文字的力量：反驳“油管至上”的误导与对严肃传媒的坚持

在采访李老师发行LI币的节目，中王志安一直暗示，想要传播思想就做油管，油管算法好棒棒，如果赚不到钱就是能力欠佳，市场的选择。就差说，万般皆下品，唯有油管高。而且他说他已熟悉了怎样避开黄标。我觉得他的观念错误且自私！观看量、收入根本不能和新闻质量划等号。目前西方最严肃的媒体还是纸媒，也几乎只有纸媒才有深度调查报告，虽然看电视和视频的人多的多，也更赚钱的多。但文字传媒永远不能被取代！

这就是我坚持在X上写文章的原因，即使看的人没有视频多，X也几乎没有钱。我一年累计有几千万的阅读量，不过也就是大概两百多刀的收入，扣掉X订阅费，也就剩一百多刀。几千万流量如果在油管上早就赚大发了。视频平台很容易插播广告，文字很难，这也是天生视频传媒比文字更赚钱的原因。

但在视频领域，大众往往喜欢哗众取宠的东西，有时候越胡说八道越有流量，越赚钱。而阅读的人群是更严肃的。我的目标人群就是严肃的阅读群体。而且正因为写文字不怎么赚钱，所以我们的目标也很单纯，更严肃和客观。

再说一遍，文字传媒不可被取代。更何况油管的算法和言论审查都很有问题。这两点恰恰说明了马斯克亏本买下X的重要性，对美国乃至全世界的言论自由都具有重大贡献。如果王志安是对的，那马斯克简直就是个蠢货，应该把买X的钱去买Google的股票。然而并不是每一个人都这么短视和利益至上。

当然我不排斥视频，好多人也会请我在油管上当嘉宾，我有时候也会帮忙做一些节目。但这些节目几乎都是不在乎观看量和黄标的，有好几个频道干脆不开广告，因为如果还要惦记着不要被黄标，会损失广告费的话，那很多真话都不能讲了。

所以我认为王志安的想法很有问题，他的意思就是如果想传播思想又需要钱的话就做油管，不做就是你的问题。我当然可以不在乎X没有收入，但是很多人确实需要收入，理想不能饿肚子。所以我完全理解这些人需要捐助和帮助。当然我觉得发币欠妥，但我更不认同王志安的油管至上的暗示。我觉得他这是非常片面的，且站着说话不腰疼。

我以前也很喜欢王志安的节目，故事讲得绘声绘色，我相信他作为职业媒体人，都是尽职核查过事实的。直到他做了几个节目，不同的节目，涉及到了李南央和其他的几位我的好友，才发现这几个节目中全部都有很多最基本、公开的信息都是错误的。没有做到最基本的严谨以及最浅显的核对工作，给当事人造成困扰。连他自己评论区的粉丝都指出来他错了，他也不澄清。所以从此以后我对他的节目的诚信大大打了折扣。

当然我也知道很多朋友的油管节目做的很不错的，收入也不错。但是王志安这种暗示油管至上，你做不好不赚钱就是你的问题，市场的选择，这是非常错误的。很多赚钱以及流量大的，可能在胡说八道。而且油管也不是唯一的选择，也不应该是唯一的选择。

我不反对油管，我也会被人邀请当嘉宾，日后可能我也会把我的文章做成视频放在不同的频道上。但是对于我以及邀请我的主播来讲，观看量和收入都不是最重要的。我做嘉宾不拿一分钱，我如果有朝一日自己把文章做成节目的话再说。我的朋友们也是抱着有收入最好，被黄标也不怕的心态，有些直接把广告都关掉了。播放量和收入根本不能代表质量。王志安的市场选择说非常的荒谬。

On Wang Zhian's Implicit Advocacy for YouTube Supremacy: A Flawed and Selfish Perspective

In an interview about Li's LI Coin initiative, Wang Zhian repeatedly hinted that anyone seeking to spread ideas should turn to YouTube, praising its algorithm as outstanding. He implied that failing to earn money on YouTube is due to a lack of competence and market demand. He went as far as to suggest that YouTube stands supreme, demeaning other mediums in comparison. Furthermore, he claimed to have mastered how to avoid the "yellow-tag" demonetization. I find his views fundamentally flawed and selfish! Viewership and revenue do not equate to the quality of journalism. The most serious Western media outlets are still in print, where investigative reports are thoroughly conducted, even though TV and video formats attract far larger audiences and generate significantly more revenue. Text-based media remains irreplaceable!

This conviction is why I continue writing on X, even though fewer people read articles compared to watching videos, and the platform generates negligible income. Over the past year, I’ve accumulated millions of views, earning roughly $200—about $100 after deducting subscription fees. A comparable audience on YouTube would generate substantial revenue. The innate ability of video platforms to incorporate ads makes them far more profitable than text media.

However, the video space often thrives on sensationalism. Outrageous content frequently garners higher traffic and more profits. Conversely, readers tend to be more serious. My target audience comprises thoughtful and serious readers. Because writing generates minimal income, our goals remain pure, focusing on accuracy and objectivity.

Let me reiterate: text-based media is irreplaceable. Moreover, YouTube's algorithm and content moderation raise significant concerns. These flaws highlight the importance of Elon Musk’s decision to acquire X at a loss, a move with profound implications for global freedom of speech. If Wang Zhian were correct, then Musk would appear foolish, better off investing in Google stock. Yet, not everyone is shortsighted or driven solely by profit.

I don’t oppose video content. Many invite me to appear as a guest on their YouTube channels, and I occasionally assist with shows. These programs are often unconcerned with viewership metrics or demonetization, with some channels opting to forgo ads entirely to avoid self-censorship for fear of losing ad revenue. The pursuit of truth cannot be constrained by financial concerns.

I find Wang Zhian’s ideology problematic. He implies that if you seek to spread ideas while needing income, YouTube is the only viable path. Not pursuing this avenue is framed as a personal failing. While I can accept that X generates no revenue for me, others genuinely require income—ideals cannot sustain a hungry stomach. I fully understand why some people rely on donations and financial support. Though I find cryptocurrency fundraising questionable, I disagree even more with Wang Zhian's YouTube-centric perspective. His view is overly simplistic and detached from reality.

I used to admire Wang Zhian’s programs for their vivid storytelling, trusting that, as a professional journalist, he diligently fact-checked his content. However, several of his shows, particularly those involving Li Nanyang and other acquaintances, revealed numerous fundamental and publicly available inaccuracies. These errors caused distress to those involved. Even when fans in his comment sections pointed out his mistakes, he failed to clarify them. Since then, my trust in the integrity of his programs has significantly diminished.

I am aware that many friends run excellent YouTube channels and earn good income. But Wang Zhian’s insinuation that success or failure on YouTube reflects one’s competence and market validation is absurd. Many highly profitable and widely viewed channels thrive on misinformation. YouTube is not, and should not be, the sole platform.

While I do not oppose YouTube and may one day adapt my articles into videos on different platforms, viewership and revenue remain secondary for me and the hosts who invite me. I never charge for guest appearances, and any future monetization of my articles will depend on circumstances. Some friends even turn off ads on their channels altogether. Play counts and revenue are poor indicators of quality. Wang Zhian’s market-choice argument is fundamentally flawed.