The Logan Paul video was possibly the most controversial internet incident of 2018. For the uninformed, Logan Paul is a YouTube celebrity, who is well-known for his video blogs. While traveling, Logan toured a forest that happened to be a common site of suicide attempts. During the tour, his group discovered a dead body. Filming the tour for his blog, Logan, as the New York Times puts it, “[began] to engage in the kinds of behavior most familiar to his viewers: exaggerated reaction shots and nervous laughter. The tone soon [became] more antic as Mr. Paul and the others appear[ed] to try to lighten the mood.”
When Logan posted the video blog, it was met with extreme backlash. Realizing his mistake, he released a written apology that evening. The next day, he removed the video from YouTube and posted an apology video. Opinions on the apology video have been divided, with it currently having 1.6 million likes and 2.2 million dislikes. Within these two groups, a host of opinions are represented.
Perhaps a better way to classify these opinions would be in the categories presented by 20th century cultural theorist, Stuart Hall. In his article, Encoding, Decoding, Hall, introduces three different positions from which an audience can determine meaning (“decode”). The “dominant-hegemonic position” tends to agree with the intended meaning of the sender, the “negotiated position” accepts some elements of the dominant position while challenging others, and the “oppositional position” maintains a viewpoint in disagreement with the sender’s meaning.
Obviously, in the case of Logan Paul’s apology, the intent was to offer acknowledgment and repentance for his actions. Those ‘decoding’ from a dominant position would likely accept the apology as sincere and contrite. They might even sympathize with Paul’s shame and regret.
A person taking a negotiated position might also view the video with a degree of understanding, but would likely not dismiss his misconduct so quickly. They would probably recognize the unretractable effect of Paul’s actions, but appreciate his efforts to remedy the situation.
In an oppositional position, one might capitalize on the permanence of the damage and the inability of an apology to compensate. Additionally, one might question Paul’s sincerity and doubt his “promise to be better.”
However, these three views are forced to agree that nothing can be done to change the past. While his behavior shouldn’t be overlooked, there’s nothing more Logan Paul can do. Part of being human is making mistakes. Sometimes, all that can be done is to apologize and learn from the experience. Hopefully, this will have taught us to carefully consider what we share and the motive behind it – it could be the difference in preventing the next online catastrophe.