He loses the set money he gets.
Because he wouldn't get any money either. And has to pay for his own production of his shows.
That 100k, that 250k and that 1 mil adds up when you are paying your company
Steven Crowder takes a stand against Conservative networks
- Thread starter Zachowon
- Start date
He loses the set money he gets.
Because he wouldn't get any money either. And has to pay for his own production of his shows.
That 100k, that 250k and that 1 mil adds up when you are paying your company
Again, you don't seem to be reading what is written. He wouldn't be losing money in those chunks. He'd be losing money in a pro-rata fashion (i.e. a percentage based on time unavailable).
The set money is irrelevant to the fact that Crowder either lied or told a half truth when he was talking about being injured. This shows a lack of character on his part and makes him less trustworthy.
Just that first highlighted line "They can be wage slaves for a little bit." shows exactly what sort of bullshit is going on with DW.
Crowder makes it clear what he truly wants and cares about, and it's not him, it's what happens to the movement and country after him.
He didn't lie, he just made it clear it wasn't about the money.
Which is exactly what DW's response focused on, and dodged all the other issues Crowder brought up.
As well, the recorded voice convo in the latest vid shows Crowder made his concerns clear to Jeremy, and he was ignored, which is why he went public.
The 'wage slaves' bit shows exactly the sort of mentality that runs DW; they view all of this as a money making operation first and foremost, not as something done for the benefit of the nation and the future of the youth like Crowder is focusing on.
"It's just business." and "Wage slaves" shows why DW is betraying the Right at a fundamental level with this sort of contract, when this is about far, far more than business and Crowder understands that.
Edit: And Crowder's promise about his platform is what the Right needs, with Crowder never going to try to take anyone's Youtube revenue or force monetization of content. That promise by Crowder, plus the voice recording of Jeremy, proves which side is being more transparent.
And to most people outside your AnCap niche, this sort of abusive contract clause and application are not going to fly as 'kosher'. This is why Libertarians fail to win over a lot of voters, because they put no thought into stopping abuses by private entities, just state overreach.
No, he did lie/tell a half truth. He directly complains about specific clauses in the contract in his first video. He left out clauses in the contract that directly address some of the problems he raised.
The Daily Wire and Crowder envisioned something different. Crowder wanted a more employee relationship, one that offloads all the risk onto the employer for a hit to earnings.
The Daily Wire knew the number they needed to get Crowder's attention, and couldn't afford that money by treating Crowder as an employee, so needed to treat him somewhat as a partner, who would share in revenue hits (usually this would also imply a share in earnings, but as I elaborate below, they didn't do this in order to reach the magic number). They tried to hit the money value by offloading risk onto him, because they couldn't afford him outright. Crowder sees this as them trying to censor him, but then tells the public some of the truth, leaving out important info that showed that the company was trying to deal fairly.
There are two distinct times he does this: First, the way he phrased ownership of youtube channels (I got the impression DW would own his main one permanently, which is wrong). Second, the way he ignored the disability section of the penalty part of the contract and didn't reveal that to the public despite raising the possibility of a car accident causing him to hit the penalty cause of the contract.
Uh huh, Sure. Look, whatever your opinion of the two, the facts are that Crowder mislead in his first video as to what was in the contract and how exploitative it was.
I never even said that the contract was fair. I don't like either side. I'm just pointing out Crowder lied/hid the truth, and you're going "Call Crowder a liar? Your in league with DW!"
No one here, I don't think, has even put a finger on what the fundamental problem with the contract is (and it's a human perception one, not a legal or economic one): DW should have flopped the sponsorships/ad reads from penalties into bonuses, and reduced the base Fee. No one would have cared if instead it said DW gets X% and Crowder gets 100% - X% of revenue for ads, ad reads, etc, on the following platforms, and monetization of those platforms. It'd be the sameish value in the contract, but Crowder might have read that better.
Note that everything would work fairly similar: If an advertiser cut off Crowder, he wouldn't get revenue from said advertiser. If Crowder is banned from youtube, the advertisers would cut payments because it'd be seen by less people. And etc.
Why wasn't it done? According to Boring, there was a minimum number to get to negotiations, so Boring likely (IMO) flipped those possible bonuses into penalties to raise the baes Fee enough to get to the table. But the real number (of the theoretical fee + bonuses in the scenario above or the fee - penalties in reality) was too low for Crowder to consider. So by flipping the bonuses for penalties, the DW went from not being able to give Crowder an offer he wanted, to giving Crowder an offer that insulted him, because it sounds punitive, although it's fairly similar in how it works to the offer above.
Then Crowder, feeling angry and betrayed, posts a video in which he's loose with the facts (as described above) because he's human and emotional and that's how humans do things.
As for this being a genuine disagreement, and Crowder saying he's putting his money where his mouth is and trying a different business model: That's Capitalism working.
Last edited:
....again, that isn't how it reads in the contract.
It literally says he would lose 100k if he misses a day and does not make up for it...
Again, did you watch Reketas video?
The only people who are saying that Crowder lied are people taking the DW bullshit at face value, and now ignoring the larger context and now the voice recording Crowder has provided.
No one who is ok with treating new talent as 'wage slaves' and treating censorship as 'It's just business' has no place claiming to support and represent the new base of the Right.
No, it doesn't. It says that if he is disabled, he doesn't loose 100k, he loses money pro rata. Read.
Or as a matter of fact, watch. Rekieta Law agrees with me on this, at about 1:11:00.
Daily Wire Responds to Crowder on Contracts, Part 2 of Townhall Investigation
Tonight feels like deja vu. Yesterday, Crowder railed against an anonymous conservative media company with a contract that contained alarming terms. Today, the Daily Wire clarified that it was their c
rumble.com
He notes that if Crowder is injured/sick, he loses <$62k/missed episode instead of $100k, which Crowder never mentioned. This is not honest dealing from Crowder. This is lying by omission.
I'm looking at just the words on the contract ignoring what Boring says, and comparing them with what Crowder claimed. That's all. And Crowder ignored things on the contract, and ended up making lies by omission. It makes me trust him less.
As for whether they should be the base of the new right, I don't care. Both aren't libertarian at all. I like the Blaze better than both of them, as the Blaze features libertarian/anCap voices semi-frequently, and I don't even like the Blaze much.
What I've said isn't about who should lead the right in the media or who was better/worse, it's about was Crowder honest? And he wasn't, as I've demonstrably shown.
Last edited:
He shouldn't be losing money period, and this completely ignores that there are states of injury between 'fine' and 'disabled' that might still impede scheduled shows.No, it doesn't. It says that if he is disabled, he doesn't loose 100k, he loses money pro rata. Read.
Or as a matter of fact, watch. Rekieta Law agrees with me on this, at about 1:11:00.
Daily Wire Responds to Crowder on Contracts, Part 2 of Townhall Investigation
Tonight feels like deja vu. Yesterday, Crowder railed against an anonymous conservative media company with a contract that contained alarming terms. Today, the Daily Wire clarified that it was their c
He notes that if Crowder is injured/sick, he loses $$62k/missed episode instead of $100k, which Crowder never mentioned. This is not honest dealing from Crowder. This is lying by omission.
And you also seem to forget Crowder does things live, not as pre-recorded bits like other social media personalities, and thus he won't just have a backlog of videos to post while injured.
LOL he recorded the phone call with Jeremy Boreing. I know he says he's only done this three times and while my anecdote (IIRC) I guess technically won't negate that I remember years ago he interviewed some local journalist in Texas over the phone who labeled him Alt Right in an article she wrote and he had a live telephone conversation with her and then ended the call by saying if she realizes Texas is a one party consent state when it comes to recording phone calls and then hung up. It was one in one of their live episodes. Pretty amusing.
Oh I guess it wasn't that hard to find after all.
If you don't show up to work, you don't get paid? Is this a surprise to anyone? And maybe look at the contract that I linked? the definition of disabled used by the contract is stuff that stops him producing the show.
A backlog has jack all to do with this, I didn't mention it. What he does have is 4 weeks of personal time he can use to deal with the illness, like everyone else.
And again, whatever your opinion of whether this is good, bad, fair or unfair, what is undisputable is that Crowder clearly misrepresented what the amount was, claiming it was the full 100k instead of the pro-rated amount (a max of 62k, but almost certainly significantly less, as Rekieta says).
Look, he got angry, but his feelings got ahead of him and he ended up lying/lying by omission.
Carrot of Truth
War is Peace
I feel like both sides in this should probably be taken with a grain of salt. DW comes off as a bit sketchy but Crowder also comes off as your typical disgruntled employee who probably wants more money. Honestly they probably shouldn't be airing this shit out publicly.
Still ignoring the 'wage slave' and 'it's just business' comment and the larger context I see.
Whatever, it's obvious you won't actually engage with the larger context Crowder pointed out and which lies at the heart of his issues with the contract, instead trying to paint Crowder as the bad guy because he misunderstood the specific way and amount way the unfair penalties that enforce Youtube and other censorship regimes were going to fuck him.
You completely ignore the way the contract leaves Crowders content limits at the whim of the Youtube mods and other Left wing entities, or how the people at DW seem to be typical controlled opposition corpo-cons with that 'wage slave' bit.
However, given you have a vested interest in weakening the Right as much as the Left, I guess I shouldn't be surprised you'd ignore context to egg on infighting that hurts your opponents.
Because I already believed the Daily Wire is not perfect generally and knew they were not perfect on honesty. That doesn't affect whether or not Crowder is honest.
What Crowder did re: the repeated lying by omission, isn't a grand misunderstanding. The language was right there in plain English. The grand misunderstanding was the DW's in thinking they could afford him (HA! no.), and Crowder when he though the DW was after him when really they just we trying to hide the ways they couldn't afford him.
Context? I pointed out constant context of how Crowder was pissed about the contract, and that's probably why he was loose with the truth. Still doesn't excuse him being lying (by omission) to the public.
Before this, Crowder was far more trustworthy to me than the Daily Wire (I don't have to like someone to trust them). Now he's about equal.
Last edited:
Jeremy Boreing called DW understaffed by 50% and perpetually overworked so they better enjoy working there in his response video so calling them "Wage Slaves" (lol) casually in a personal phone call with a comedian that is supposedly your friend of ten years. Speaking of which... what kind of individual calls up a purported friend for ten years and secretly records the phone call during good faith negotiations?
It's kinda like cracking open some private DM's and snipping out some screenshots and saying "Holy shit. Look what he said about these people" that you guided them into messaging you about in between gabbing about your family vacation, how adorable your kids are and gym gains.
If someone offered me a contract like that, and expected me to be ok with it, they weren't friends no matter how cordial we were before, and making sure to have private records of what they say on the phone to you is just playing it smart.
Crowder knew that without the voice recording, it would be much harder to put the real context into the conversation.
DW is controlled opposition that is masquarding as savior of the Right, just like with so many others who toe the establishment lines.
Millionaire problems amirite?
Do you think he secretly recorded the conversations he had with PJTV? CRTV? The Blaze Media? His sponsorships? Or do you take Steven at value in that he only secretly recorded conversations three times in his life. Twice with Big Tech people and once with a purported friend for ten years over a non-binding term paper that wasn't a contract in a conversation where they apparently also talked about buying baby formula and their Childrens Christmases?
If you bring eleven 10% percent off coupons to the store, the store actually pays you for the purchase.
Crowder was open he gave evidence of stuff to other parties, so what's your point?I wonder if Quartering knew something ahead of time.
Nah...