I completely agree. One video is informational, but they had multiple in a relatively short timespan. In many cases, he makes a video about a subject, then comes back some weeks later with a follow-up, and I think that’s what he should’ve done. He says he’s not doing it for drama, and I still kind of believe him, but at the end of the day it is drama, whether he intends it that way or not.

The initial video was great. He gathered information, went to the source to discuss it, and aired the relevant parts of that discussion. That should’ve been the end of it, even with the new information about the golf events. But no, he went on a second tirade about the golf thing (and he didn’t seem to try to contact Jirard again), and that wasn’t nearly as well researched as the original, and his follow-up to Jirard’s response was almost an hour long, more than twice as long as actual response and had unprofessional, meme-y video loops.

So my take is that the first video was genuinely in search of a solution, the second was rushed, and the third was unprofessional “dunking” on Jirard. He made his point well in the first video and should’ve left the golf thing until he was able to research it better, which probably would’ve been combined with a response to Jirard’s follow-up. I still absolutely respect Mutahar, I just think we went way overboard here.

situation

On a completely unrelated note, I don’t like how often Mutahar uses that word…