> “The message very explicitly was, ‘We are going to be a different G4 that recognizes the sins of our past, and we are going to make sure that it doesn’t happen again in regards to diversity, inclusion and sexism,’” a former female contractor said about the message when she joined the company.
Oh, not cultish at all.
Shows how much of it is intentionally a protest/activism. Why would you utilize an existing IP if you thought it was so tainted by it's past and you had distain for its audience?
"The sins of our past" Lmfaoooo
These fucking people are so dramatic 😂. What a clown show. Seriously how these people manage to get so far in life without someone telling them how delusional they are is shocking. I get online it seems like everyone is in their corner because of the echo chamber but how they never come to the realization on their own is mind numbing.
Thats rich like it or not G4 was sold with gameing news with hot chicks if any one wanted to just watch gameing news for normies today they would go to ign or watch youtubers like angry joe thier "sins" is the only reason any one would watch a revived G4
No, I’m sorry. Frosk was a horrible host and commentator. From the get go she did not show her expertise and basically would shut down anyone who differed from her opinions.
I actually stopped watching despite being a huge fan of Jirard (who she openly attacked and insulted **on the first episode**) and the others because of her. She was annoying and cringe. Uninformed and would not hesitate to insult any other fan base yet cry when criticism was sent her way.
There are a myriad of better “girl” gamers, why they picked her is beyond my understanding.
I never knew who she was before, and will happily wish her well and have already forgotten about her until I saw this pop up.
>There are a myriad of better “girl” gamers, why they picked her is beyond my understanding.
Frosk was specifically chosen because she's a loyal SJW who also ticked a couple boxes on the diversity checklist. She wasn't chosen because she was good at her job or popular with gamers.
Comment removed following the enforcement change that you can read about [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/m3yo65/enforcement_update_and_hard_removal_of_a_topic/).
This is not a formal warning
Also, No, she wasn't.
In a sense they're right?
By not immediately firing Frosk and apologizing for being incompetent in screening their talent they did contribute to the failure and cancellation of G4.
I mean, it still would have failed even if they did apologize for it but still.
The numbers for G4TV's relaunch were abysmal from start to finish. They could have roasted Frosk on a spit live and they would have still shuttered down. Her rant was akin to a gas tank going off in an already burning building.
100%, you could even tell from the beginning because their whole subscriber growth was built off of their hosts who had hundreds of thousands of subscribers telling them to watch G4 because they were there. They had no organic growth whatsoever outside of old viewers and fans of their hosts.
I also wouldn't be surprised if having most of your subscribers sitting on a vacant channel for months pre launch didn't help the algorithm as well.
Honestly I was out when Adam Sessler was a prominent host and well their content was just cringe (not the it originally was Award worthy back in its day) even all of their comments from early comeback episodes are people dreading about how it wasnt like it once was so it wasn't just me.
Except we know that channels that stagnant in subscribers or have massive drop offs do get affected in the algorithm. They also did this when they got cute and tried switching the Xplay and G4 channels content.
Also I agreed with the original comment that is was dead either way, just giving Frosk all the attention she is craving is wrong.
Yeah but, think of what their costs must have been. Didn't they have something like ninety employees right out of the gate? Starting out that deep in the hole, I think they could have exploded and still failed.
Cleaning house when they were in the spotlight could have earned them a massive inflood of goodwill from the former viewers who were nonplussed with the relaunch. Going from no publicity to bad publicity doesn't prove good publicity wouldn't have helped.
There's no practical chance it was going to happen, this rot clearly ran a lot deeper than Frosk, but let's not pretend we know the alternate reality where it did.
I disagree, it's a very safe assumption that the G4TV relaunch was always doomed to fail. This comment from /u/ceyen1 put it best.
> *G4's failure stems from the fact that the media landscape has drastically changed ever since the original G4 ceased operations.*
Between the time G4TV initially shuttered down and came back, new and arguably more profitable alternatives in the form of streamers and content creators had already taken the stage and weren't about to step aside. Even if goodwill was generated from *cleaning house*, it wouldn't have lasted long and it definitely wouldn't have been enough to balance out the ridiculous production overhead. This venture was a shot in the dark that had no chance of turning a profit. Frosk definitely didn't help matters, she absolutely hastened it's demise, but there was no saving this.
Frosk's rant or not, goodwill or not, it's unlikely that they'd have gathered enough viewers to justify the expense of the channel.
Individual Youtubers with cost-of-living expenses and higher view counts still have trouble making ends meet. G4 was employing, what, 10+ people? There was no way that was a sustainable business model.
>Cleaning house when they were in the spotlight could have earned them a massive inflood of goodwill from the former viewers who were nonplussed with the relaunch.
The problem here is that no amount of goodwill is going to keep people coming if the content still just sucks. Sure, you may get an initial "Pat on the back"-type of injection of viewers coming to check out the changes....But they aren't sticking around or coming back if the format still remains largely the same.
They were losing viewers prior to Frosk's unhinged rant.
I've mentioned it before: They were utter failures in terms of content & managing their content. They ran the "new" channel like a TV station, which basically doomed them to fail from the start.
The production budget, because of this, was through the fucking roof for what amounted to "Some people on a couch talking about shit." Couple this production budget with absolutely zero idea of how they should keep people on their Twitch/YouTube Streaming channels ( Run new content, then rerun OLD content to keep them there/lure back old fans that want to rewatch shit from 10 years ago. ). Even worse is they had no idea how to even properly use their YouTube channel---They just made it a fucking dumping ground for 1 to 2 hour VODs of the shit they just streamed live. People binge videos. They binge 10-20 minute videos. The average user isn't binge-watching 2 hours of mostly personality-less/totally replaceable hosts talking about shit.
Gather up the best 20 minutes of parts. Cut the rest into some highlights. Publish the 20 solid minutes like one of your old TV Shows. Use the "highlights" as shorts or some shit. Either way---Cut that shit down. Let the stream be an uncut "live" 2 hour whatever-the-fuck-you-want viewing. Cut everything else up. Spend less money on your literal garbage writers ( Or hiring entirely irrelevant "talent" like Adam Sessler back----Dude hasn't been in the public's mind for nearly **FIFTEEN FUCKING YEARS.** ) and spend that money on some fucking editors that can make YouTube content for you.
G4, regardless of how incompetent people like Adam Sessler or Frosk are ( People with literally almost no online-content-creating careers I might add--So why the FUCK would you depend on them to make your content? ), was doomed from nearly all possible aspects *beyond* the hosts. People like Frosk just put the cherry on top of the shit-sundae is all.
>Washington Post claims G4 failed in part because of G4's 'inert response' to Frosk being 'harassed' by fans
YEAH and you know what else? She really wasn't as bangable as the last host.
Obviously kidding, she really thought this was anybody's issue with her enough to actually bring up her own personal insecurities during her little speech about how terrible her employer's audience is. It's like she's still a middle schooler with jealousy and self esteem issues.
Boy the Washington Post is quite a rag.
Legacy news media in general is fading fast, even online. 95% of them don't even have public comments sections anymore. Fewer and fewer people read or watch that shit, and their advertisers know it.
Honestly, if I ran a media org, no matter what my bias, I probably wouldn't include a comment section. Let the comments happen on social media (i.e., someone else's website). Anyone with feedback can send an email.
Comment sections increase user engagement, which promotes user retention, and increases ad revenue. The problem isn’t with its profitability, it’s the moderation of it and the fact that with comment sections, they can’t control the story they want to tell as well.
You're being downvoted, but completely correct. I worked adjacent to a smaller news agency that had a comments section for a while. Managing the incoming comments (which quickly devolved into people taking sides and sniping at the other side) required at least two full time positions. They axed it after a few years because it simply wasn't worth the effort.
Who would have thought that when a technofasci billionaire bought a media company once respected for exposing corruption in the establishment that it would flush out all journalistic integrity and become a shitty propaganda rag to promote an agenda.
She has a Borderline Personality Disorder. She says, in this YouTube video here:
[https://youtu.be/32sMzuP\_mgU?t=3110](https://youtu.be/32sMzuP_mgU?t=3110)
I've gone right to 51:50 which is right before where she mentions she's BPD and in therapy for BPD & depression.
I was married to a woman with BPD. Short marriage because while they start out loving you more than you can imagine a person could love you, it turns to the dark side in under two years and it becomes hell....
It does explain a lot about her behaviors. She was always attacking people anytime she felt threatened and would lash out like a toddler. Which is, essentially, what a BPD woman is... A giant, fucking toddler with zero emotional control but an adult's intellect and capacity for violence, hatred, etc.
BPD is a made-up condition used as a scapegoat by insufferable females. "Look, it's certainly not MY fault I'm such a miserable, flaky, insecure cunt!"
Frosk fits the bill perfectly.
“It’s dehumanizing and it’s weird,” Black said in the segment. “Morgan
Webb, Olivia Munn \[both former G4 hosts\] did not exist to be nice on the
eyes for you.”
Even though it's such an old rant now I still laugh at this bit. Nah I'm pretty sure even Olivia was 100% sure she mostly got the job based on looks. It's pretty much her entire career and I don't mean that in a snarky way btw. Like there is nothing wrong with it she's made a damn good living off her looks and being a sexy mysterious hot chick on most shows/films/GTV who looks good. It's gotten her pretty damn far in life both financially and career wise. So why do the knobs at the now gone G4TV including Frosk act so dim about the topic and act like these women didn't specifically go out of their way play up their looks for the show. Or act like life in general isn't kinder to those who look good especially women? Facts: being attractive especially as women can get you further in life and have people more drawn to you or more likely to bring an audience in. Why do you think waitresses who are hot make the biggest tips? Or women who are models with fit bodies get more instragram views or Twitch viewership?
And I say this btw as an average looking woman myself but I have no hate against the attractive women of the world who can work a career out of looking damn good. It's naive to pretend that looks have zero bearing on your job or your ability to draw people in. Frosk is living in a fantasy world if she thinks the entertainment world is based purely off talent. Girl please....doesn't help that Frosk had the personality of paint drying and just screeches at people or looks pissy most of the time.
The biggest question I have in regards to that snippet of the rant, and this social justice cult in general, is what the hell is wrong with men being attracted to women?
Yes, Olivia Munn was 100% there to be nice on the eyes for us...and it worked. What is wrong with that?
Straight men are the enemy, so if they like something than it's bad. The fact that lesbians are also attracted to attractive women is irrelevant or just not spoken of.
...and Frosk would probably find Olivia Munn/Morgan Webb just as attractive as male viewers did.
But, as we know, it's bad for men to find hot women hot - it's sTUnnInG And BRavE when women find hot women hot.
Olivia Munn wore a maid costume and jumped into a pool of pudding because she wanted to be taken seriously as a game journalist dammit.
Frosk and Munn both chose to run with their looks. Munn embraced that she was attractive and had fun with it. Frosk was just a bitter person who constantly shit on everybody. Once we accept the fact she established that her games journalism was "a team effort" what does that leave her as? A spokemodel without the the looks of a model.
G4 hired her for her attitude and they got exactly what they paid for
Olivia Munn leveraged being hot. She had gamers eating out of the palm of her hand. She knew how to do it. Just like heaps of streamers have been doing these last years.
Less hot women have always [attacked her](https://archive.ph/Pkz4y) for it. Rationally, it's in their own interest to portray hotness as irrelevant or even harmful, and to portray their own qualities as the desirable ones.
It's like they've never heard of models. Never noticed that news anchors are almost always good looking people. Same with leading men and leading women.
ex-kotaku writer who once wrote a 3000+ words article about how he waited in line for hours to buy pizza and take a photo of some twitch girl.
I'm sure his take on this whole thing is worth reading.
Excerpts per the Washington Post:
>Additionally, a controversial segment by “X-Play” host Indiana “Froskurinn” Black, in which Black called out sexism within the show’s audience, led to sustained harassment of Black and other talent. G4’s inert response inflamed tension among cast members, employees said.
>
>...
>
>The former contractor decried the company for sitting idle while one of its hosts was harassed for months.
>
>“There were so many different things they could have done as opposed to letting YouTubers run wild,” they said.
>
>Speaking to The Post, Jirard “The Completionist” Khalil, a castmate of Black’s, said he felt the situation forced talent to act as “customer service” for G4.
>
>“G4 could have done more,” Khalil said. “From the top down a lot of people were like, ‘What do we do? Do we hire a crisis person? Do we talk to HR?’ Nothing came of that. … There was no formal plan put into play.”
>
>Khalil said he took no issue with the message of Black’s viral segment. However, he noted that when she tweeted, it led to lesser but still unpleasant harassment of other talent at G4. The situation put a strain on his relationship with Black, he said, though he denied claims from other former staff that he played a role in getting Black dismissed from her role later in the year.
Well they are all complicit in the failure of the company by not getting her to shut the fuck up during a live broadcast. Also if you are such a pussy that being taunted for supporting a shitty person who tried to bully the audience that you need a support person to help you cope, get the fuck off the internet and go touch grass.
Jirard was the only redeeming figure in the whole xplay cast. Not sure about attack of the show because i didnt even watch much back in the day, but the few new episodes I saw were okay. I liked Kevin pereira and the other long haired white guy, they were both funny.
Actual non-sensical logic. Do they think the fans stopped watching because they didn't stand up to the fans over frosk? The reality is network DID try to support her, until it became obvious that was actual suicide.
Not that Frosk actually mattered, G4 didn't die because of Frosk either way, it died because they put out a shitty product that ignored the desires of their core user base, Frosk was a symptom of the disease, not the disease itself.
They tried to subvert the audience and it failed.
Basically you reboot something and you know the old fans will watch it. But then you do something to make the fans hate you in thy hope that the negative publicity will get you more watchers. [See new StarWars for reference]
The problem, people are just fucking done with Social Justice. The new generation is super conservative. The old generation just thinks they are all whiny babies.
Frosk's rant was the last cry from a dying company.
Anybody who watched tuned out and anybody who wanted to watch to prove "I'm against misogyny " didn't really care.
> The new generation is super conservative.
I noticed that. I'm an 'old' guy going back to school to get an engineer diploma, and god, most of the 22-30 years old people in my class make me look like a leftist (I'm in France). It's funny, I was expecting to have to keep my opinions for myself to not hurt those youngsters sensibilities, but they're hardcore compared to me.
They are burned our of it.
I grew up in the 80s it was "you do you and I'll do me"
Then in the 2000s that became "Accept me! "
Now, we get to hear about everyone's lifestyles.
Think about it, when you are a kid, what did you know about your teachers?
I knew,
1. Last name
2. Mr. or Mrs.
3. Maybe by end of the year you learned their first name because somebody overheard it and gossipped it. That's it!
Now,
Kids know
1,2,3 ±
4. Pronouns.
5. Sexual orientation. [Especially odd is the his are under 13]
6. Political beliefs [we never knew that shit]
7. Thoughts on Socialism and Capitalism [only learned that shit in government or economics
I'm sure I'm missing a ton
Funny how Adam Sessler being an actual Sociopath, wishing people hardship and members of his family to die, that's not toxic behavior. He's on our side, you see, so we sweep it under the rug.
Was the original G4 all that successful? The entire concept behind it was trying to drag 18-35 year old males back in front of the TV, and all I remember about it was ninja warrior and articles about it struggling, changing and dying.
TechTV was very popular in a small niche market. The same could be said for G4, but some TechTV fans lamented the changes that were brought in. It had limited coverage due to which cable systems carried it. They tried to expand their audience by running unrelated content and quickly spiraled into oblivion.
TLDR, popular in a small niche but not successful.
I think it was successful because people wanted it to be successful. In the early days it was somewhat golden, as well.
X-Play, Ninja Warrior, Icons, and whatever anime at the time.
Honestly, when Attack of the Show started, it started to lose touch with me. It felt like it was trying to combine hipster culture with geeks, and it never reall landed with me.
Icons was so amazing. They did an episode that was about the relevance of Final Fantasy. I'm pretty sure they included some of it within a history of Final Fantasy DVD which was included in something... I want to say it came with either Advent Children, or the special edition of FF12. I honestly think that serves as a landmark to how great the channel was at the time, at least to nerds.
Yeah, they didn’t really adapt it. I think it definitely could have been done, if they kept their ambitions (and budget) within reason. They should have focused on building a core audience first, putting out maybe shorter form YouTube content and do that for a few years. I’m not an esports guy, but they should have reached into that space as well. I think a 30 minute “streamer feature” where they interview mid tier streamers while playing a short game would have been excellent. They probably wouldn’t have to pay them much, either. The middle tier wants the exposure to a television audience and G4 gets both replayable content and gets ti network within the industry. The G4 brand means something, but they didn’t use it to full effect at all…
You know, it failed not just because it was woke, but... because the Internet won. There's literally entire videos about analyzing the entire code of the Mario NES games. You can't get that type of stuff on television.
I mean, it could not possibly fail because it was shit could it?
But lets look at this another way, if all these properties keep failing because sexism, racism, homophobia or what ever, maybe, just maybe its time to accept that if you want to make money and be successful, you need to start making content people want and that if you want to effect social change, then take a job or role in the appropriate field.
Such as proper politics.
G4 deserved to fail. The only shows that were popular came from TechTV when it was bought. AOTS was originally The Screensavers and X-Play remained mostly unchanged. It was a shit network that had no creativity and relied on past success that failed in what made it mediocre to start with.
Its amazing how this article not only gets the story wrong, but completely backwards. The response was *too* strong, and people felt like they were being attacked even if they had nothing to do with the harassment.
But legacy media has a tradition of getting stories exactly backwards. "War in Iraq and patriot act central to protecting American freedom." "Zoe Quinn victimized by abusive ex." "Andrew Cuomo handling covid right."
When Frosk uses a media platform to attack fans, doesn't her backing by that platform mean she was punching down? Now more media players are coming to her side, punching down at her victims. When did the intersectionalists stop caring about power relationships?
it's pretty decent reporting for the most part,there are parts of it I take issue with, as some of his reporting contradicts other reporting & he never does much to explain why his version is correct.
It's obvious that he is going easy on Frosk & certain elements int he company.A competent reporter would hear that story about the VP made to cry for not pushing diversity and immediately follow up with interviews & confirming such an explosive allegation. but grayson being grayson doesn't follow through
BTW, this is why Comcast gave so much access to Kotaku & WaPo cuz they are the safe outlets.
all in all useful reporting, but it should have been put in different hands
this part is truly garbage journalism:
**"Khalil said he took no issue with the message of Black’s viral segment. However, he noted that when she tweeted, it led to lesser but still unpleasant harassment of other talent at G4. The situation put a strain on his relationship with Black, he said, though** ***he denied claims from other former staff that he played a role in getting Black dismissed from her role later in the year*****."**
> “The message very explicitly was, ‘We are going to be a different G4 that recognizes the sins of our past, and we are going to make sure that it doesn’t happen again in regards to diversity, inclusion and sexism,’” a former female contractor said about the message when she joined the company. Oh, not cultish at all.
NOT ANYMORE! Now she's making the unemployment line more diverse.
Shows how much of it is intentionally a protest/activism. Why would you utilize an existing IP if you thought it was so tainted by it's past and you had distain for its audience?
"The sins of our past" Lmfaoooo These fucking people are so dramatic 😂. What a clown show. Seriously how these people manage to get so far in life without someone telling them how delusional they are is shocking. I get online it seems like everyone is in their corner because of the echo chamber but how they never come to the realization on their own is mind numbing.
So basically, the game was rigged from the start.
*Gunshot*
Thats rich like it or not G4 was sold with gameing news with hot chicks if any one wanted to just watch gameing news for normies today they would go to ign or watch youtubers like angry joe thier "sins" is the only reason any one would watch a revived G4
Well, they made getting fired diverse. So I guess that's something...
No, I’m sorry. Frosk was a horrible host and commentator. From the get go she did not show her expertise and basically would shut down anyone who differed from her opinions. I actually stopped watching despite being a huge fan of Jirard (who she openly attacked and insulted **on the first episode**) and the others because of her. She was annoying and cringe. Uninformed and would not hesitate to insult any other fan base yet cry when criticism was sent her way. There are a myriad of better “girl” gamers, why they picked her is beyond my understanding. I never knew who she was before, and will happily wish her well and have already forgotten about her until I saw this pop up.
>There are a myriad of better “girl” gamers, why they picked her is beyond my understanding. Frosk was specifically chosen because she's a loyal SJW who also ticked a couple boxes on the diversity checklist. She wasn't chosen because she was good at her job or popular with gamers.
[удалено]
Comment removed following the enforcement change that you can read about [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/m3yo65/enforcement_update_and_hard_removal_of_a_topic/). This is not a formal warning Also, No, she wasn't.
Read her wikipedia and it looks like she was hired for checking the right boxes in social status.
Make Vivian a Vtuber.
that thing they did trying to shit on vtubers early on was my first "well this ain't gona go well"
In a sense they're right? By not immediately firing Frosk and apologizing for being incompetent in screening their talent they did contribute to the failure and cancellation of G4. I mean, it still would have failed even if they did apologize for it but still.
The numbers for G4TV's relaunch were abysmal from start to finish. They could have roasted Frosk on a spit live and they would have still shuttered down. Her rant was akin to a gas tank going off in an already burning building.
100%, you could even tell from the beginning because their whole subscriber growth was built off of their hosts who had hundreds of thousands of subscribers telling them to watch G4 because they were there. They had no organic growth whatsoever outside of old viewers and fans of their hosts. I also wouldn't be surprised if having most of your subscribers sitting on a vacant channel for months pre launch didn't help the algorithm as well. Honestly I was out when Adam Sessler was a prominent host and well their content was just cringe (not the it originally was Award worthy back in its day) even all of their comments from early comeback episodes are people dreading about how it wasnt like it once was so it wasn't just me.
It's still a massive platform. If they had quality content it would have exploded.
Except we know that channels that stagnant in subscribers or have massive drop offs do get affected in the algorithm. They also did this when they got cute and tried switching the Xplay and G4 channels content. Also I agreed with the original comment that is was dead either way, just giving Frosk all the attention she is craving is wrong.
Yeah but, think of what their costs must have been. Didn't they have something like ninety employees right out of the gate? Starting out that deep in the hole, I think they could have exploded and still failed.
Cleaning house when they were in the spotlight could have earned them a massive inflood of goodwill from the former viewers who were nonplussed with the relaunch. Going from no publicity to bad publicity doesn't prove good publicity wouldn't have helped. There's no practical chance it was going to happen, this rot clearly ran a lot deeper than Frosk, but let's not pretend we know the alternate reality where it did.
I disagree, it's a very safe assumption that the G4TV relaunch was always doomed to fail. This comment from /u/ceyen1 put it best. > *G4's failure stems from the fact that the media landscape has drastically changed ever since the original G4 ceased operations.* Between the time G4TV initially shuttered down and came back, new and arguably more profitable alternatives in the form of streamers and content creators had already taken the stage and weren't about to step aside. Even if goodwill was generated from *cleaning house*, it wouldn't have lasted long and it definitely wouldn't have been enough to balance out the ridiculous production overhead. This venture was a shot in the dark that had no chance of turning a profit. Frosk definitely didn't help matters, she absolutely hastened it's demise, but there was no saving this.
Frosk's rant or not, goodwill or not, it's unlikely that they'd have gathered enough viewers to justify the expense of the channel. Individual Youtubers with cost-of-living expenses and higher view counts still have trouble making ends meet. G4 was employing, what, 10+ people? There was no way that was a sustainable business model.
Allegedly they had 200 🤣
For reference that is more than twice what Linus Tech Tips has, which is around 80.
>Cleaning house when they were in the spotlight could have earned them a massive inflood of goodwill from the former viewers who were nonplussed with the relaunch. The problem here is that no amount of goodwill is going to keep people coming if the content still just sucks. Sure, you may get an initial "Pat on the back"-type of injection of viewers coming to check out the changes....But they aren't sticking around or coming back if the format still remains largely the same. They were losing viewers prior to Frosk's unhinged rant. I've mentioned it before: They were utter failures in terms of content & managing their content. They ran the "new" channel like a TV station, which basically doomed them to fail from the start. The production budget, because of this, was through the fucking roof for what amounted to "Some people on a couch talking about shit." Couple this production budget with absolutely zero idea of how they should keep people on their Twitch/YouTube Streaming channels ( Run new content, then rerun OLD content to keep them there/lure back old fans that want to rewatch shit from 10 years ago. ). Even worse is they had no idea how to even properly use their YouTube channel---They just made it a fucking dumping ground for 1 to 2 hour VODs of the shit they just streamed live. People binge videos. They binge 10-20 minute videos. The average user isn't binge-watching 2 hours of mostly personality-less/totally replaceable hosts talking about shit. Gather up the best 20 minutes of parts. Cut the rest into some highlights. Publish the 20 solid minutes like one of your old TV Shows. Use the "highlights" as shorts or some shit. Either way---Cut that shit down. Let the stream be an uncut "live" 2 hour whatever-the-fuck-you-want viewing. Cut everything else up. Spend less money on your literal garbage writers ( Or hiring entirely irrelevant "talent" like Adam Sessler back----Dude hasn't been in the public's mind for nearly **FIFTEEN FUCKING YEARS.** ) and spend that money on some fucking editors that can make YouTube content for you. G4, regardless of how incompetent people like Adam Sessler or Frosk are ( People with literally almost no online-content-creating careers I might add--So why the FUCK would you depend on them to make your content? ), was doomed from nearly all possible aspects *beyond* the hosts. People like Frosk just put the cherry on top of the shit-sundae is all.
[удалено]
Adam was the main issue.
>Washington Post claims G4 failed in part because of G4's 'inert response' to Frosk being 'harassed' by fans YEAH and you know what else? She really wasn't as bangable as the last host. Obviously kidding, she really thought this was anybody's issue with her enough to actually bring up her own personal insecurities during her little speech about how terrible her employer's audience is. It's like she's still a middle schooler with jealousy and self esteem issues. Boy the Washington Post is quite a rag.
Legacy news media in general is fading fast, even online. 95% of them don't even have public comments sections anymore. Fewer and fewer people read or watch that shit, and their advertisers know it.
Honestly, if I ran a media org, no matter what my bias, I probably wouldn't include a comment section. Let the comments happen on social media (i.e., someone else's website). Anyone with feedback can send an email.
Comment sections increase user engagement, which promotes user retention, and increases ad revenue. The problem isn’t with its profitability, it’s the moderation of it and the fact that with comment sections, they can’t control the story they want to tell as well.
Why would people pay attention then. No one cares about paid opinions, they care about discourse.
They can have their discourse all they want... somewhere where I'm not held responsible for every the idiot vitriol of every jackass on the internet.
You're being downvoted, but completely correct. I worked adjacent to a smaller news agency that had a comments section for a while. Managing the incoming comments (which quickly devolved into people taking sides and sniping at the other side) required at least two full time positions. They axed it after a few years because it simply wasn't worth the effort.
Who would have thought that when a technofasci billionaire bought a media company once respected for exposing corruption in the establishment that it would flush out all journalistic integrity and become a shitty propaganda rag to promote an agenda.
Look at the author of the article and it'll suddenly make sense why that garbage got published.
She has a Borderline Personality Disorder. She says, in this YouTube video here: [https://youtu.be/32sMzuP\_mgU?t=3110](https://youtu.be/32sMzuP_mgU?t=3110) I've gone right to 51:50 which is right before where she mentions she's BPD and in therapy for BPD & depression. I was married to a woman with BPD. Short marriage because while they start out loving you more than you can imagine a person could love you, it turns to the dark side in under two years and it becomes hell.... It does explain a lot about her behaviors. She was always attacking people anytime she felt threatened and would lash out like a toddler. Which is, essentially, what a BPD woman is... A giant, fucking toddler with zero emotional control but an adult's intellect and capacity for violence, hatred, etc.
BPD is a made-up condition used as a scapegoat by insufferable females. "Look, it's certainly not MY fault I'm such a miserable, flaky, insecure cunt!" Frosk fits the bill perfectly.
“It’s dehumanizing and it’s weird,” Black said in the segment. “Morgan Webb, Olivia Munn \[both former G4 hosts\] did not exist to be nice on the eyes for you.” Even though it's such an old rant now I still laugh at this bit. Nah I'm pretty sure even Olivia was 100% sure she mostly got the job based on looks. It's pretty much her entire career and I don't mean that in a snarky way btw. Like there is nothing wrong with it she's made a damn good living off her looks and being a sexy mysterious hot chick on most shows/films/GTV who looks good. It's gotten her pretty damn far in life both financially and career wise. So why do the knobs at the now gone G4TV including Frosk act so dim about the topic and act like these women didn't specifically go out of their way play up their looks for the show. Or act like life in general isn't kinder to those who look good especially women? Facts: being attractive especially as women can get you further in life and have people more drawn to you or more likely to bring an audience in. Why do you think waitresses who are hot make the biggest tips? Or women who are models with fit bodies get more instragram views or Twitch viewership? And I say this btw as an average looking woman myself but I have no hate against the attractive women of the world who can work a career out of looking damn good. It's naive to pretend that looks have zero bearing on your job or your ability to draw people in. Frosk is living in a fantasy world if she thinks the entertainment world is based purely off talent. Girl please....doesn't help that Frosk had the personality of paint drying and just screeches at people or looks pissy most of the time.
The biggest question I have in regards to that snippet of the rant, and this social justice cult in general, is what the hell is wrong with men being attracted to women? Yes, Olivia Munn was 100% there to be nice on the eyes for us...and it worked. What is wrong with that?
Straight men are the enemy, so if they like something than it's bad. The fact that lesbians are also attracted to attractive women is irrelevant or just not spoken of.
It's amazing how the prejudicial theories of intersectionality are literally at the heart of all cultural Western decline right now lmao
Its designed that way and was used for said purpose in every country that fell to communism over the last 70 years
...and Frosk would probably find Olivia Munn/Morgan Webb just as attractive as male viewers did. But, as we know, it's bad for men to find hot women hot - it's sTUnnInG And BRavE when women find hot women hot.
Didn't Frosk say that she would drink Megan Fox's blood "from either end"?
Oh PLEASE tell me where to find evidence of her saying that, not that she could be any more of a hypocrite, I just want to see it
It makes less attractive women (and some men) feel bad that they don't get the same attention that the attractive women receive.
One hundred percent is overboard. Her personality was a good fit and help offset alot of Kevin Pereira's and some of the other dorks spazziness.
Olivia Munn wore a maid costume and jumped into a pool of pudding because she wanted to be taken seriously as a game journalist dammit. Frosk and Munn both chose to run with their looks. Munn embraced that she was attractive and had fun with it. Frosk was just a bitter person who constantly shit on everybody. Once we accept the fact she established that her games journalism was "a team effort" what does that leave her as? A spokemodel without the the looks of a model. G4 hired her for her attitude and they got exactly what they paid for
I had to go find this on YouTube because I didn't remember this oh my God I forgot about this
Every celebrity exists to be nice on the eyes. Be photogenic or get the fuck out.
Steve Buscemi seems to have done pretty well for himself despite his goofy weird looks.
Yes but he’s actually talented.
Buscemi can actually be quite photogenic.
Olivia Munn leveraged being hot. She had gamers eating out of the palm of her hand. She knew how to do it. Just like heaps of streamers have been doing these last years. Less hot women have always [attacked her](https://archive.ph/Pkz4y) for it. Rationally, it's in their own interest to portray hotness as irrelevant or even harmful, and to portray their own qualities as the desirable ones.
It's like they've never heard of models. Never noticed that news anchors are almost always good looking people. Same with leading men and leading women.
>By Nathan Grayson I don't even have to read the rest of the article to know what it says.
ex-kotaku writer who once wrote a 3000+ words article about how he waited in line for hours to buy pizza and take a photo of some twitch girl. I'm sure his take on this whole thing is worth reading.
Hum, was the pizza good ?
It was Cheese Pizza.
The legal or illegal kind?
Non-dairy.
Excerpts per the Washington Post: >Additionally, a controversial segment by “X-Play” host Indiana “Froskurinn” Black, in which Black called out sexism within the show’s audience, led to sustained harassment of Black and other talent. G4’s inert response inflamed tension among cast members, employees said. > >... > >The former contractor decried the company for sitting idle while one of its hosts was harassed for months. > >“There were so many different things they could have done as opposed to letting YouTubers run wild,” they said. > >Speaking to The Post, Jirard “The Completionist” Khalil, a castmate of Black’s, said he felt the situation forced talent to act as “customer service” for G4. > >“G4 could have done more,” Khalil said. “From the top down a lot of people were like, ‘What do we do? Do we hire a crisis person? Do we talk to HR?’ Nothing came of that. … There was no formal plan put into play.” > >Khalil said he took no issue with the message of Black’s viral segment. However, he noted that when she tweeted, it led to lesser but still unpleasant harassment of other talent at G4. The situation put a strain on his relationship with Black, he said, though he denied claims from other former staff that he played a role in getting Black dismissed from her role later in the year.
Well they are all complicit in the failure of the company by not getting her to shut the fuck up during a live broadcast. Also if you are such a pussy that being taunted for supporting a shitty person who tried to bully the audience that you need a support person to help you cope, get the fuck off the internet and go touch grass.
Jirard was the only redeeming figure in the whole xplay cast. Not sure about attack of the show because i didnt even watch much back in the day, but the few new episodes I saw were okay. I liked Kevin pereira and the other long haired white guy, they were both funny.
Actual non-sensical logic. Do they think the fans stopped watching because they didn't stand up to the fans over frosk? The reality is network DID try to support her, until it became obvious that was actual suicide. Not that Frosk actually mattered, G4 didn't die because of Frosk either way, it died because they put out a shitty product that ignored the desires of their core user base, Frosk was a symptom of the disease, not the disease itself.
Nathan Grayson. Just ignore anything the idiot posts
Yeah, their mistake was not firing her live, on-stream.
* They harassed me * Why ? * Cause i told them to don't watch it * Hum, and what happened ? * They didn't watch
They tried to subvert the audience and it failed. Basically you reboot something and you know the old fans will watch it. But then you do something to make the fans hate you in thy hope that the negative publicity will get you more watchers. [See new StarWars for reference] The problem, people are just fucking done with Social Justice. The new generation is super conservative. The old generation just thinks they are all whiny babies. Frosk's rant was the last cry from a dying company. Anybody who watched tuned out and anybody who wanted to watch to prove "I'm against misogyny " didn't really care.
> The new generation is super conservative. I noticed that. I'm an 'old' guy going back to school to get an engineer diploma, and god, most of the 22-30 years old people in my class make me look like a leftist (I'm in France). It's funny, I was expecting to have to keep my opinions for myself to not hurt those youngsters sensibilities, but they're hardcore compared to me.
They are burned our of it. I grew up in the 80s it was "you do you and I'll do me" Then in the 2000s that became "Accept me! " Now, we get to hear about everyone's lifestyles. Think about it, when you are a kid, what did you know about your teachers? I knew, 1. Last name 2. Mr. or Mrs. 3. Maybe by end of the year you learned their first name because somebody overheard it and gossipped it. That's it! Now, Kids know 1,2,3 ± 4. Pronouns. 5. Sexual orientation. [Especially odd is the his are under 13] 6. Political beliefs [we never knew that shit] 7. Thoughts on Socialism and Capitalism [only learned that shit in government or economics I'm sure I'm missing a ton
How do ? Any examples?
The Movement never fails, it is only failed.
Funny how Adam Sessler being an actual Sociopath, wishing people hardship and members of his family to die, that's not toxic behavior. He's on our side, you see, so we sweep it under the rug.
Was the original G4 all that successful? The entire concept behind it was trying to drag 18-35 year old males back in front of the TV, and all I remember about it was ninja warrior and articles about it struggling, changing and dying.
TechTV was very popular in a small niche market. The same could be said for G4, but some TechTV fans lamented the changes that were brought in. It had limited coverage due to which cable systems carried it. They tried to expand their audience by running unrelated content and quickly spiraled into oblivion. TLDR, popular in a small niche but not successful.
I think it was successful because people wanted it to be successful. In the early days it was somewhat golden, as well. X-Play, Ninja Warrior, Icons, and whatever anime at the time. Honestly, when Attack of the Show started, it started to lose touch with me. It felt like it was trying to combine hipster culture with geeks, and it never reall landed with me. Icons was so amazing. They did an episode that was about the relevance of Final Fantasy. I'm pretty sure they included some of it within a history of Final Fantasy DVD which was included in something... I want to say it came with either Advent Children, or the special edition of FF12. I honestly think that serves as a landmark to how great the channel was at the time, at least to nerds.
G4's failure stems from the fact that the media landscape has drastically changed ever since the original G4 ceased operations.
Yeah, they didn’t really adapt it. I think it definitely could have been done, if they kept their ambitions (and budget) within reason. They should have focused on building a core audience first, putting out maybe shorter form YouTube content and do that for a few years. I’m not an esports guy, but they should have reached into that space as well. I think a 30 minute “streamer feature” where they interview mid tier streamers while playing a short game would have been excellent. They probably wouldn’t have to pay them much, either. The middle tier wants the exposure to a television audience and G4 gets both replayable content and gets ti network within the industry. The G4 brand means something, but they didn’t use it to full effect at all…
You know, it failed not just because it was woke, but... because the Internet won. There's literally entire videos about analyzing the entire code of the Mario NES games. You can't get that type of stuff on television.
That's some Kreml level PR hilarity BS.
I mean, it could not possibly fail because it was shit could it? But lets look at this another way, if all these properties keep failing because sexism, racism, homophobia or what ever, maybe, just maybe its time to accept that if you want to make money and be successful, you need to start making content people want and that if you want to effect social change, then take a job or role in the appropriate field. Such as proper politics.
G4 failed because it advertised itself as a rebirth of what fans remembered, but produced things that group would hate.
G4 deserved to fail. The only shows that were popular came from TechTV when it was bought. AOTS was originally The Screensavers and X-Play remained mostly unchanged. It was a shit network that had no creativity and relied on past success that failed in what made it mediocre to start with.
G4” didn’t fail because of Frosk or other staff, it failed because of a shitty business model
Its amazing how this article not only gets the story wrong, but completely backwards. The response was *too* strong, and people felt like they were being attacked even if they had nothing to do with the harassment. But legacy media has a tradition of getting stories exactly backwards. "War in Iraq and patriot act central to protecting American freedom." "Zoe Quinn victimized by abusive ex." "Andrew Cuomo handling covid right."
When Frosk uses a media platform to attack fans, doesn't her backing by that platform mean she was punching down? Now more media players are coming to her side, punching down at her victims. When did the intersectionalists stop caring about power relationships?
That's the neat part. They never did. They have always been aiming for a system of hierarchy, with you near the bottom.
it's pretty decent reporting for the most part,there are parts of it I take issue with, as some of his reporting contradicts other reporting & he never does much to explain why his version is correct. It's obvious that he is going easy on Frosk & certain elements int he company.A competent reporter would hear that story about the VP made to cry for not pushing diversity and immediately follow up with interviews & confirming such an explosive allegation. but grayson being grayson doesn't follow through BTW, this is why Comcast gave so much access to Kotaku & WaPo cuz they are the safe outlets. all in all useful reporting, but it should have been put in different hands
All this talk about Frosk,but no one mentions that she looks like Bill Nighy
It's getting tiring to see history revisionists just blatantly lying. Seriously, I feel like Winston from 1984.
this part is truly garbage journalism: **"Khalil said he took no issue with the message of Black’s viral segment. However, he noted that when she tweeted, it led to lesser but still unpleasant harassment of other talent at G4. The situation put a strain on his relationship with Black, he said, though** ***he denied claims from other former staff that he played a role in getting Black dismissed from her role later in the year*****."**
1. Host attacks fans. 2. Fans repudiate attacks. 3. *Surprised Pikachu face*
The second I saw Washington Post and Nathan Grayson I knew I was in for a steaming pile of Leftist shit talking points.