This takedown of the Gillette ad backlash is a fascinating take on how the media works
You’ll have seen how some people – okay, some blokes – were really, really angry about that Gillette #metoo advert which examined the issue of ‘toxic masculinity’.
People like Piers Morgan, for instance.
And it became a proper news story about the company facing a backlash and even a boycott over the 2-minute ad.
Someone called Agri Ismail took one of the stories and had a closer look at the people who were angry about it. And his findings went viral because, well, here goes …
1.
Oh hi. Let’s look at this bullshit article on the BBC website, shall we?
First of all it’s on the BBC so you’re like oh wow it must be a big deal. pic.twitter.com/H1FlH9T7WY
— Agri Ismaïl (@a9ri) January 15, 2019
2.
You read that there have been calls, calls for Gillette to post an apology video! Damn.
Oh there’s a link to the source. Let’s click on that. pic.twitter.com/7gVoorVkP8
— Agri Ismaïl (@a9ri) January 15, 2019
3.
A dude is presenting demands to end the boycott. The demands are the apology video and also that all male employees have to read some mra bullshit, like it’s mao’s little red pill.
So you click on the dude’s profile, wondering who he is and why he can make demands. pic.twitter.com/S6zvqstEGO
— Agri Ismaïl (@a9ri) January 15, 2019
4.
This is he. 18 followers. The BBC just used this person as a source. pic.twitter.com/gAQTIOAZ5H
— Agri Ismaïl (@a9ri) January 15, 2019
5.
And the person who wrote this piece knows the tweet is bullshit, from a bullshit source, because they sure as hell didn’t put the mandatory book reading up on the BBC, they know how stupid that would be.
And yet.
— Agri Ismaïl (@a9ri) January 15, 2019
6.
You can construct any fucking narrative by scouring the internet for people claiming something. It doesn't make it relevant. It doesn't make it true.
— Agri Ismaïl (@a9ri) January 15, 2019
7.
This is another tweet cited in the article. Eight digits in the handle, fewer followers than I have toes. Gets to represent a "side" in a "controversy".
Have we learned nothing from the past few years? Is this really the best we can do? pic.twitter.com/pa7KVKSeYL
— Agri Ismaïl (@a9ri) January 15, 2019
8.
We could go on of course. When Piers Morgan dusts off his laptop to plug the week's trending topics into his trusted word document DailyMailPCCultureRantTemplate.docx for his weekly Daily Mail diatribe, the DM uses two tweets to illustrate the article.
13 followers. 4 followers. pic.twitter.com/2I7xsJlef2
— Agri Ismaïl (@a9ri) January 15, 2019
9.
And here is Time Magazine. That boycott link? Some dude with 71 followers. pic.twitter.com/FJzXL1Mwuo
— Agri Ismaïl (@a9ri) January 15, 2019
10.
None of this is fucking real. It’s an entirely made up thing. It’s Piers Morgan, four people with 9 followers and a Russian bot.
— Agri Ismaïl (@a9ri) January 15, 2019
11.
This isn’t to say it can’t *become* real. These things can snowball. But journalists pushing this duality as a reality are hurting us.
— Agri Ismaïl (@a9ri) January 15, 2019
And here’s how people responded (along with all those shares).
Possibly the most important thread on the whole Gillette thing. The press carries water for a tiny minority of extremists, thereby giving them a much, much bigger platform than they might otherwise have had. https://t.co/BJpRNSLZtW
— G. Willow Wilson (@GWillowWilson) January 16, 2019
I will be using this in my English classes. Excellent proof of the problems with journalism these days.
— Sam Auburn (@SammieAuburn) January 16, 2019
The press is so addicted to both-sidesism that they're just making up sides now when they don't have two.
— wengigogo (@wengigogo) January 16, 2019
OUTSIDER ART: Can I take a moment to recommend this excellent thread by @a9ri? It specifically deals with the BBC but it's very pertinent to the whole methodology of the Mail as well, and how they provoke outrage and promote fringe opinions a thousand times a day for clicks. https://t.co/2si4L2cypt
— The DM Reporter (@DMReporter) January 16, 2019
Why is number of followers a barometer of validation?
What’s the number of followers needed before one can be taken seriously?
What about people not on Twitter, thus no followers?— Matt Thomas (@phocusphox) January 16, 2019
Let me put it this way: Does the tweet you just sent me, that I am replying to now, warrant the BBC running the headline “Comedian faces backlash over irresponsible retweet”?
— Ed Byrne (@MrEdByrne) January 17, 2019
Good thread on lazy journalism pushing "duality" by quoting shouty twats with eight followers. This is not balance. https://t.co/HflVmT1XWG
— Samuel West (@exitthelemming) January 16, 2019
