I don't really follow this controversy, but I saw this article and thought it was a fabulous example of professionalism from Gawker. Journalism at it's very best, you could say.

https://web.archive.org/web/2014102...the-dishonest-fascists-of-gamergat-1649496579

 

The title alone marks it as overly bias.

 

Pretty sure Iztiak is being sarcastic. I read it, and I have no idea what I just read.

It's like a temper tantrum, if a temper tantrum tried to shame it's former ad sources for not laughing when they made comments about how bullying should be brought back.

Here's a choice quote towards the end:

 

BWAHAHAHAHA, ah, that guy is such a joker.

 

can one of the pro-gg people (like cruentus) sum up whats going on for me?

Cuz I seriously got no idea, other then I don't like gaming journalists cuz they don't actually review shit for its quality, but instead for helping out its creator.

 

I'll get to the rest of your post when I have more time, but I wanted to touch on this really quick.

Politics touches all forms of media. Attempting to create something "apolitical" is impossible since trying to reject politics acknowledges politics. As such, any kind of critique or review of media is going to be political in some form.

If what you want is something objective, then the review becomes meaningless and boring. "You push the 'W' key to move forward. There are some bad guys, and you kill them. You might get a medkit." Subjective reviews are interesting and entertaining -Total Biscuit or Yahtzee wouldn't be where they are now if their reviews weren't colored by their personality - and, most importantly, worthwhile.

Does this mean that someone's personal biases are going to show? Yes, it just comes with the territory. Same with websites/publications since (in general) they are going to hire writers who sync up with their biases. Acknowledging the bias, and if it syncs up with your own then great, and if not then you know what to watch out for as you read more.

 

KoP is doing a stream with that vid from earlier. Lo Ping and Sargon might show up.

http://www.hitbox.tv/kingofpol

 

...yeah, if you want me to take GamerGate seriously, streams with SoA are not going to get me there. I've seen some of his anti-feminist videos and holy shit, are they some of the most contemptible shit online.

 

Yeah, I'm not fond of Sargon's stuff either. The only streams that I actually like the information for are Whiskey Grenade's, Oliver Campbell's, and some of the open house ones though they're pretty hit and miss. I also like Internet Aristocrat's streams but that's only due to the comedy factor, the guy that does the Alex Jones and Jesse Ventura impressions is pretty funny.

 

Yeah, I'm positive, the worst thing about gamergate, or anythingv related to it, is all these fucking acronyms...

 

The cronyism going on is a huge part of what we're upset about. We've seen people that were in the credits of the game giving favorable coverage of that game, financial backers giving coverage to games, and even a roommate of a dev writing a glowing review. A lot of people simply want disclosure, personally I feel that a writer should recuse themselves and a different writer should do the piece.

We're also pushing against collusion that was taking place in the form of a google mailing list, Game Journo Pros, that neatly paralleled JournoList from mainstream media that was uncovered in 2009. GJP had competitors convincing The Escapist to censor discussion on their site, a decision that they later went back on. Recently strong evidence has came out that it was also used to determine a firing decision and blacklist a writer over a controversial uncovering of a scam.

 

Honestly, the Pinsof/Dtoid thing blows pretty much everything else GG has talked about out of the water as far as the possible ramifications go.

The Green thing is "if true..." but if true it's also major league fuckery.

 

Yeah, I did some research on the green thing, and from everything I've seen, including his own statements, the journalist should have been fired.

First off, he's a features editor for a video game site now choosing writing an editorial about a scam on IndieGogo for sex reassignment? I can understand why the staff of Destructoid would warn him off, especially considering its lack of relevance to the site, and from what I saw of his evidence, it wasn't exactly solid. Follow it up with the attempted suicide and any senior editor should have killed the story in the bud, at least until well after the person was out of hospital. Destructoid fucked up here: it shouldn't have been a warning, it should have been a flat-no.

Then again, I don't trust the journalist's judgment whatsoever, because after he ran the story, the owner reprimands him and bans him from Twitter - and then the journalist goes on Twitter anyway on the assumption he's fired? I saw the screen-capped reprimand, it's not a termination notice! And what's worse he goes to try and make things right with the supposed scammer instead of leaving the hell enough alone?

At this point, if I was the owner, I would have fired him, GameJournoPros advice or not (which should NOT have been a factor in his decision, but more on that in a bit). So then it comes to letting him resign... honestly, that's a judgment call, and considering how much of an arrogant dick with a complete lack of judgment the journalist was - I read through his entire manifesto on it, talk about self-absorption - I get the decision to fire him. Probably would have been better to let him resign quietly, but considering this journalist was flagrantly violating the owner's policy on social media - which he screencapped under the conclusion it made him innocent and if anything makes him look so much worse - I get the decision to fire him. Considering the journalist then threatens a wrongful termination suit - which he would lose - in the end it'd probably be better for the owner to let him go quietly and have him sign an NDA.

It's the ending assertions that he's getting blacklisted that are the most murky and most hard to make clear sense of - half because the timeline devolves into he said, she said, threats and counterthreats, and half because no managing editor in video games or elsewhere should ever hire that journalist because of said journalist's terrible judgment. If other industry professionals don't want to work with him, I get why. The question then becomes whether or not this is a blacklist, and this ties back to other people on that list who are 'blacklisted'. The frustrating thing is that games journalism is so small that if you have certain members who behave like dicks or have terrible judgment, word gets around simply through conversation.

Now if he was denied hiring opportunities solely based on this charge and he can prove that, that's a blacklist and it's wrong - but bad word of mouth and bad articles lead to publishers feeling antsy about hiring, especially when there are so many other competing writers who don't have that baggage. Ultimately the writing needs to stand, but a hiring and publishing decision is bigger than that - there are human factors that contribute to that decision.

As for said journalist getting threatened to keep quiet... ugh, that makes me uneasy, but I get why considering Destructoid probably can't afford the lawyer from the libel suit that the scammer would inevitably file. And I get the feeling the threats wouldn't feel necessary if the owner thought the journalist had good judgment - which he very clearly doesn't.

So when it comes down to GameJournoPros... look, the reason why JournoList was hated the way it was because it was deliberately used to push an agenda, and that's wrong. It also backfired enormously and led to a whole load people thinking 'liberals control the media', which one of those oh-so-smart writers should have picked up on. But the key element here is a mandate, and the question whether or not GameJournoPros has one... and from what I've seen, they don't seem to have that. Where the 'scandal' comes in is whether they were consulted for hiring/firing/publishing advice, which is a breach of business ethics. I get if it was about chatting with people for sources or enabling good journalism, but it seems like there was an overreach here.

So, for those who tl,dr: GameJournoPros probably overstepped their boundaries, but I don't buy they were conspiring to push a progressive mandate like JournoList was. Either way, there are some people who need to learn to keep their fucking mouths shut.

 

Internet Aristocrat has a live stream going at the moment with a bunch of people. It's got Totalbiscuit, Sargon and some other people on it. Link

 

Colgate is confirmed to have pulled out.

---------- Post automerged at 11:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:09 PM ----------

That's like saying all acts of kindness are inherently selfish. While true it's a bullshit argument. If Anti wants to make games that peddle their politics then they are more then free to do so, but if they're shitty games then don't expect people to buy or play them, and don't tell me that they are progressive or excellent games when they are clearly not.

Let's take Gone Home for example. When I first saw it on Steam I thought it was a horror/mystery game. What it really was was a short point and click game with an uninspired plot about a girl too afraid to tell her family she's a lesbian and runs away. It was boring and the mechanics sucked ass and the story was pretentious, and the less said about Depression Quest the better. If they want to get their message across they're going to have to do better then whining on Twitter and TV about how unfair it is.

But I can trust Yahtzee and TB to give their honest opinion and rating and not the party approved or the indorsed rating. I know that Yahtzee hates modern shooters, he makes no attempt to hide that, and the same for TB. They don't hide their Bias's and they let us know nifty things like when a company tried to bribe TB for review access to SoM. Polygon is blatantly SJW and rad feminist, so when they review Bayonetta and lower the rating because the reviewer didn't like the depiction of women in the game I can't trust that that is his honest opinion and not just him sucking up to the authoritarian rad fems.

And that's fine, as long as they are honest about it and realize that not everybody will agree with them and they should respect that. Gawker and its allies clearly do not.

Edit: Also could a mod change the title of the thread to Gamergate? When I started the thread I didn't think it would go this far, but now that it has I don't think the name matches the topic anymore.

 

I think it's also important to understand that media outlets have biases too. NYT is clearly liberal, and the New York Sun is clearly conservative. If you look at the amount of feminism in the Guardian or even Slate Magazine at times, it's enough to put you off anything feminist for a week, at times. If you know that Polygon is radically feminist, then there's no point blasting it for having a rad fem opinion on a game, regardless of whether it's because of the lobby or not.

Is the reviewer actually getting influenced? Of course he/she is. But then again, I don't think that any anti-feminist reviewer would actually go and join such a rad fem publication in the first place, so that makes the point moot. Just like any blatantly liberal reporter/editor wouldn't join the New York Sun, or Fox News.

I honestly think getting into the liberal/conservative bent of reviewers and speculating whether they are getting influenced by their fellows is stupid. Of course they are. Even thinking otherwise is idiocy. It's difficult for someone to keep their biases in check while reviewing something. An inherently conservative reviewer probably won't be persuaded to write a liberal-leaning review. A liberal reviewer, on the other hand... well, it's quite easy to reinforce that bias and give it just that little push.

 

And that makes it right? I know true objectivity is impossible, but we can at least strive to adhere to it. Stating that old media is so bias doesn't make it right, it just shows how far it's fallen.

Here...read this.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/10/24/how-some-gamergate-supporters-say-the-controversy-could-stop-in-one-week/

It's from the Washington Post. Up till now they've been more Anti then pro, but suddenly they post this. Maybe they really didn't have all the info and are just now getting it, or maybe they can see which way the wind is blowing and decided to start prepping for the end. What matters is that they change their opinion so easily, How can you trust a publication like that?

 

The Washington Post is doing what it should. Reporting. Mainstream publications have barely given Gamergate the coverage it deserves, especially from the pro-gamergate end. Almost no one in the mainstream media is taking their side. Mature publications like the Wash Post, or the NYT often do decide to at least understand the other side. Nothing wrong about it. To give it an analogy, just because Robert Fisk interviewed Osama Bin Laden and decided to publish that interview, it doesn't mean that he supported him.

About this article. This article is hardly pro-gamergate. It's good, old-fashioned reporting. The language is quite neutral, and simply states facts.

And also, regarding politics in reporting, I'm with Silens on this one. You can't take out your own points of view from reporting. A course in journalism tends to take you towards more objectivity, yes, but it's difficult to completely remove it. And you're also being unfair. It's okay for Yahtzee and TB to give their opinions, and they're seen as honest, while Polygon is seen as a 'rad fem site?' An argument could be made, that by deliberately excluding the role females play in games or lowering its importance, these two reviewers are consciously trying to impose their own brand of politics on gamers (Disclaimer: I have never read their reviews, so I'm assuming that these people do not mention feminism in their reviews at all). It can be had both ways.

 

Reporting on gaming news should be objective.

Reviews should be subjective.

You literally can't judge anything without injecting your own personal bias on it. Graphics, story, characters, controls etc.

On Gone Home, I was really fucking enjoying that game. The atmosphere and building tension had me on the edge of my seat. Then you get the the conclusion and my reaction was: ...so?

Expecting some truly twisted mystery and getting only the sexual orientation of that character... lol, I dunno. Am I the only person that feels like any extreme reaction (both positive/ negative) to that game kind of says the same thing?

 

Pretty much, That lame twist would have been shocking years ago, but not today. I can forgive a lot in a game if the story is good but that was just bland and uninteresting.

It's extremely pro GG for the simple fact it's trying to be fair. That article is what we wanted to see from Gawker before it went insane. The fact it took all of this shit storm to get it is pathetic. It's like when Intel pulled out, they said they were neutral and they probably meant it, but them pulling it was what GG wanted and it hurt Gawker.