CNet whines about angry YouTube commenters, proceeds to disable its own comments system about said whining
Many tech reporters are home to one of two extremes. On one corner you have the large, corporate-owned entity who, in all likelihood, is comfortable sleeping in bed with the world's biggest OEMs and game publishers while the other corner consists mostly of hobbyists who answer to no overseer other than themselves or a very small team. Naturally, when one of the largest "official" tech outlets writes a hit piece about the practices of YouTubers, controversy inevitably erupts.
CNet recently published an editorial complaining about the "angry" perspective and attitude most YouTube influencers, reviewers, and commenters like to assimilate in regard to consumer technology and especially video games. While we don't have a problem with editors expressing their opinions, we do find the piece to be exceedingly flawed. For one, it completely ignores the fact that content from these YouTubers can be very thorough and well-researched with frames of reference that corporate-owned entities like CNet would never dare to take. Since many independent game reviewers on YouTube aren't tied down by PR representing huge companies, they're able to take on stronger voices that may resonate more closely with players at home.
Secondly, the piece makes false claims or impressions about videos at the very start that only demonstrate the editor's bias. Suggesting that a 10-minute YouTube video is solely a "rant into a camera for 10 minutes" downplays the actual content of the video and the off-camera editing or investigative analyses that video editors often partake. Users universally blasted the piece at the bottom of the page before CNet decided to hide and disable the comments section. Readers can still see the posted comments on the mobile version of CNet at the time or writing.
The editorial is not entirely unfounded because it does make some strong points about why negativity is seemingly the most popular perspective amongst YouTube reviewers. The way it approaches the touchy topic, however, could have certainly been better.