Steven Crowder v Daily Wire

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I don’t know if this will be a thread with much interest or longevity…but you never know.

Louder with Crowder is/was one of my go-to podcasts and/or YouTube views everyday. For those that don’t know Steven Crowder, he has an irreverent take on current events and I find him very funny and informative.

He has been under contract with The Blaze the last few years and I guess at the end of 2022 that contract expired. In exploring his options, according to him, he was disappointed with what he’s calling “Big Con(servative)” media conglomerates. He’s currently sporadically putting out new videos and right now. His first since Christmas was his Stop Big Con video where he laid out his disappointment. He didn’t name names but anyone that’s been listening to his show knew or at least had a inkling he was flirting with Ben Sapiro’s Daily Wire.

Then Daily Wire responded with a video Our Offer to Steven Crowder.

Then Crowder started naming names.

Finally, to put a humorous spin on this, Jordan Petersen-ish had a few things to say.

 

[wtburnette]

Kinda sad to see this play out IMO.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Kinda sad to see this play out IMO.

Agreed. Ben Shapiro apparently released another video yesterday replying to Crowder's last. Just stop it, both of "you".

 

[jamil]

I’ll just be blunt. Crowder’s being a big *****. Surely he can afford some vagisil.

I had some level of sympathy for his position until it came out that he sat on this for quite some time. It smells disingenuous.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I’ll just be blunt. Crowder’s being a big *****. Surely he can afford some vagisil.

I had some level of sympathy for his position until it came out that he sat on this for quite some time. It smells disingenuous.

I see both of them having fault in this and both sides having respectable positions. Historically, I found myself in the 98% agreement with both--until covid. Shapiro lost me some with his slavish slobbering over the vaccines-even after the evidence had grown enough to show they were a lie.

We only know what both sides have put out for our consumption. If I had to pick a side, I'd lean towards Crowder for now. He's always impressed me with his willingness to say what's on his mind. Shapiro seems to tend towards more towards playing it safe. I see Crowder's points. Shapiro decided to out themselves. Had they not done that, we might have suspected who Crowder was talking about but wouldn't likely know for sure.

Meanwhile both of them do their parts to combat the left's narrative. Too bad we have to eat ourselves instead of fighting the real enemy.

 

[KLB]

Someone give us the TL/DW synopsis. The few minutes I watched seemed like he was going to cry about the offer he was made.

 

[jamil]

DW had some terms like “in perpetuity” and "exclusive control of" that Crowder waited several weeks to decide that it was over the top.

So one of the complaints was that DW wanted control and monetization of Crowder’s social media accounts, like Youtube, Facebook, etcetera, except for the more personal ones like Twitter and Instagram. There were more things, like penalties for getting banned, and whatnot.

From DW's perspective, they were offering him $50M/year, and they want to ensure they can recoup their investment. Crowder was obviously insulted by the offer. But it doesn't look to me like any disrespect was intended. They're just saying, if we're gonna give you that much dough, this is what it's gonna take to us get there. And then if neither party can negotiate a consensus, they both walk away.

Crowder did walk away, reportedly amicably. And now he's complaining. I don't blame DW for preemtively outing themselves. People were saying it was DW all over social media. So I think at that point both sides of the story needed told since Crowder made accusations.

I have my problems with both DW and Crowder, and in terms of content and messaging in the conservative media space, I'm not taking sides. They both have their good points and bad points. Strictly in terms of this drama, it is 100% Crowder's doing. I wouldn't take DW's offer, if I were in Crowders position, but I also wouldn't be a ***** and whine about it weeks later. It's not a callout that needed to be made. There is no "con" to stop. I think it hurts conservatives to pick nits over stupid ****. Crowder picked this one. Shame on him.

 

[KLB]

DW had some terms like “in perpetuity” and "exclusive control of" that Crowder waited several weeks to decide that it was over the top.

So one of the complaints was that DW wanted control and monetization of Crowder’s social media accounts, like Youtube, Facebook, etcetera, except for the more personal ones like Twitter and Instagram. There were more things, like penalties for getting banned, and whatnot.

From DW's perspective, they were offering him $50M/year, and they want to ensure they can recoup their investment. Crowder was obviously insulted by the offer. But it doesn't look to me like any disrespect was intended. They're just saying, if we're gonna give you that much dough, this is what it's gonna take to us get there. And then if neither party can negotiate a consensus, they both walk away.

Crowder did walk away, reportedly amicably. And now he's complaining. I don't blame DW for preemtively outing themselves. People were saying it was DW all over social media. So I think at that point both sides of the story needed told since Crowder made accusations.

I have my problems with both DW and Crowder, and in terms of content and messaging in the conservative media space, I'm not taking sides. They both have their good points and bad points. Strictly in terms of this drama, it is 100% Crowder's doing. I wouldn't take DW's offer, if I were in Crowders position, but I also wouldn't be a ***** and whine about it weeks later. It's not a callout that needed to be made. There is no "con" to stop. I think it hurts conservatives to pick nits over stupid ****. Crowder picked this one. Shame on him.

Thanks. Sounds about what I was guessing. If Crowder doesn't like the offer, he is free to do things on his own.

 

[jamil]

I see both of them having fault in this and both sides having respectable positions. Historically, I found myself in the 98% agreement with both--until covid. Shapiro lost me some with his slavish slobbering over the vaccines-even after the evidence had grown enough to show they were a lie.

We only know what both sides have put out for our consumption. If I had to pick a side, I'd lean towards Crowder for now. He's always impressed me with his willingness to say what's on his mind. Shapiro seems to tend towards more towards playing it safe.

This is all just an issue of preference about content. I'm separating all that out. As I said, I have issues with both. For many of the same reasons you said. To me, the discussion is about the drama caused by one party, and whether that drama is based on legitimate concerns. At least that's what this is about to me. If we're going to decide who is in the right by whose content we like best, then it's really about sides.

I'm not saying that to imply you're doing that. But, just looking at comments on videos, and hearing other people talking about it, it's more like people side with who they like the best. I feel like it's something that needs separated. There's content both produce along with whose we like better. And there's this drama unfolding and what it all means.

I see Crowder's points. Shapiro decided to out themselves. Had they not done that, we might have suspected who Crowder was talking about but wouldn't likely know for sure.

DW outed themselves to tell the other side of the story, preemptively, because it was likely they'd be revealed eventually. There's two reasons they might do that. One is simply to protect their reputation. The whole "BigCon" thing is damaging, and if people are speculating it's DW, they have a reputation to defend. But, the other reason is, if it's a mischaracterization, they have a duty to tell their side of it. Because the first to plead his case seems right, until another comes and examines him. BigCon? I think the bounds are, either he's being disingenuous or the other extreme is he's that ignorant about business and contracts. Probably the truth is between somewhere.

Meanwhile both of them do their parts to combat the left's narrative. Too bad we have to eat ourselves instead of fighting the real enemy.

If Crowder is really about that, he should sit down, rub some vagisil on, end the drama, and get back to the culture war. I don't even think it takes an apology or an admission that he's being a *****. Just stop and let it die and get on with the real program.

 

[JTScribe]

DW had some terms like “in perpetuity” and "exclusive control of" that Crowder waited several weeks to decide that it was over the top.

So one of the complaints was that DW wanted control and monetization of Crowder’s social media accounts, like Youtube, Facebook, etcetera, except for the more personal ones like Twitter and Instagram. There were more things, like penalties for getting banned, and whatnot.

From DW's perspective, they were offering him $50M/year, and they want to ensure they can recoup their investment. Crowder was obviously insulted by the offer. But it doesn't look to me like any disrespect was intended. They're just saying, if we're gonna give you that much dough, this is what it's gonna take to us get there. And then if neither party can negotiate a consensus, they both walk away.

Crowder did walk away, reportedly amicably. And now he's complaining. I don't blame DW for preemtively outing themselves. People were saying it was DW all over social media. So I think at that point both sides of the story needed told since Crowder made accusations.

I have my problems with both DW and Crowder, and in terms of content and messaging in the conservative media space, I'm not taking sides. They both have their good points and bad points. Strictly in terms of this drama, it is 100% Crowder's doing. I wouldn't take DW's offer, if I were in Crowders position, but I also wouldn't be a ***** and whine about it weeks later. It's not a callout that needed to be made. There is no "con" to stop. I think it hurts conservatives to pick nits over stupid ****. Crowder picked this one. Shame on him.

50M over 4 years, just to clarify.

I was on Crowder's side until I learned he registered his "Stop Big Con" website in mid-December. This whole thing is an op.

 

[jamil]

Thanks. Sounds about what I was guessing. If Crowder doesn't like the offer, he is free to do things on his own.

I think he should probably go on his own. If he signs with any media company, they're going to have some things built into the contract that favors their side. Dude's got a huge reach. That's worth a LOT of money. For any company to pay him what he's worth, there will be a lot of strings attached to his compensation. He's probably not going to like any of them.

So, maybe he should hire a CEO and just go independent. Maybe he can start his own media company and then offer his own ****** contracts to the "little people".

 

[jamil]

50M over 4 years, just to clarify.

I was on Crowder's side until I learned he registered his "Stop Big Con" website in mid-December. This whole thing is an op.

Well, in terms of the drama, I think DW explained the contract well enough. Executive Summary: We'll give you suitcases of cash over 4 years, but for that to be worth it for us, this is the starting point for what it takes. I didn't really think of it as taking a side. I just thought Crowder was overreacting.

But then the bit came out about this all happening last Fall. When I saw Crowder's initial video I thought it was recent. And the whole media campaign about Stop Big Con. Yeah. Let's say I lost a lot of respect for Crowder as a person. That's totally an op. We don't need that.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

If we're going to decide who is in the right by whose content we like best, then it's really about sides.

It could be. It could also reflect who one believes is more credible based on past performance.

 

[wtburnette]

I just feel it shouldn't have been aired publicly, mostly on the part of Crowder. Don't like a contract? You can negotiate, or you can decide to pass. That's being professional. Decide to b*tch, moan and publicize it on the intarwebs and you're just being a little b*tch IMO and I've previously had a great deal of respect for Crowder.

 

[jamil]

It could be. It could also reflect who one believes is more credible based on past performance.

Well. That’s fair.

Crowder’s past performance, when no one was looking, is this BigCon schtick has been in the planning for awhile. The drama was planned. If he’s legitimately concerned about the little people, why not just call it out? Wy plan a whole campaign around it first? That makes it look like he’s picking a fight.

I don’t like that my opinion of Crowder has been lowered. I like his show. He’s entertaining. Usually on point. This stunt, to me, has ruined his credibility. He is the cause of the drama. There shouldn’t be sharp dividing lines that makes sides form. He did that. And it looks like he meant to do that.

If he’s gonna continue this campaign I’d like for him to explain why he built a big marketing thing around this first. I need something more believable than “it’s for the little people.”

 

[jamil]

I just feel it shouldn't have been aired publicly, mostly on the part of Crowder. Don't like a contract? You can negotiate, or you can decide to pass. That's being professional. Decide to b*tch, moan and publicize it on the intarwebs and you're just being a little b*tch IMO and I've previously had a great deal of respect for Crowder.

One side makes an offer of what they can do for you, and what they want in return. I do kinda think that Crowder felt insulted by it. But still. You better be right about the Big Con before you take out the website and plan out a war. So far, I don’t see the big con.

 

[DragonGunner]

There is another big YouTube star but can’t remember his name but Crowder will be on his show I think this Monday. Guy is smart and says this is no big deal really. This kind of stuff happens all the time. Crowder has his lawyers and Daily has there’s. This is just a first draft and lawyers alway fight for their own people to get the best, sometimes the lawyers are the ones making all the problems. He believes this will all settle out, it’s normal.

 

[wtburnette]

One side makes an offer of what they can do for you, and what they want in return. I do kinda think that Crowder felt insulted by it. But still. You better be right about the Big Con before you take out the website and plan out a war. So far, I don’t see the big con.

Right or wrong, Crowder now has a perception problem.

There is another big YouTube star but can’t remember his name but Crowder will be on his show I think this Monday. Guy is smart and says this is no big deal really. This kind of stuff happens all the time. Crowder has his lawyers and Daily has there’s. This is just a first draft and lawyers alway fight for their own people to get the best, sometimes the lawyers are the ones making all the problems. He believes this will all settle out, it’s normal.

Tim Pool.

 

[Ark]

I just feel it shouldn't have been aired publicly, mostly on the part of Crowder. Don't like a contract? You can negotiate, or you can decide to pass. That's being professional. Decide to b*tch, moan and publicize it on the intarwebs and you're just being a little b*tch IMO and I've previously had a great deal of respect for Crowder.

Agree. Grown men having social media spats like teenagers is embarrassing.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Crowder’s past performance, when no one was looking, is this BigCon schtick has been in the planning for awhile. The drama was planned. If he’s legitimately concerned about the little people, why not just call it out? Wy plan a whole campaign around it first? That makes it look like he’s picking a fight.

I don’t like that my opinion of Crowder has been lowered. I like his show. He’s entertaining. Usually on point. This stunt, to me, has ruined his credibility. He is the cause of the drama. There shouldn’t be sharp dividing lines that makes sides form. He did that. And it looks like he meant to do that.

See…. IMO, Shapiro and DW’s image is more tarnished after this and here’s why. With what I know at this moment, I see it as Crowder is bringing to light the establishment conservatives’ safe subservience to YouTube, Google, et al. To add to what I mentioned earlier, I’ve noticed for awhile but really hadn’t been able to put my finger on it until this blow up but Shapiro is more status-quo than Crowder. ”Get the shot, you dopes”, his qualifications on his 2A support in the past, his siding with the establishment republicans to get McCarthy voted in, and now ’don’t **** off our big tech overlords’ *****-verbiage in his contracts? Yeah, I’m tending to appreciate Crowder’s take more, in balance.

As to the timing? I can see how some would want to hang a criticism on that. We’ll see. Why would he wait and be accused of laying in the weeds all this time? It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to come up with a theory. (Even for me). I could easily postulate that there may have been some other discussions going on, maybe with other parties. It’s quite conceivable that what DW admitted to was found by Crowder to be common in the Big Con industry. It’s just that (without naming names at the outset) he used DW’s language to illustrate his industry wide concerns.

Is he causing drama? Or is he bringing to light a problem? If you’re Shapiro, it looks like drama. He certainly did his part to create it.