Warning- reading through the absolute bullsh*t grown people with actual journalism jobs have come up with to gain our clicks into their websites, can harm you irreversibly. Symptoms such as headaches, rage episode, feminist rants and existentialism are common after reading some of the titles we’ve compiled here. Please, proceed at your own risk.
Where do I even start? The incorrect use of the word “Phandom” (did they mean Phan? This article is not about the ship so, did they mean dan and phil?)? The GIF of the overused PINOF4 screenshot with pizza and galaxy background? The madlibs of pop culture references that only the cool, young teens will get? The fact that me, a dedicated Dan and Phil fan, does not really appreciate any of this article?
This article is such a trainwreck that I couldn’t believe it was actually published with no inch of shame from either the stolen tumblr GIFs (like literally, on the very least please make your own GIFs), the fact that the best “phandom” moments are about how they’re cute and that’s the only reason we like them, or the sad Mean Girls reference in 2016.
This absolutely makes me want to cry. Who wrote this???? Please learn to love yourself??????
Remember October 2015 when we were attacked by not only a f*ckton of YouTuber books but also by reviews from mainstream media written by old people who either hate their job or think that books written by famous people are ruining the industry? Of course, a lot of them were insulting but that’s not why we chose this one for this “listicle”. This review by The Guardian, besides grouping all YouTuber books in one big article (As if they are all the same content!), reviewed them by certain amount of standards they had to approve and TABINOF was one of the winners. Even though it was a good, well researched review, they found a way to insult us. They always do, don’t they?
The pair also avoid the trap of underestimating their fans’ intelligence: on a guided tour of their London apartment, Dan writes that the depicted desk is “where I am writing these very words”. “Dan!” Phil retorts. “I told you to stop breaking the fourth page.”
Why, please, tell me why you must condescendingly give a pat in the back to Dan and Phil for treating us like the intelligent humans we actually are.
3 Shout Magazine- All of it.
Here’s just an example of what we have to put up with every time Shout Magazine decides to publish another issue of… whatever they do. Boy, i can’t believe they make money out of printing stuff that’s literally free on the internet. Do they not care about the planet?
Now you might say ‘But guys, if you could make money with this sad excuse for journalism, wouldn’t you too?’ to which we can confidently reply: We have self respect.
It was difficult to choose just one of the many of WeTheUnicorns’ so-called “articles” to prove how bad it is. But, like, just look at this one. You just can’t make this sh*t up. We’ll be back to talk about WeTheUnicorns’ though, it won’t end like this.
Now you may think terrible journalism is only a recent phenomenon trying to leech off of Dan and Phil’s success. Sadly, that is not the case. The joke that is mainstream media attempting to talk about YouTube dates back to as early as 2013, when this gem of an article caused quite a commotion within the phandom – and rightly so. Not only does it completely invalidate any creative effort that goes into YouTube and fan videos, it even stoops as low as to comment on Dan and Phil’s appearance – which, in a way, can of course be justified as the author’s ‘opinion’ but well, you are trying to be taken seriously here, so at least find proper criticism. The only good thing about this article is how they start off by pointing out that Dan and Phil’s content is clearly not aimed at them – and they should have either left it at that or tried to find their joy in life, because my 43 year old mum actually quite enjoys YouTube. All in all: Angry journalist is angry about people making money with loving their life. Next.
Fast-forward to 2015. Yet another mainstream media journalist decides to tear their work apart by making condescending remarks about their content, their “Bieber-esque” hair (can every journalist get over this?, it’s been 8 years) and of course, us. The difference between then and now is that Dan and Phil have a best-selling book and a sold out tour that included 2 nights at the actual London Palladium, This seems to have baffled our little Josh Glancy, who takes the time to turn every sentence in this article into a way to dismiss and put down everything Dan and Phil have worked for and also question why we support them like we do.
The article is bizarre in a lot of ways, but what makes it even more incredible is the second half of it, when he proceeds to interview them. It’s funny how everything he quotes is a direct contradiction to everything he describes. He calls them sex icons at the beginning but once asking, they reply that we only fancy them ironically. He mentions they are reluctant to talk about their income, yet estimates Dan’s wealth in 2m pounds. Even more incredibly so, he asks Dan directly about “gay rumours” to which Dan replied asking for privacy yet the whole scenario was somehow still included in the article. It’s almost as if this really wasn’t an article about them and their success and it was just an excuse for mainstream media to once again tear down what they don’t understand and not even make an effort to try to understand it.
It’s impossible not to think of Rita Skeeter from Harry Potter in this part where he asks them about the sponsored Oreo video “incident” from 2014;
“What we’re annoyed by is that people think there was an incident, but the story was that nobody did anything wrong,” adds Dan. “The ASA were deciding what the rules are, which is good and necessary thing”
Has the bruising episode put them off doing sponsored content?…”
(sighs) I think at this point I’m entering the 5th stage of grief; acceptance of journalism idiocy.
Told you we’d be back to talk a little bit more about WeTheUnicorns. This article was our breaking point. The one thing that sparked the idea of taking journalism into our own hands.
As part of WeTheUnicorns’ debate section in which they take a rather serious and interesting subject, explain it very shallowly, and then divide it’s core question into 3-4 options in a poll. This specific one is about how online communities act and how it is the YouTuber’s responsibility to control the behaviour of every single one of their 100k+ fans.
See, I can deal with WeTheUnicorns writing sh*tty ‘articles’ about Phil’s hair or Dan’s 2012 gifs, because if what you want is some low effort contentless clickbait that pays your rent, it’s understandable. Sad, but understandable. But here is an article that pretends to put the high note on a topic while presenting:
- Bad research
“Dan & Phil’s collaborations with other YouTubers are few and far between”*
*(Out of Phil’s last 8 videos, 4 were collabs)
- Unfair speculation
“It would evidently be naïve to say that the Phandom’s intense investment in the pair’s daily lives hasn’t contributed in some way [to them not choosing to collab].”
- Poor understanding of fandom culture
“More influential and rational members do their bit to keep the more excitable ones (read: the “shipping side”) in check.”*
*(84% of the phandom do at least partially ‘ship’ phan – that includes most bigger phandom accounts)
And calling that journalism isn’t only ridiculous – it’s downright offensive.
So far, every attempt to make journalism about YouTube and fandom culture has been pointless as it always comes from people who don’t even try to understand what we’re about.
They critique what we like, what we do, how we dress, yet there is obviously no intention of actually trying to comprehend us.
And that was why we wanted to start this, we need to take this horse by the reigns, stand up and tell them to f*ck off because no one even seems to stick up for us.