(Forgive the comma splices they were in the subtitles). We simplified an idea so much, that it made a great story, but became distorting. In both of, we didn't try to present a balanced perspective, but instead chose a take and ran with it.Īnd in regards to their Addiction video specifically:Īddiction is far from solved, and our videos should have reflected that, instead of taking one side. Here's the reason why, in a quote from said video: I will stand behind my view that the meat video doesn't meet the standards they are claiming in their trust video. And that's a shame, because when combined with the misleading information it really undermines the legitimate reasons why one should limit their meat consumption! The section of the video using these sources loses any sense of impartiality because they begin to argue for a specific moral viewpoint. I would consider those sources to be biased. About a quarter of the sources (not including the extra reading section) were from animal rights organizations. emails of his conversations with its founder, Philipp Dettmer.Coffee Break. It's funny you mention sources, because after re-watching this video I checked the sources for the meat video. Kurzgesagt (Deleted) - YouTube YouTuber Coffee Break Accuses Kurzgesagt of Being. ![]() Kurzgesagt had a staff meeting, addressed the problem and then everyone in production agreed that something needed to be done. Coffee Break emailed Kurzgesagt about the inaccuracies and asked for an. Coffee break's itinerary on this whole 'cover up' is: Kurzgesagt received these emails from Coffee break on Feb 8th, and realized that they needed to address the problem. Perhaps doubling down was too strong a phrase, but they (very quickly, as part of a list) did say that they are sticking behind it's conclusion. The average number of views per Kurzgesagt In a Nutshells YouTube video is 3. We already produce more than enough food to feed the world - the problem is that we aren't 100% good at ensuring everyone has access to it. They later state the world could feed billions more people if we stopped producing meat, but that's not even a real argument. Water used by livestock doesn't just disappear, it gets recycled. But that isn't an argument to stop eating meat - it's an argument to stop producing meat in areas with local freshwater shortages. One of the more specific arguments they use is how livestock requires much more water than plants. Their video on meat is a perfect example. ![]() ![]() I have also noticed that they sometimes use scientific findings to support their narrative, but are actually part of a much more complicated argument. It's largely because the animation is distracting and the even tone the narrator speaks in makes it difficult to tell which words are important. I find it difficult to get meaningful information from their videos. I can't speak for but from the few Kurzgesagt videos I've seen have been off in a way I can't quite describe.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |