#mediacriticism

When Marvel editor Tom Brevoort said he would rather make Marvel fans angry than have them be indifferent, the quote immediately made the rounds online. It is the sort of thing that sounds bold in a soundbite. It suggests a creator who values passion and engagement over apathy.

But the more I think about that statement, the more it bothers me. Not just as a comment about Marvel Comics, but as a glimpse into a broader editorial philosophy that I hope never comes anywhere near Gargoyles.

Because the philosophy behind that quote is fundamentally adversarial. It treats the relationship between creators and audience as something combative. The idea is that provoking the audience is good because at least they are reacting.

But storytelling is not supposed to be a fight between the creators and the fans.

The best long form storytelling is a relationship built on trust. The audience invests their time, their attention, and their emotional energy in the story. In return, the storytellers reward that investment with thoughtful character development, meaningful consequences, and narratives that respect the intelligence of the audience.

When that relationship works, you do not need to deliberately provoke anger to maintain engagement. The audience is already invested because the story itself matters to them.

That is one of the reasons Gargoyles has endured for decades. The series was built from the beginning on the idea that the story mattered and that the audience mattered. It treated its characters seriously. It respected continuity. It allowed actions to have consequences that carried forward through the narrative.

And perhaps most importantly, it never treated the audience as something to manipulate.

What Brevoort’s comment suggests is a mindset that views the audience less as partners in the storytelling experience and more as a resource to be managed. If they are angry, that is fine. If they are arguing, that is fine. If they are frustrated, that is fine. As long as they are still paying attention.

But that mindset can easily lead to the kind of storytelling that prioritizes reaction over substance. Shock over meaning. Short term controversy over long term narrative integrity.

Anyone who has followed the comics industry for a long time has seen this pattern play out repeatedly. A shocking twist. A controversial character decision. A sudden retcon designed to generate headlines and online arguments.

For a while, it works. People argue about it. Social media explodes with reactions.

But the long term effect is erosion. Readers begin to feel that their emotional investment is being used against them. That the story is less about the characters and more about generating the next moment of outrage or surprise.

Eventually the audience stops reacting.

Eventually they stop caring.

And that is exactly why the idea of Marvel having any kind of influence over Gargoyles makes me uneasy.

Gargoyles is not a property that thrives on shock value or manufactured controversy. Its strength has always been its careful world building and its respect for long term narrative structure. The series rewards viewers and readers who pay attention. It builds its mythology piece by piece, letting the characters grow and evolve over time.

That kind of storytelling requires patience. It requires a creative team that values consistency and long term planning over short term reaction.

Most importantly, it requires a philosophy that sees the audience as something to respect rather than something to provoke.

When I hear a major comics editor say that anger from fans is preferable to indifference, what I hear is an editorial mindset that measures success by noise rather than by storytelling quality.

And that is exactly the sort of mindset that Gargoyles has always avoided.

Which is why, if the choice ever arose, I would much rather see Gargoyles remain exactly where it is now than be absorbed into a publishing environment driven by that philosophy.

The front page of the News of the World's final edition on July 10th, 2011, bore a sad but proud "Thank You & Goodbye."After 168 years of captivating and scandalising the nation, the world’s highest-selling English newspaper was bidding farewell to its 7.5 million readers. The announcement sent shockwaves through the media landscape, leaving a trail of mixed emotions. While many mourned the loss of a beloved, albeit controversial newspaper, others breathed a sigh of relief, welcoming the demise of a publication they considered a blight on journalism. The air was thick with the scent of nostalgia, laced with the lingering aroma of scandal and the bitter taste of betrayal, as the nation grappled with the complex legacy of the News of the World and its impact on the global society.

Free media, the fourth pillar of a vibrant democracy, acts as a public forum, facilitating the exchange of ideas, fostering informed public discourse and empowering citizens to make informed decisions. By investigating wrongdoing, exposing corruption and bringing critical issues to the forefront of public attention, the media ensures transparency and accountability within the institutions that govern and influence the citizens. This crucial role necessitates adherence to a strict ethical and moral framework. Journalists are expected to prioritise truth and accuracy, strive for objectivity and fairness and respect the privacy and dignity of individuals. They must avoid sensationalism, misinformation and the covert manipulation of information for personal benefit or to serve vested interests.

The News of the World captivated its readers with juicy gossip and wild stories. The tabloid thrived on new scandals by meticulously building a network of sources, often through unethical and immoral means, to unearth exclusive stories about the private lives of celebrities, athletes, politicians and even the royal family. From illicit affairs and substance addictions to family feuds and personal tragedies, the News of the World seemed to have an insatiable appetite for stories that titillated and shocked its readers. This relentless focus on sensationalism, coupled with a knack for presenting stories in a highly dramatised, often exaggerated and melodramatic manner, propelled the newspaper to the top of the circulation charts, making it a formidable force in the global media landscape.

Much like the nosy neighbour who, under the guise of plucking flowers from your garden, spends more time peering into your windows than tending to her residence, today we seem more interested in the private lives of others than in addressing our concerns. This voyeuristic curiosity fuels the demand for some spicy news, driving media outlets to prioritise salacious gossip and scandalous revelations over in-depth reporting and investigative journalism. The red-top newspaper News of the World perfectly exemplified this trend. The insatiable appetite of the common public for such sensational content, driven by morbid curiosity and a desire for vicarious thrills, ultimately creates a market for unethical journalism, ensuring its continued existence and impregnable perpetuation.

This tabloid demonstrated remarkable investigative prowess, as evidenced by its exposé of the 2010 Pakistan cricket team's spot-fixing attempt and bringing the Ipswich serial murders to light. However, a disturbing disregard for ethical boundaries often overshadowed this impressive investigative acumen. The tabloid's fabricated story about a plot to kidnap Victoria Beckham, concocted solely for sensational headlines, highlighted a blatant disregard for truth and a willingness to manipulate public opinion. Furthermore, an attempt to honey-trap cricketer Shane Warne and expose his lustful bedroom adventures through an orchestrated sting operation exposed a deeply unethical approach to journalism, prioritising salacity and erosion of privacy over rational reporting.

The irony is that media has become more efficient and more prone to ethical lapses. The pressure to be first, to be louder and to capture attention at any cost has led to a decline in journalistic standards. We see this in the proliferation of clickbait headlines, the blurring of news and entertainment, the rise of opinion masquerading as objective reporting, and the unchecked spread of misinformation that has caused an information pandemic. Sensationalism reigns supreme, with tragic events exploited for views and profits. The focus has shifted from informing the public to entertaining them, often at the expense of truth and accuracy. This erosion of trust in the media has profound consequences for our democracy, leaving us ill-equipped to navigate the complexities of globalisation.

Notorious for chequebook journalism, News of the World was accused of paying substantial sums of money to laymen for exclusive scandalous and controversial stories. This practice raised serious ethical concerns and compromised journalistic integrity, as it incentivised sources to fabricate details to secure lucrative deals. Furthermore, it blurred the lines between objective reporting and entertainment, prioritising profit over truth. While no single legal framework governs chequebook journalism, ethical guidelines within the journalism profession generally discourage such practices. Critics contend that paying for information can create conflicts of interest, undermine public trust and ultimately distort the truth-seeking function and the very foundation of journalism as a profession.

Today, many reputed news outlets alarmingly rely on unchecked and unverified sources, compromising the integrity of their reporting. Paid paparazzi and gimmick promoters have become significant players in the news cycle and thrive in this environment. These sources often provide misleading or fabricated information, blurring the lines between reality and manufactured drama. This unchecked reliance on such dubious sources exposes the public to a deluge of questionable news, forcing individuals to become amateur fact-checkers, constantly scrutinising information for accuracy and bias. This not only undermines the media's credibility as a reliable source of information but also mounts a burden on commoners, forcing them to expend significant effort to discern truth from fiction.

The 2006 phone-hacking scandal exposed the darkest secrets of this tabloid. Investigations revealed a disturbing pattern of illegal activity, including the interception of voicemails belonging to celebrities, sports persons, politicians, victims of the 7/7 London bombings and even a murdered school girl, Milly Dowler.This widespread abuse of privacy, coupled with evidence of police corruption and a corporate culture that condoned such practices, ignited a public outcry and a series of high-profile investigations.The scandal tarnished the reputation of the newspaper beyond repair, leading to a loss of public trust, advertisers’ boycotts, and ultimately forcing Rupert Murdoch, the head of News Corporation, its parent company, to make the unprecedented decision to shut down the antique tabloid.

Many news outlets today cunningly craft headlines, use loaded language and manipulate punctuation, thereby manufacturing outrage and unrest. Their reliance on unchecked and unverified sources creates an environment where truth becomes a casualty. We are witnessing a subtle but insidious shift where media outlets consciously become accomplices in disseminating propaganda. This manipulation, fuelled by hidden agendas, seeks to influence public opinion, control narratives, and ultimately shape societal behaviour. As freedom of speech faces unprecedented threats, this erosion of journalistic integrity poses a grave danger to our democracy, leaving us vulnerable to manipulation and susceptible to the ulterior whims and fancies of those who control the flow of information.

March 29, 2019

The Crisis in Covering Indian Country

“When it seems the unwinding of America accelerates daily, Indigenous understanding could be an extraordinary source for enlightenment. But it must first be valued.“

Expectation: - A formal sex symbol that is being used by men. - No longer in control over her life and is being easily manipulated by Bryan Tanaka

Why You Couldn’t Find Big Media Coverage of Haaland and Davids Time has run out to convince colonized newsrooms that Indigenous issues and perspectives are necessary to the national narrative.

An Afterthought, No More Haaland and Davids Make it Unacceptable to Short-Shrift Indian Country

“Like our ancestors, those of us who crave the Indigenous narrative must forage for this sustenance of our media diets — hunt for it in digital territories like Facebook and Twitter to nourish our minds.This has to change, and Haaland and Davids are emblematic of this call to action.”

In early 2023, a new wave of content swept through TikTok's For You Page. Creators began filming themselves walking through Sephora aisles, tossing beloved products aside, telling their audiences: don't buy this. Stop spending. The hashtag #deinfluencing exploded, racking up over 150 million views in just a few months. For many users, it felt like a long-overdue reckoning with the platform's relentless consumerism: a collective exhale from the pressure to buy, buy, buy. After years of being sold everything from $599 Dyson Airwraps to celebrity-branded blushes, it seemed like TikTok was finally pushing back against itself.

But was it? When we examine the de-influencing trend through the lens of gender representation and media criticism, a more complicated picture emerges. The trend did not dismantle the beauty standards and feminine ideals that made influencer culture so powerful in the first place. It just repackaged them.

On its surface, de-influencing seemed genuinely countercultural. As Fortune reported in January 2023, creators were telling audiences to resist the pressure of viral products, to question whether they actually needed the Stanley Cup or the Charlotte Tilbury highlighter. The trend arrived amid economic anxiety; inflation was high, and younger audiences were increasingly skeptical of sponsored content after scandals like "MascaraGate," in which a popular beauty influencer was accused of wearing fake lashes while promoting a mascara on a paid partnership deal.

As HuffPost noted, marketing expert Americus Reed II described the movement as influencer culture "self-regulating" — a natural pendulum swing away from excess. Some researchers agreed: a 2025 study in the Journal of Business Research found that de-influencing had genuine positive effects, helping some users feel less pressure to conform to beauty ideals and make more intentional purchasing decisions.

But here is where the trend becomes more complicated. As PBS NewsHour pointed out in its coverage of de-influencing, many of the same creators who were telling followers not to buy certain products were turning around and recommending cheaper alternatives, with affiliate links. Clicking "don't buy the Dyson Airwrap" led viewers directly to a commission-generating Amazon storefront. De-influencing had not rejected consumption. It had simply dressed it up as wisdom.

Researcher Aidan Moir, writing in the journal Television & New Media (2025), argues that de-influencing reproduces what he calls "gendered neoliberal discourses of acceptable consumption." In other words, de-influencers are still primarily female creators telling other women how to spend, or not spend, their money. The figure at the center of de-influencing content is the smart, thrifty woman who has figured out the game. She is aspirational in a different way, but she is still aspirational. And she still tends to look a lot like the clean girl.

This is perhaps the most telling critique of de-influencing as a feminist or counter-cultural movement: it did not challenge who gets to be at the center of the frame. The women leading the de-influencing trend were, overwhelmingly, the same demographic as the women leading influencer culture — thin, white, conventionally attractive by Western standards. As The DePaulia noted, TikTok beauty culture broadly tends to market the "liberated woman" as a way to sell products, and de-influencing follows the same logic: the woman who has opted out of overconsumption is still performing a very specific, recognizable type of femininity.

Shohat and Stam's framework from "Stereotype, Realism, and the Struggle over Representation" is useful here. They argue that counter-representations are only truly subversive when they challenge the underlying structures of who is represented and how. De-influencing changes the message (buy less, spend smarter) but not the messenger. The bodies doing the de-influencing are still held up as the standard, and the underlying assumption that women's identities are inseparable from their appearance and consumption habits remains untouched.

Taken together, the clean girl aesthetic and the de-influencing trend reveal something important about how TikTok shapes gender representation. Both trends claim to be about self-improvement; one through aspiration, one through restraint. But both ultimately reinforce the idea that a woman's worth is tied to how she looks and how she consumes. TikTok's algorithm rewards both kinds of content with reach and visibility, because both are profitable: the first sells products directly, and the second generates trust that can be monetized just as easily.

Media criticism helps us see beyond the content of these trends to the structures that produce and amplify them. As researchers studying TikTok and body image have found, the platform's algorithm "tends to prioritize content that features individuals with specific body types, looks, and physical attributes, thus reinforcing narrow and unattainable beauty ideals." That structural reality does not change when the hashtag shifts from #cleangirlaesthetic to #deinfluencing. The scroll goes on, and the standards stay the same.