on politics is an unsustainable business model in every industry. Nice job, Frosk. Really drove the nails into that coffin.
Did any of that actually happen? From what I know, Frosk had one rant that wasn't out of nowhere considering the comments she was getting, and then everything that followed has been some GamerGate...
Did any of that actually happen? From what I know, Frosk had one rant that wasn't out of nowhere considering the comments she was getting, and then everything that followed has been some GamerGate era reframing, reinterpretation, and misinsformation because she said something as "controversial" as "Women are not here to make you horny."
Even in your own DDG search for her name, all the top sources calling this a "meltdown" and villifying her are pretty suspect.
Other than that, I do not recall any of the G4TV content leaning in this direction at all. I've watched hours and hours of their new content and I can't remember anything else near this sort of content or messaging.
I've seen people making fun of Frosk many times before this. It's not like I follow her or G4 but every so often she'd do some wokebaiting and I'd get a whiff of it when other pop culture channels...
I've seen people making fun of Frosk many times before this. It's not like I follow her or G4 but every so often she'd do some wokebaiting and I'd get a whiff of it when other pop culture channels lampooned G4 for it. That's been happening for over a year. She provokes those comments and reactions for views. I don't buy the 'poor girl being attacked by the racist mob' crap for a picosecond. She knew exactly what she was doing, so did G4, and they paid for it in the long run.
I'm curious what kind of sources you'd define as non-suspect when it comes to media reviews. I can't think of a single one.
You've heard lots of people making fun of her, but you've never actually seen the original piece in context? That is usually a good sign that you are being manipulated.
You've heard lots of people making fun of her, but you've never actually seen the original piece in context?
That is usually a good sign that you are being manipulated.
I've seen it in context of that episode and read plenty of articles, just like I do with everything else. I'd call a frame by frame of her blow up entertainment, I got some good laughs out of that...
I've seen it in context of that episode and read plenty of articles, just like I do with everything else. I'd call a frame by frame of her blow up entertainment, I got some good laughs out of that and so did some tens of thousands of other people. It's not as good as a live comedy club but it is more entertaining than Rings of Power.
How could it be that attacking your own viewers reduces your viewership? Everyone seems to be unable to admit to that simple fact because it runs counter to some naive twitter worldview where virtue signaling makes one immune to criticism or people voting with their wallets. Businesses too proud to apologize or admit mistakes and always doubling down on politics/religion - that's where I get off. If you piss off your customers, pretty soon you don't have any left. Add G4 to the list of businesses taken down by rookie mistakes.
So you have no firsthand experience with any of the G4TV content to know if those claims were even true in the first place. How exactly do you know all those claims about G4TV being political and...
So you have no firsthand experience with any of the G4TV content to know if those claims were even true in the first place. How exactly do you know all those claims about G4TV being political and chastising their viewerbase weren't exaggerating or straight up lying? This is the internet, where people amplify minuscule things into mountains all the time. Again, I watched hours of G4TV's content and cannot figure out how someone can claim they leaned heavily into politics and lecturing the audience. If anything, they were super needy about being on their audience's good side and maybe that's why Frosk's rant sent out such shockwaves. But apparently, to see it that way, I should throw away the knowledge and experience of consuming the content firsthand and instead only listen to what other people claimed the content actually was. As if... what I was seeing is not what was happening.
Why don't you buy the "'poor girl being attacked by the racist mob' crap"? Especially in light of her original (and seemingly only) rant being precipitated by sexist comments they were receiving (which that video you linked is making light of as if Frosk is in the wrong for saying it's not okay to tell women that they're too ugly to masturbate to). What was so bad about her message in that rant too, specifically? What special insights did all the pundits and commentators provide that throws that whole idea out the window? How did they establish their veracity beyond all doubt? And has it been verified, or is it all just claims they've made?
Also, I'm just going to link one of the first sources that came up when clicking your DDG link and I'll let their veracity speak for itself: https://redstate.com/. If that's one of the only sources that is making such a claim, that should be casting some major doubts on the entire idea. Everything else I'm seeing are just more outrage-manufacturing YouTube channels, and YouTube has not exactly been known for shepherding people away from highly problematic sources of information.
If you were trying to provide sources that make the claim and remove all these doubts, a general DDG search is not proof because it will be showing different search results to everyone. And, in mine, there's a ton of highly questionable sources. I don't see a single reputable outlet (written or YouTube) covering this story with such conclusions or claims in that DDG search. If you've got one, you should have linked it directly.
Your argument cuts both ways. I've watched FNT since day one and have yet to see any proof they are racist, alt right, gamergate, or any other nonsense either. Just like your experience with G4....
Your argument cuts both ways. I've watched FNT since day one and have yet to see any proof they are racist, alt right, gamergate, or any other nonsense either. Just like your experience with G4. It's almost as if someone is manufacturing the woke war just to shield themselves from any criticism. See, my main problem with G4 is simple - it's corporate, therefore it is garbage, no exceptions. That's just my own bias.
If you'd like a nice short summary of how new G4 managed to kill itself, here you go. Dates, times, articles, quotes, tweets, the whole sorry tale. If it isn't blindingly obvious why their viewers went elsewhere from that I don't know what else to tell you.
Protip: If you post content online, you will be attacked. Period. Frosk is a classic example of an immature and insecure response. The only way to win that game is not to play it - never rise to the bait. I can't really blame her, though - the entirety of corporate media is still learning that lesson the hard way, just like G4 did. I do wonder if even Disney itself will go out of business before they ever admit they made a mistake.
Edit: Sorry for the double post, that reply button still tricks me into making top level replies sometimes. :P
I'll check out that video but I'll be real, the titles alone of their most popular videos are painting a picture of what to expect. The thing I am trying to find out is if there is any more this...
I'll check out that video but I'll be real, the titles alone of their most popular videos are painting a picture of what to expect. The thing I am trying to find out is if there is any more this is based on than Frosk's one rant and general attitude and demeanor.
Because have to imagine this is can't all be going on because of her taking an issue with people who specifically typed things like "you're not as bangable as the last host [Olivia Munn]" and being generally outspoken about not putting up with explicitly sexist behaviour like that.
Clickbait titles and flashy thumbs are part of the game when competing for three second attention spans. I'm not fond of them myself. This is pop culture coverage, not a scientific conference....
Clickbait titles and flashy thumbs are part of the game when competing for three second attention spans. I'm not fond of them myself. This is pop culture coverage, not a scientific conference. It's always a mess.
I think all of this could have been easily avoided with a simple apology by Frosk after her first slip up. Instead, her corporate overlords doubled down on their own social media feeds and exacerbated the problem. It wasn't just about Frosk after that, it was G4 endorsing it all. Regardless of what they were thinking, it was interpreted as an attack on their own audience which dragged them into the mud. No adults in the room over there, apology is a lost art.
There's a strong sentiment of 'monetizing your haters' and when it comes to pop culture coverage, that muddies the waters a lot. Stern did it in the 80s rather famously, it's a good business strategy - but I think it does degrade the overall quality of conversations long term. Everything trends towards more incendiary rhetoric on every side. The hotter it gets, the more clicks fly, and it looks like you're making money - until your core audience leaves in disgust and stops paying the bills.
I follow the folks who respond to it all with humor because at least that content is genuinely good for a laugh. I don't enjoy Rings of Power, but I do enjoy making sport out of it. It's surreal, really. I'm never sure if the perceived lack of quality in media is just me getting older, having more experience, and being harder to impress (which I'm sure is true), or if corporations have lost their collective minds enough that they think they can just buy good press, insult their audiences, and somehow keep making record profits on crap content. They cannot possibly be that stupid, can they? When and where did that strategy ever work out for anyone? It wasn't until I found some of these channels lampooning the ridiculousness of modern media that I realized it wasn't just me seeing things like that.
I doubt that this is the work of one commentator. It's much more likely that Comcast thought they could re-make a hub for video game content on cable television when we're already a half dozen...
I doubt that this is the work of one commentator. It's much more likely that Comcast thought they could re-make a hub for video game content on cable television when we're already a half dozen content decentralizations away from when G4 closed up shop the last time.
Oh, that's part of it no doubt. I follow many gaming channels that get orders of magnitude more views than anything G4 ever had, they are hardly the only game in town. I would say however that...
Oh, that's part of it no doubt. I follow many gaming channels that get orders of magnitude more views than anything G4 ever had, they are hardly the only game in town. I would say however that they picked precisely the wrong angle to lean on, and the recent on-air meltdown of one of their 'star' commentators definitely hastened the inevitable. Letting her go was too little, too late.
More proof that constantly insulting and lecturing one's audience on politics is an unsustainable business model in every industry. Nice job, Frosk. Really drove the nails into that coffin.
Did any of that actually happen? From what I know, Frosk had one rant that wasn't out of nowhere considering the comments she was getting, and then everything that followed has been some GamerGate era reframing, reinterpretation, and misinsformation because she said something as "controversial" as "Women are not here to make you horny."
Even in your own DDG search for her name, all the top sources calling this a "meltdown" and villifying her are pretty suspect.
Other than that, I do not recall any of the G4TV content leaning in this direction at all. I've watched hours and hours of their new content and I can't remember anything else near this sort of content or messaging.
I've seen people making fun of Frosk many times before this. It's not like I follow her or G4 but every so often she'd do some wokebaiting and I'd get a whiff of it when other pop culture channels lampooned G4 for it. That's been happening for over a year. She provokes those comments and reactions for views. I don't buy the 'poor girl being attacked by the racist mob' crap for a picosecond. She knew exactly what she was doing, so did G4, and they paid for it in the long run.
I'm curious what kind of sources you'd define as non-suspect when it comes to media reviews. I can't think of a single one.
You've heard lots of people making fun of her, but you've never actually seen the original piece in context?
That is usually a good sign that you are being manipulated.
I've seen it in context of that episode and read plenty of articles, just like I do with everything else. I'd call a frame by frame of her blow up entertainment, I got some good laughs out of that and so did some tens of thousands of other people. It's not as good as a live comedy club but it is more entertaining than Rings of Power.
How could it be that attacking your own viewers reduces your viewership? Everyone seems to be unable to admit to that simple fact because it runs counter to some naive twitter worldview where virtue signaling makes one immune to criticism or people voting with their wallets. Businesses too proud to apologize or admit mistakes and always doubling down on politics/religion - that's where I get off. If you piss off your customers, pretty soon you don't have any left. Add G4 to the list of businesses taken down by rookie mistakes.
So you have no firsthand experience with any of the G4TV content to know if those claims were even true in the first place. How exactly do you know all those claims about G4TV being political and chastising their viewerbase weren't exaggerating or straight up lying? This is the internet, where people amplify minuscule things into mountains all the time. Again, I watched hours of G4TV's content and cannot figure out how someone can claim they leaned heavily into politics and lecturing the audience. If anything, they were super needy about being on their audience's good side and maybe that's why Frosk's rant sent out such shockwaves. But apparently, to see it that way, I should throw away the knowledge and experience of consuming the content firsthand and instead only listen to what other people claimed the content actually was. As if... what I was seeing is not what was happening.
Why don't you buy the "'poor girl being attacked by the racist mob' crap"? Especially in light of her original (and seemingly only) rant being precipitated by sexist comments they were receiving (which that video you linked is making light of as if Frosk is in the wrong for saying it's not okay to tell women that they're too ugly to masturbate to). What was so bad about her message in that rant too, specifically? What special insights did all the pundits and commentators provide that throws that whole idea out the window? How did they establish their veracity beyond all doubt? And has it been verified, or is it all just claims they've made?
Also, I'm just going to link one of the first sources that came up when clicking your DDG link and I'll let their veracity speak for itself: https://redstate.com/. If that's one of the only sources that is making such a claim, that should be casting some major doubts on the entire idea. Everything else I'm seeing are just more outrage-manufacturing YouTube channels, and YouTube has not exactly been known for shepherding people away from highly problematic sources of information.
If you were trying to provide sources that make the claim and remove all these doubts, a general DDG search is not proof because it will be showing different search results to everyone. And, in mine, there's a ton of highly questionable sources. I don't see a single reputable outlet (written or YouTube) covering this story with such conclusions or claims in that DDG search. If you've got one, you should have linked it directly.
Your argument cuts both ways. I've watched FNT since day one and have yet to see any proof they are racist, alt right, gamergate, or any other nonsense either. Just like your experience with G4. It's almost as if someone is manufacturing the woke war just to shield themselves from any criticism. See, my main problem with G4 is simple - it's corporate, therefore it is garbage, no exceptions. That's just my own bias.
If you'd like a nice short summary of how new G4 managed to kill itself, here you go. Dates, times, articles, quotes, tweets, the whole sorry tale. If it isn't blindingly obvious why their viewers went elsewhere from that I don't know what else to tell you.
Protip: If you post content online, you will be attacked. Period. Frosk is a classic example of an immature and insecure response. The only way to win that game is not to play it - never rise to the bait. I can't really blame her, though - the entirety of corporate media is still learning that lesson the hard way, just like G4 did. I do wonder if even Disney itself will go out of business before they ever admit they made a mistake.
Edit: Sorry for the double post, that reply button still tricks me into making top level replies sometimes. :P
I'll check out that video but I'll be real, the titles alone of their most popular videos are painting a picture of what to expect. The thing I am trying to find out is if there is any more this is based on than Frosk's one rant and general attitude and demeanor.
Because have to imagine this is can't all be going on because of her taking an issue with people who specifically typed things like "you're not as bangable as the last host [Olivia Munn]" and being generally outspoken about not putting up with explicitly sexist behaviour like that.
Clickbait titles and flashy thumbs are part of the game when competing for three second attention spans. I'm not fond of them myself. This is pop culture coverage, not a scientific conference. It's always a mess.
I think all of this could have been easily avoided with a simple apology by Frosk after her first slip up. Instead, her corporate overlords doubled down on their own social media feeds and exacerbated the problem. It wasn't just about Frosk after that, it was G4 endorsing it all. Regardless of what they were thinking, it was interpreted as an attack on their own audience which dragged them into the mud. No adults in the room over there, apology is a lost art.
There's a strong sentiment of 'monetizing your haters' and when it comes to pop culture coverage, that muddies the waters a lot. Stern did it in the 80s rather famously, it's a good business strategy - but I think it does degrade the overall quality of conversations long term. Everything trends towards more incendiary rhetoric on every side. The hotter it gets, the more clicks fly, and it looks like you're making money - until your core audience leaves in disgust and stops paying the bills.
I follow the folks who respond to it all with humor because at least that content is genuinely good for a laugh. I don't enjoy Rings of Power, but I do enjoy making sport out of it. It's surreal, really. I'm never sure if the perceived lack of quality in media is just me getting older, having more experience, and being harder to impress (which I'm sure is true), or if corporations have lost their collective minds enough that they think they can just buy good press, insult their audiences, and somehow keep making record profits on crap content. They cannot possibly be that stupid, can they? When and where did that strategy ever work out for anyone? It wasn't until I found some of these channels lampooning the ridiculousness of modern media that I realized it wasn't just me seeing things like that.
I doubt that this is the work of one commentator. It's much more likely that Comcast thought they could re-make a hub for video game content on cable television when we're already a half dozen content decentralizations away from when G4 closed up shop the last time.
Oh, that's part of it no doubt. I follow many gaming channels that get orders of magnitude more views than anything G4 ever had, they are hardly the only game in town. I would say however that they picked precisely the wrong angle to lean on, and the recent on-air meltdown of one of their 'star' commentators definitely hastened the inevitable. Letting her go was too little, too late.