Slashdot Mirror
Viacom's Messy Relationship With YouTube and The Rise of Stephen Colbert
Presto Vivace writes with this story about how Stephen Colbert became a YouTube Megastar. "Clips from The Colbert Report soon became a staple at YouTube, a startup that was making it easier for anyone and everyone to upload and watch home movies, video blogs, and technically-illicit-but-increasingly-vanilla clips of TV shows from the day before. And Colbert’s show was about to find itself at the center of a conflict between entertainment media and the web over online video that’s shaped the last decade. In fact, The Colbert Report has been defined as much by this back-and-forth between Hollywood and the web as by the cable news pundits it satirizes....A year after The Colbert Report premiere, Google acquired YouTube for $1.65 billion in stock. Five months later, Viacom sued YouTube and Google for copyright infringement, asking for $1 billion in damages. The value of these videos and their audiences were clear. The Colbert Report and “Stephen Colbert” are mentioned three times in Viacom’s complaint against YouTube, as much or more than any other show or artist."
Viacom has Google running scared.
Steven Colbert doesn't work for CBS, his show is sold to Comedy Central and his future project is sold to CBS.
The Daily Show and Colbert report are part of Comedy Partners Inc., which was first the joint venture name for Viacom and AOL Time Warner when they shared the Comedy Central network, but is now the company headed by Jon Stewart that supplies the programs to Comedy Central.
Colbert is moving to replace David Letterman on Late Show, but that project is owned by Worldwide Pants which has run Late Night/Late Show since the beginning. CBS buys the right to broadcast it.
Colbert sacrificed his integrity and actually did fluff piece on Anita Sarkeesian. Comments are disabled on the interview vid; has that ever happened to any other Colbert vid?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
i would tell Viacom & comedy central to stick it where the sun dont shine, and to back off suing google (youtube) over my videos, it is the celebrities that make Viacom significant (not the other way around) someone with the notoriety of Colbert could go to work anywhere, i would be sure to include something like that in a contract before i signed
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
my thoughts preciscely https://www.youtube.com/user/f...
BUT ETHICS1!!111ONEONEONE! Yes, it's kind of amazing how this bunch of obnoxious gamergating cunts have been whipped up into such a misogynistic frenzy by fairly tame documentaries making relatively obvious observations about the formulaic and trope-ridden world of popular gaming. Maybe heavy cannabis use among dudebros is a contributory factor in the spectacular levels of paranoia on show.
Yeah, damn right! If he'd been mean to Anita, she would have had to criticise him, which as we know is the worst infraction that any God-fearing white male could ever withstand from a woman. It's a good thing you're here to issue propaganda on behalf of a movement that is currently harrassing JIMMY FUCKING WALES for the crime of demanding impartiality on a Wikipedia article.
You are rapidly running out of friends. May I suggest you would be better received on 8chan or your circle-jerk subreddit?
Nice try, but it's clear from the interview which side Colbert was really afraid of upsetting.
That is your perspective, and not at all my impression of the interview. But, one question that puzzles me about the theory of him being afraid and men being oppressed: All the positions of power in the country has a strong majority of men: Law makers and politicians, law enforcement and judges, business leaders and rich people, media owners, etc. -- male majority all the way. I'm not saying that this is something that should be changed, I'm just stating a fact. And the theory is that these all have decided to oppress themselves?
he also won the Youtube, and the Internet !
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
So 100% of the comments were death and/or rape threats? If not, then banning ALL comments isn't banning death and/or rape threats, it's banning any comment and therefore censorship.
You'd be as right claiming DPRK censor terrorist threats and plans to kill innocent government officials and their police. Just like in NYC.
'course we know if Sarkeesian were being criticised, it's just misogyny and men trying to shut women up, right?
Because it's only right to criticise men, who all deserve it, right?
Yeah, right.
Those at the top are ALL WEALTHY CONNECTED FAMILIES.
I'm no more in charge than I killed that black kid with the toy gun merely because I happen to be white.
PS check the stats on male incarceration rates and punishments vs women found guilty of the same thing for an example of the persecution of unprivileged class males vs unprivileged class females.
Yeah, right.
Those at the top are ALL WEALTHY CONNECTED FAMILIES.
I'm no more in charge than I killed that black kid with the toy gun merely because I happen to be white.
PS check the stats on male incarceration rates and punishments vs women found guilty of the same thing for an example of the persecution of unprivileged class males vs unprivileged class females.
That doesn't change the fact that if there is oppression of men it is being done by men, since we are in majority in all positions that can decide and enforce oppression.
I think someone is suffering from Two-Tone Perception Disorder - the inability to process the idea that it's okay to criticise something and still enjoy it, and also to appreciate that criticism of one thing is not criticism of all things forever.
Have you watched a Sarkeesian video? Her work is very simple, and incredibly inoffensive. It's not even strong criticism - she goes out of her way to say that the tropes she highlights are lazy and can reinforce sexist ideals, not that the games or developers themselves are sexist. Think of it as someone just being disappointed that we haven't done better. However, some fairly vicious bigots have told you what she really thinks (because nothing says sexism like denying a woman her own opinion), and GG have lapped it up because they don't want anything to change, without really working out that this isn't a zero-sum game where CoD and Hitman cannot exist at the same time as Gone Home and Depression Quest.
I've yet to see anyone in GamerGate succeed in criticising Sarkeesian's work in the literary sense. Anything that aspires to that not-so-lofty level is all ad hominem attacks, and cherry picking the single Hitman example I hear over and over to discredit the entire work. However, if you can point to well-constructed criticism of Anita Sarkeesian by a GGer, I'll be glad to have that discussion with you. Bear in mind that I have watched most of the work of people like Thunderf00t, MundaneMatt, Ralph and the regular responses from GG people, so you'll have to actually come up with something I haven't seen - those are not good examples of criticism, for reasons that many other people have explored at length and I seriously don't have the space to go into here.
As it stands, as has been stated elsewhere, the fact that Anita Sarkeesian is being threatened at all shows gaming has a real problem. Whether these people are GG or not (and in at least some cases, they definitely are), this is a response to her criticising games, and it needs to stop, and people need to fucking grow up.
Massive Internet cultural assumption or what!
Bringing Wikipedia into this is a terrible idea because the article about Gamergate is one of the most biased and heavily brigaded articles by SJWs out there. It's the posterchild for why Wikipedia is an utterly unreliable source of information and why the whole "everyone can edit" slogan is a lie. Anti-Gamergate editors and admins basically locked the article down and bullied anyone with a dissenting opinion out.
That article was also only the tip of the iceberg. Editors like ryulong deliberately whitewhash, censor and manipulate articles to further their agenda and they have enough clout among editors and admins to get away with it.
There is no impartiality on Wikipedia when agenda driven brigades (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Feminism) get to dictate articles with impunity.
I recently got two take-down requests for two videos I put up on YouTube. They were both trade-show demo reel videos that I helped produce showing post-produced results in television shows and movies from software I wrote. These videos were 20 years old, but I thought it would be good to preserve them.
Paramount wanted one taken down for a 2-second clip from a Paramount movie. Someone else wanted the other taken down because I guess they owned the copyright on the music we had bought to accompany the video.
One could argue that putting these videos up was entirely fair use but I didn't argue at all and just yanked them. Not worth it.
It seems like all you actually need to do is submit a well-sourced, fully impartial addition to the article to the talk page, then it can be discussed and it can be added to the article. So far, no pro-GG voice has managed to do so, instead they're content to troll the talk page while harassing editors (e.g. they put up a hit-list of editors it didn't like to Wikia, which got taken down as against the ToS).
They even gave GG their own page to practice on to provide their own article that was impartial and well sourced. The first edit contained a racial slur, then GG got bored when they realised it was too hard. Now all they do is harangue the parties responsible on Twitter. It boils down, again and again, to "Actually making things better is hard, so we'll just yell at the top of our voices until the status quo is maintained or somebody does it for us. KEEP SENDING EMAILS"
The sad part about this is that Jimmy Wales actually approached GG members as equals to make things better, and even gave some constructive criticism on how to improve GG's PR problem. It was hurled back in his face for even daring to suggest there was a PR issue.
So the cycle continues. People don't take GG seriously, so GG try to shout louder, so even less people take them seriously. Some places are reporting GG as over since last month, because it's descended into a movement that only exists to aggressively defend it's own status as a movement - and now the actual needed discussion about ethics has been tainted by that reactionary, over-the-top response. Such a pity.
Slashdot is still an American site. And water is still wet.