The State of Things

When the "Milo is a paedophile" narrative hit, there were several things that occured to me.

  • It's the old mainstay of smear campaigns again: paedophilia
  • Everyone really, really hates Milo which means nobody will question it
  • What did Milo actually say in that video that is being referenced and why is he not being quoted?

It seemed to me as if my colleagues in the media were running with a questionable story because, to a man, they wanted to see Milo burn. There was no actual research in any of the many stories I've read on this. And nobody noticed. It worked.

None of the people I am acquainted with on the net, many of which are journalists themselves, voiced a single word of scepticism on this. Admittedly, that's not an easy thing to do on the topic of paedophilia. Especially if you're a man. Lest you be branded to be sympathetic to paedophiles yourself. But they could've at least pointed out that no actual research into the issue was being done. These stories were clearly shoddy workmanship.

I didn't read as much about the whole PewDiePie thing, mostly because he's never been very interesting to me. And while it occured to me pretty early on that the Milo thing might be a hitjob (because of his political background), I never thought about the PewDiePie case as a character assassination piece. But in hindsight, it makes sense. And it is levelled at someone the progressive internet also dislikes – albeit to a much lesser extend than Trump-loving Milo. They are vaguely connected as both being someone the internet feminists and anti-Gamergate games journalists generally don't like, though.

I had a vague feeling the attack on Milo might have come from anti-Trump conservatives, but I had no idea the push against PewDiePie originated within the anti-Gamergate press.

Sargon of Akkad builds a solid case to this effect. He also points out both campaigns as being shots fired in the current culture wars that encompass both Trump's cartoon frogs as well as Gamergate. While I don't agree with everything he says and question some of the sources in his video, I think it generally makes sense.

Every journalist who wrote about any of these cases and didn't do at least as much research as this guy does for a bloody YouTube video should be ashamed of themselves.

Comments? Email