Politics

The Daily Mail uses baseless claims to attack prominent Youtuber Jorg Sprave

Youtube is a place where billions of people flock everyday to watch videos from their favorite personalities. Due to Youtube many people have been able to earn a living in a way 20 years ago nobody imagined possible. Anyone with an idea could start a channel and begin working on their dream.

That is exactly what Youtuber Jorg Sprave did. 8 long years ago he launched his channel and turned a hobby into a way of making money. He continued to work, continued to grow and was able to get big enough where it could be his only job. He quit his job at a German electronics firm and began to make videos full time.

Jorg grew to the point where he now boasts more than 1,000,000 subscribers.

Jorge
Jorg with his 1,000,000 subscriber award

This dream is currently in a grave state.

Yesterday morning he was confronted out of the blue by Simon Murphy and Andrew Young of The Daily Mail. Although he could’ve told them to kick rocks he decided to let them in. When they came in he offered them coffee and whatever information they needed. Little did he know the piece they would produce would be a slanderous piece of bias propaganda filled with no actual substance. These two “journalist” produced an article that tries to destroy Jorg by making baseless claims with no actual evidence.

Let’s dissect the article and see just how baseless these claims are:

“A Mail on Sunday investigation today exposes how Google has cashed in on a sickening YouTube video that shows viewers how to kill someone in a stab vest like the one worn by PC Keith Palmer when he was murdered in the Westminster terror attack.”

This is legitimately how the article begins. Acting like they exposed some huge fraudulent operation. First off this video is 100% Public. Jorg did nothing to hide the fact he makes money off this. Google and Youtube never hid the fact that they made money off him. So what did you expose? You came to the same conclusion anyone watching the video would’ve come too.

They then use terms such as “sickening” before actually showing what the video was or explaining the man himself. They do this for one reason if somebody hasn’t actually watched the video they will have no clue there is nothing wrong with it. They will have acquired a notion that the video was “sickening” before even actually seeing the video. They need to rely on their audience’s ignorance of the videos or their case will fall apart.

Don’t worry there is more from this short excerpt. They claim that the intention of this video was to learn how to kill someone wearing body armor. They also go out on a limb and say the vest was “like” the one worn by PC Keith Palmer. Both statements are false.

For anyone who decided to actually watch the video it is clear that the intention was to prove how poorly the body armor was made.

The armor boasted

“The protective vest reliably fends off knife stabs and punches and protects the upper body”

Well, he put that to the test and proved that it was a false. The vest was made with cheap aluminum and could be penetrated from a stab with enough force behind it. If his intention was to show people how to “kill” officers wearing body armor wouldn’t he have told them where the weakest points are? Wouldn’t he have told them to avoid the armor altogether? Of course, he would’ve but they failed to mention that.

So even if Palmer was issued armor(which he wasn’t) like the one used in Jorg’s video he still should recieve zero blame. Not only did he not actually commit the crime or ask someone too but Jorg’s tactics weren’t even used in the killing Palmer.

“The vile video was online for six months before the outrage and could be viewed for days afterwards, despite widespread warnings that UK jihadis use such material for training.”

This comes directly after the last excerpt we looked at. What we find are more accusations without any facts backing those accusations up. They claim that UK jihadis use such material as training but never actually give sourcing of where they acquire that info or if Jorg’s videos are used. “Use such material” leaves us with more questions than answers. This is once again an attempt to use broad statements to attempt to turn this into a story.

As you read further into the article you find the article falls apart. Struggling to find people who would actually go on record and agree with them they used Youtube comments to solidify their points. They have no clue who these people are. They have no clue if these sources are reliable. Yet they decided to use them. That is unacceptable.

We must continue to stand behind Jorg. His video was taken down by Youtube and it is clear they are not going to actually support him. The only way to support him is by sharing his video(below), liking his Facebook page and of course sharing this article. This is not something that can be swept under the rug. This is slander in the worst way. this is contempt for the readers of The Daily Mail and an attempt to destroy a mans livelihood. We cannot let that happen.

Leave a Reply