Jeremy Hambly aka The Quartering informed his viewers that a number of advertisers dropped him after a hit piece from CNet Editor Ian Sherr.

In a new video, The Quartering responded to Ian Sherr’s article. He detailed the effort put into not only developing the piece but how Sherr contacted his advertisers who then had their ads pulled from Hambly’s videos.

Hambly states Sherr “contacted several of my advertisers and shamed them into pulling ads off my YouTube channel.” Hambly later indicates that the advertisers in question were Honda, GameFly, and DeVry University. He does indicate that he might pursue legal options against Sherr.

“I will leave the archived link in the description below for legal purposes, as I will be having Bill Richmond review this article
and decide if this is an actionable type of behavior.”

Then Jeremy goes into detail about how “bloggers” such as Ian Sherr deploy certain tactics in order to financially impact those they are targeting.

“There is certainly precedent for these “bloggers” to contact advertisers with a pretty much-predetermined outcome. They know if they contact Honda, Gamefly
DeVry university like they did in my case, they’re just going to pull ads from my channel. I can only imagine what the email read, ‘Would you like to comment on how your ads are supporting an angry person on YouTube who is spreading bad vibes?'”

Hambly adds, “I will not back down from a challenge at the risk of increasing intensity or the spotlight on my channel.”

This is where things get interesting. Jeremy goes on to claim in his opening that the author of the article singled him out, compared to the other YouTubers in the same article, by not only contacting advertisers but also YouTube themselves. A very similar tactic was used earlier this week by Vox’s Carlos Meza against Steven Crowder.

“It would appear to me that this author took a particular interest in my channel, taking the time out of their day to contact people who ran ads on my videos
and get me demonetized. I’m sure they also contacted YouTube because, of course, they are a verified blue checkmark blogger for a website and that’s
all they’re good for.”

Jeremy goes on to tell his audience, very clearly, that he doesn’t want anyone contacting Ian, noting that reactionary conduct is exactly what “bloggers” want.

“I will again disavow any contact of this person because that’s what they want. They have a measly three thousand followers on Twitter and by all aspects without the CNet name attached to them, nobody knows or cares anything about them. Do not contact this person. I will be responding directly to, what I consider, a targeted effort to hurt me financially. We’ll see what my lawyer says about that.”

Where did this all come from? Well, earlier this week Hambly uploaded a video that warned viewers that a hit piece from CNet’s Ian Sherr was incoming.

He began his video explaining that he had been emailed by Ian Sherr who told Jeremy that he was putting together a story about Hambly’s YouTube channel.

What Sherr didn’t realize was that Jeremy had been tipped off by an insider at CNet about the upcoming story and he cut Ian at the knees and basically told him he had no interest in participating in an interview. Jeremy believed that Ian was less interested in crafting a story about YouTube based commentary, but was rather crafting a hit piece against said commentators.

Hambly made it clear that CNet needed to be careful how they presented him because he was ready to take them to court over any damage to his reputation.

Nevertheless, Sherr appears to have attempted to paint Hambly as a woman-hater. He specifically brings up Hambly’s criticism of GameSpot’s Kallie Plagge’s review of Sony’s Days Gone game. He also mentions Hambly’s criticism of Brie Larson’s Captain Marvel. He does point out that Hambly is also a critic of the #MeToo movement.

Sherr does not include in his article that Hambly was physically confronted by Matt Loter.

Following the publishing of the article that included the fact that Sherr had influenced Honda, DeVry University, and GameFly to drop advertising on TheQuartering’s channel, Sherr would go on a lengthy Twitter post defending his hit piece.

As you can see above, Sherr admits to contacting not only YouTube, but a number of advertisers outside of Honda, GameFly, and DeVry. It definitely appears that Sherr went out of his way in order to paint a number of YouTubers in a negative light in order to make advertisers think there is something wrong with them.

What’s interesting is what Sherr actually describes as “negativity.” In his CNet article he writes:

“Their negativity comes in many forms. Some YouTubers produce a stream of videos criticizing every imaginable fault a game could have. Visual bugs. Awkward controls. Stupid storylines. Others obsess over game developers’ attempts to fix glitches.”

Sherr adds:

“There are commentators who rail against efforts to upsell players, who typically shell out $60 for a game. These microtransactions, as they’re known, can include different character designs, new looks for weapons and additional stories, and are a source of constant irritation for vocal commentators, who see them as a rip-off.”

He continues:

“Others veer into criticism of outspoken game company executives. Some attacks get personal, criticizing members of the gaming community for their looks or perceived political beliefs.”

He claims this “negativity” is done to get “the audience angry.” It’s an interesting theory of which Sherr doesn’t provide any evidence to actually back it up. In fact, he provides the opposite as he notes that LegacyKillaHD has used a thumbnail written, “GAMERS ARE ANGRY.” If the idea was to get gamers angry, they wouldn’t already be angry. It just doesn’t make any sense.

Sherr disproves his own theory. He probably should have deleted his article after that. But it’s not really an article. It’s a hit piece meant to financially attack those who dare to provide criticism of video games and the industry’s business tactics.

These hit pieces and the outrage they attempt to generate only serve to show audiences the industry isn’t interested in informing the public. They merely are trying to protect and insulate themselves in an attempt to destroy their competition. Sherr’s hit piece and those like it might give them a small leg up in the short-term, but in the long term it continues to erode the trust between the audience and journalist that is critical in reporting stories.

What do you make of Sherr’s attack on The Quartering? What do you make of The Quartering’s response? Will you trust CNet moving forward?

  • About The Author

    Jorge Arenas
    Resident Star Trek Specialist/ Writer

    If Starfleet were real his career would be in a much different place. Currently, he specializes in all things Star Trek. He loves DC but has a soft spot for Deadpool.