|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
All of my experiences in dealing with the GamerGate people have ended the same way - They are so completely entrenched in the idea of a conspiracy or that they wield some sort of magical power, that they absolutely refuse to listen to logic and reasoning.
All of the "data" I've been pointed to, the YouTube videos and the screen caps covered in MS Paint, do nothing to discredit the obvious information revealed by Zoe and others - GamerGate and NotYourShield are purely deflection tactics created by a#+*!$+s with the intent to harass in horrific ways.
I believe there are some genuinely good people that have mistakenly bought into the idea of GamerGate. It makes me sad to see it, because they are fighting for something that sincerely does not care about them or even journalism ethics.
When Zoe published all of the chat logs and screen grabs that prove her side of the story, many level-headed people genuinely wanted to keep the discussion of game ethics going but removed from the vileness that birthed GamerGate. Unsurprisingly, they fought the suggested #GameEthics conversation and continue to treat the whole thing like they're playing war, with cries of "Keep fighting!" and "Don't let up!"
Since my previous efforts to actually have a conversation with many GamerGate folks have been met with name-calling and closed ears, I've decided to just ignore them completely. It's too bad, because there are certainly legitimate concerns about journalism that could be talked about, but they only care about their agenda. Nothing else.
|
Ok, so I do know what sort of literary journalism I prefer and what I consider to be garbage. Usually the sort of book reviews that I can't stand are the ones designed to offer platitudes to mass-market readers (e.g., people who follow the Operah books club), while reviews I prefer are much more akin to an actual piece of literary criticism. The ones trying to make books sound appealing to a large amount of people are, unsurprisingly, often doing so at the behest of the publishing industry, which wants to generate $$$. Is this somewhat similar to the problems in video game journalism? Is there not enough criticism as opposed to marketing?
I guess I'm just confused about what exactly you want to see improved. Call me cynical, but it just doesn't surprise me when I find out that the people trying to sell something are manipulating the people that review it (with any form of media). It's why I tend to rely more on the opinions of my peers, I guess.
|
|
Do you think that we should make an effort to hold games journalism to a baseline level of integrity that nearly every other segment of media journalism is held to? Or should we be content to let it remain a joke, perpetually?Scott you are obviously not in on it the joke that is the news media.
Seriously, crappy journalism is pervasive in every single industry. You make it sound they all romantically apply the "cannons of journalism", this is simply not the case. To be a paid journalist in the entertainment industry (movies, music, sports and games) you need access. No access = no job. This is a recipe for just the type of alleged shenanigans that we are talking about. The system is broken.
This is generally my opinion of journalism. I don't see what's shocking about journalism being corrupt. I don't see how a journalism industry can exist without being corrupt. (Not to say I find that acceptable, it just means I don't usually trust reviews to help shape my opinions without accepting that I am being manipulated in some way)
I know you don't think Zoe's part in this story is newsworthy but I would argue that it's the bigger story. A story with a lesson towards those who think it's ok to bully, harass, and slut shame.
-MD
This part seems far more shocking to me than the corruption aspect.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Xn0o0cl3 -
The push behind GamerGate is that these people believe that video games and video game journalism should be completely devoid of opinions or emotion. They want just raw information, which is generally the most boring and uninteresting kind in all media.
They claim that giving a game coverage because it promotes a feminist or typically-liberal "agenda" is biased and unfair, for example. Or get mad when journalists call out blatant sexism or racism in video games, because again, they feel it's "pushing their liberal agenda."
But the thing is, every bit of journalism has an agenda. They don't comprehend that.
Well, SOME do -- the ones that created the whole GamerGate idea in the first place. There are chat logs where they laugh at the idea of "corruption in gaming journalism" because it's absurd. They openly admit to each other that these are merely smokescreens, a diversion tactic to get the attention away from their harassment of female video game developers and journalists.
Scott you are obviously not in on it the joke that is the news media.
It would be impossible not to be in on that "joke" - the ones laughing at it take every available opportunity to remind you how little trust they have for the "lamestream media".
I simply don't hold to that narrative, that's all. It doesn't line up with my understanding of how many news media organizations operate.
Seriously, crappy journalism is pervasive in every single industry.
There are plenty examples of crappy journalism out there. There are also examples of quality journalism.
I know you don't think Zoe's part in this story is newsworthy but I would argue that it's the bigger story. A story with a lesson towards those who think it's ok to bully, harass, and slut shame.
I'm okay with you making that a story, but it doesn't have anything to do with video games. As long as you aren't purposefully attempting to crush discussion of the actual games-related story going on here, you'll have no objections from me.
I believe there are some genuinely good people that have mistakenly bought into the idea of GamerGate. It makes me sad to see it, because they are fighting for something that sincerely does not care about them or even journalism ethics.
Those of us concerned with the journalistic integrity side of this aren't "fighting" for harassers or misogynists. Why do you insist on pushing that narrative?
Since my previous efforts to actually have a conversation with many GamerGate folks have been met with name-calling and closed ears, I've decided to just ignore them completely. It's too bad, because there are certainly legitimate concerns about journalism that could be talked about, but they only care about their agenda. Nothing else.
I don't see any of that happening in this thread, and there are a number of people here concerned with the journalistic side of things. Is this literally the only discussion you've come across on the topic where you haven't been called names?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Scott, you don't *think* you're fighting for harassers or misogynists, but the sad reality is that you are. They are the ones that started GamerGate, and continue to use it as a deflection tactic for their awful and shameful agenda.
There is a lot of information out there that proves this. I hope you do some research on this and other potential organizations or causes that you decide to champion; not all of them are as noble as they seem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The push behind GamerGate is that these people believe that video games and video game journalism should be completely devoid of opinions or emotion.
Source?
This isn't what I believe, and I haven't spoken to anyone who believes this.
So where did you come up with this idea?
They claim that giving a game coverage because it promotes a feminist or typically-liberal "agenda" is biased and unfair, for example.
No, I think that one of the concerns was that a game was getting an inordinate amount of positive coverage because of its politics, regardless of the game's actual quality.
Or get mad when journalists call out blatant sexism or racism in video games, because again, they feel it's "pushing their liberal agenda."
You don't get to call anything "blanket" after a post like this.
But the thing is, every bit of journalism has an agenda. They don't comprehend that.
Well, SOME do -- the ones that created the whole GamerGate idea in the first place.
So which one am I, ThreeEyedSloth? Am I one of the people who don't comprehend that journalism cannot be separated from agenda? Or am I one of the people who dishonestly created GamerGate as a way to deflect criticism of sexist harassment?
Scott, you don't *think* you're fighting for harassers or misogynists, but the sad reality is that you are. They are the ones that started GamerGate, and continue to use it as a deflection tactic for their awful and shameful agenda.
There is a lot of information out there that proves this. I hope you do some research on this and other potential organizations or causes that you decide to champion; not all of them are as noble as they seem.
There have been nearly a dozen sources of information posted in this thread that support the notion that there are some genuinely reprehensible things going on in gaming journalism surrounding this. There have been precious few sources of information to the contrary (and all of them from sites literally dedicated to getting into fights with misogynists on the internet). If you have more neutral information to share, by all means share it.
More importantly, ThreeEyedSloth, please describe the type of support I am providing to these misogynists. How am I helping them, exactly? I'd love to know what it is I'm doing that is inadvertently hurting women!
|
|
I'm okay with you making that a story, but it doesn't have anything to do with video games. As long as you aren't purposefully attempting to crush discussion of the actual games-related story going on here, you'll have no objections from me.
But video games aren't free from social baggage. Of course they are political. They're a form of media that can convey ideas, just like films or books. The people consuming them, creating them, and writing about them aren't magically exempt from having to address the political issues within and surrounding video games simply because they're video games.
Also, I'm still not sure what journalistic integrity is supposed to mean in the context of video game reviews.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But video games aren't free from social baggage. Of course they are political. They're a form of media that can convey ideas, just like films or books. The people consuming them, creating them, and writing about them aren't magically exempt from having to address the political issues within and surrounding video games simply because they're video games.
I agree with all of this!
Also, I'm still not sure what journalistic integrity is supposed to mean in the context of video game reviews.
The same thing that it is supposed to mean in the context of any media reviews.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know exactly what your agenda is, Scott. I hope it's not malicious, I like to assume the best in everyone I talk to.
But you obviously have no desire to actual discuss anything, only to pick apart posts looking for a fight. Sorry, I've had this dance with others online and like I said before, it sadly doesn't lead to anything meaningful. I wish it did, but your confrontational approach implies otherwise.
Anyway, for those that are wanting to learn more about the grossness that festers under the guise of GamerGate, I hope this and this provide some proper insight. Of course, they'll just be labeled as "biased" sources because it's not what they want to hear.
Like Muad'Dib said, the fact that GamerGate insists on ignoring the harassment of Zoe and Anita to push their own agenda is the only thing morally bankrupt going on. If they really cared about things so passionately like they claim, it's sad to not see that compassion directed towards a victim instead of such a broad and nebulous thing like "gaming journalism."
|
|
I agree with all of this!
Then I still don't get this thing you said:
I'm okay with you making that a story, but it doesn't have anything to do with video games. As long as you aren't purposefully attempting to crush discussion of the actual games-related story going on here, you'll have no objections from me.
How does this woman's harassment not have anything to do with video games? How is this issue somehow not actually game-related?
Also, I'm still not sure what journalistic integrity is supposed to mean in the context of video game reviews.The same thing that it is supposed to mean in the context of any media reviews.
Well, what does it mean in the context of media reviews? I mean, in news journalism I understand that it's supposed to mean impartiality, objectivity, and a dedication to truth, but reviews are opinion pieces. You can't have impartiality, objectivity, or truth when you're offering your opinion of a piece of media. You ESPECIALLY can't expect those things when the people producing those opinions are getting paid for their opinions, and you get even further away from integrity once the people paying for good reviews are the people producing the product. So what should journalistic integrity mean for journalists who write reviews? What should it have meant for Zoe Quinn?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know exactly what your agenda is, Scott. I hope it's not malicious, I like to assume the best in everyone I talk to.
You began by accusing literally everyone who disagreed with your position of being either a) duped and stupid, or b) malicious.
What did you expect?
But you obviously have no desire to actual discuss anything, only to pick apart posts looking for a fight. Sorry, I've had this dance with others online and like I said before, it sadly doesn't lead to anything meaningful. I wish it did, but your confrontational approach implies otherwise.
Asking you to answer a handful of questions is now "confrontational"?
And this, from someone who painted the entire "opposition" as malicious or stupid?
If you want an actual conversation, it's here. I have not been hostile, called you names, or dishonestly misrepresented you. It would be nice if you had held yourself to those standards, too.
Anyway, for those that are wanting to learn more about the grossness that festers under the guise of GamerGate, I hope this and this provide some proper insight. Of course, they'll just be labeled as "biased" sources because it's not what they want to hear.
It would probably help if, like I said earlier, you were able to locate sources of information that aren't on websites literally dedicated to getting into fights with misogynists on the internet.
Do no such sources exist?
Why don't they?
Does no non-activist source of coverage consider this important enough to provide a fact-based breakdown of what happened in a way that validates your beliefs?
Like Muad'Dib said, the fact that GamerGate insists on ignoring the harassment of Zoe and Anita to push their own agenda is the only thing morally bankrupt going on. If they really cared about things so passionately like they claim, it's sad to not see that compassion directed towards a victim instead of such a broad and nebulous thing like "gaming journalism."
No one is ignoring that! Who is ignoring that? Who here is claiming that this harassment isn't happening or that it isn't morally reprehensible?
I've asked you a lot of questions. You haven't answered any of them. I would love it if you'd take the time to answer the ones that you have been asked, instead of painting those who disagree with you as stupid or sexist.
|
|
Line-by-line antagonistic debate (note, debate. Not discussion), dismissal of factual evidence, and the placement of words in others' mouths is identical to every other conversation I've tried to hold with people involved in GamerGate. The copy-and-pasted "conversation" is old and tired by this point, and I have no interest in playing your games. Sorry.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From where I sit, Scott has been very reasonable. If you'renot inteested in discussion on this topic why are you in this thread?
Yea, I'm kind of in the same boat... I've been having a good discussion with him. We'll probably be much smaller on the mods' lock-radar if you guys just stop posting to each other in here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Line-by-line antagonistic debate (note, debate. Not discussion),
Debate is a form of discussion, usually between two people who disagree with one another.
Debate isn't a bad thing.
dismissal of factual evidence,
I haven't dismissed any factual evidence.
and the placement of words in others' mouths
Like what?
Are you saying that you didn't paint everyone who disagrees with your position as either duped or malicious? An apology here would go a long way.
is identical to every other conversation I've tried to hold with people involved in GamerGate.
It may be time to consider that the only real consistent thread throughout your interactions with other people on this topic has been you and your tactics and attitude. If the conversations sound sort of similar, that's one thing. If they sound identical, though, there's a good chance that's because you are consistently steering those conversations to a specific place time after time.
The copy-and-pasted "conversation" is old and tired by this point, and I have no interest in playing your games. Sorry.
I'm not playing a game. I am, however, beginning to believe that you really, really want to make it seem like I am.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is the most rational thing I've read about the accusations of corruption in games media:
There's no conspiracy, and the lack of evidence that there is no conspiracy is because no conspiracy exists for there to be a lack of evidence of. I think. I'm confused...
EDIT: Linkified
Scott has been reasonable and as always presents a spirited debate. However I'm a bit surprised he is picking up the OP's banner and running with it. The entire case made to support his argument has been tainted.
If this was a court case I think it would be a mistrial. Not to imply his argument is without merit. It's just the evidence in question is skeezy at best.
-MD
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Scott has been reasonable and as always presents a spirited debate. However I'm a bit surprised he is picking up the OP's banner and running with it. The entire case made to support his argument has been tainted.
If this was a court case I think it would be a mistrial.
-MD
I'm not arguing on behalf of 4chan, reddit, or any other particular community. The people harassing Quinn suck. The people using Quinn's harassment as a cudgel against anyone trying to get a word in edgewise aren't much better. There are unpleasant people on both "sides" of this (I don't actually think this discussion is limited to two factions, but there are certainly two factions dominating its narratives).
But you mention "his argument" here. I'm curious as to what you think my argument is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Three things that always bug me on this;
1 - Zoe Quinn's ex does not accuse her of sleeping with people for reviews. Just that she slept with people in the industry.
2 - She slept with one person associated with a gaming site that never actually reviewed her game. There is no evidence she slept with the other people on goodness only knows how many other websites that did give her game a positive review. Let's face it - if she did she just have been a very tired lady.
3 - Since she wasn't sleeping with people for reviews, why do people care?
I don't like Zoe Quinn very much. I've heard some nasty stuff about her, and the things she pulls. But the whole drama around her is created an sustained by people who don't like women in the games industry. If Depression Quest had been made by a guy, it would have received criticism for not allowing you to shoot sad zombies, and some praise for dealing with a tough, unpleasant issue and then moved on.
But a certain group of people wanna use this to prove that a woman being successful is about her sleeping her way to the top, not about her creating something successful.
There is a lot of sexism within the games industry, and a lot within it's fans. I've seen games take a pasting just because they allow woman as protagonists, and praise for something like Ride to Hell because 'woman know there place in it'. There are a lot of people who wanna keep games a boys club...which no longer works, given how many women play games now.
Sadly, this dying breed is now making a mountain out of a (private) mole hill. I very much doubt the same people would decry the men in the game's industry for cheating on there partners. Frankly, there was no conflict of interest, and once that was established, no place in this for anyone but the people involved.
Also...of course games can have an agenda. That's not a bad thing. Romero's Dawn of the dead were partially about becoming brain washed zombie consumers...not that many folks listened. Doesn't mean it isn't also a fine zombie movie.
Some of those gamers will want things like non-white, non-male and non-cis characters to have larger rolls in games. I've never seen anyone say straight white guys shouldn't have games for them - only that maybe the vast majority of games shouldn't all be for them, and them alone. It's amazing how many people with go, 'There, you have gay people in Mass Effect, the rest of the video games should be white guy killing people and banging stuff!' Like a tiny bit of representation should be enough. And then people whinge about having gay folks in Mass Effect...
This is the most rational thing I've read about the accusations of corruption in games media:
There's no conspiracy, and the lack of evidence that there is no conspiracy is because no conspiracy exists for there to be a lack of evidence of. I think. I'm confused...
EDIT: Linkified
^ everyone in this thread needs to read this. Particularly Necromancer.
|
|
No. He wasn't using it as a metaphor. Or if he was, it was very poorly done and well hidden. It's even in the the thread title.
Far more concern about the agenda and the cabal of academics and the Social Justice Warriors and oppression olympics and the poor oppressed Straight White Males than about the journalistic corruption that is the supposed problem.
Yea, I started perusing the OP's articles, and it looks like the people involved in the discussion of "corruption" in the gaming industry have a., no idea what feminism is, b., don't understand that video games are not some vacuum in which politics do not exist, and c., don't seem to know how ideas are spread between people.
Like seriously, it's a conspiracy that people saw sexism in video games and decided "hey, that's not cool, we should change that," then started talking to people about it? REALLY?? How do these people think ideologies are spread? Is anyone with an agenda suddenly part of a conspiracy? (Hint: everyone has an agenda! Oh my god!)
^ everyone in this thread needs to read this. Particularly Necromancer.
Agreed. That was a really good take on the whole scandal from a video game journalist.
Scott has been reasonable and as always presents a spirited debate. However I'm a bit surprised he is picking up the OP's banner and running with it. The entire case made to support his argument has been tainted.
If this was a court case I think it would be a mistrial.
-MD
I'm not arguing on behalf of 4chan, reddit, or any other particular community. The people harassing Quinn suck. The people using Quinn's harassment as a cudgel against anyone trying to get a word in edgewise aren't much better. There are unpleasant people on both "sides" of this (I don't actually think this discussion is limited to two factions, but there are certainly two factions dominating its narratives).
But you mention "his argument" here. I'm curious as to what you think my argument is.
Not to dodge your questions Scott, but why fight this battle here?
The debate that journalists should be held to a higher standard as noble as it sounds is being discussed entirely due to dubious claims made by an ex boyfriend. Horrible things were done to a fellow human and gamer in public venue. The chat logs are about as disgusting a thing as I've read on the internet. Zoe is ground zero of this particular debate.
It's not that the idea of journalists being held to a higher standard does not have merits. It's just in the context of what was said and done to a fellow human it just feels...wrong.
I'm not able to articulate it well and for that I'm sorry.
-MD
This is the most rational thing I've read about the accusations of corruption in games media:
There's no conspiracy, and the lack of evidence that there is no conspiracy is because no conspiracy exists for there to be a lack of evidence of. I think. I'm confused...
EDIT: Linkified
I think the fact that seven different gaming news organizations put out articles using recycled language on the topic of the "death" of the gamer identity in the span of 24 hours in the middle of this debacle puts to rest the notion that there was no organized attempt to manipulate the discussion by a rather ridiculous number of games journalists.
Not to dodge your questions Scott, but why fight this battle here?
The debate that journalists should be held to a higher standard as noble as it sounds is being discussed entirely due to dubious claims made by an ex boyfriend. Horrible things were done to a fellow human and gamer in public venue. The chat logs are about as disgusting a thing as I've read on the internet. Zoe is ground zero of this particular debate.
It's not that the idea of journalists being held to a higher standard does not have merits. It's just in the context of what was said and done to a fellow human it just feels...wrong.
For the same reason that it "feels wrong" to advance a cause like firearms control in the wake of a school shooting - it's a worthy cause, but one that people aren't particularly motivated to do something about until it rears its head in dramatic fashion. The unfortunate reality is that change can only happen during periods of unrest, and periods of unrest tend to be infrequent.
From the Forbes article you pointed me toI think the fact that seven different gaming news organizations put out articles using recycled language on the topic of the "death" of the gamer identity in the span of 24 hours in the middle of this debacle puts to rest the notion that there was no organized attempt to manipulate the discussion by a rather ridiculous number of games journalists.This is the most rational thing I've read about the accusations of corruption in games media:
There's no conspiracy, and the lack of evidence that there is no conspiracy is because no conspiracy exists for there to be a lack of evidence of. I think. I'm confused...
EDIT: Linkified
This many articles at once all saying the same thing seemed fishy to many, though I would argue it had nothing to do with coordination and everything to do with like minds feeding off of one another.
And I disagree - had these articles been spread out over the course of months, it wouldn't be a concern. But they came out in alarming proximity to one another and with a shared set of language that no one outside the games journalism community was using.
I hate conspiracy theories, and this does qualify as one (however minor), but come on. When seven different sites decide to report on the "death" of a specific identity on the exact same day, it's stretches credulity to believe that this wasn't planned.
I think the fact that seven different gaming news organizations put out articles using recycled language on the topic of the "death" of the gamer identity in the span of 24 hours in the middle of this debacle puts to rest the notion that there was no organized attempt to manipulate the discussion by a rather ridiculous number of games journalists.This is the most rational thing I've read about the accusations of corruption in games media:
There's no conspiracy, and the lack of evidence that there is no conspiracy is because no conspiracy exists for there to be a lack of evidence of. I think. I'm confused...
EDIT: Linkified
Ever notice how movies will come out right at the same time that deal with the same themes?
That isn't because of a conspiracy, or an echo chamber. That's because of competition. Any news article is pretty much the same. The different publications release the same information at the same time because they want to be the one people learn the news from first.
The ones who don't get the scoop will often have "copied" articles up covering the same material right after the initial news stories go up. It used to be that the latecomers would be a day or two behind. These days it's more like hours.
When you catch wind of whatever is happening and google the issue and discover that every single publication is using similar language it can look like some kind of conspiracy. Really it's just a bunch copying the initial one or two, but you can't see that because you came in after the stragglers had all caught up.
|
|
Orrrr maybe they just decided it was a dramatic even that would get them some clicks and copied each others' work? Maybe?
We don't cry conspiracy theory when the text from an Associated Press report pops up in newspapers all over the country at the exact same time. I see the same logic in the "death of the gamer" article situation.
|
|
Plus the tumblr post that shadram linked makes me think even more that this isn't a conspiracy theory. The guy in the post describes the gaming journalism industry as ridiculously small and full of like minded people, so if ALL of the people in that field know each other and interact regularly, it doesn't seem all that strange that they would post a bunch of articles espousing the same viewpoint and using the same language within a very short amount of time.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Uh. That's not the disgusting trend that is being exposed here. The disgusting trend being exposed is how a vocal minority (hopefully) will latch onto anything to spread disgusting lies and lash out at women, while hiding behind weak claims of "journalistic integrity".
I mean, they are literally discussing the pros and cons of harassing Zoe Quinn until she kills herself. (warning: not for the faint of heart.)
Are you sure that's the side you want to be on?
What these people are doing to her is utterly despicable. Their presence on one side of the debate utterly and totally taints that side's message especially in regards to this issue.
When people like this are agreeing with you, you should rethink, reevaluate, and respecify your message by leaving the entire incident involving her out. Because otherwise, your message will get lost with the likes of these truly disgusting individuals and normal people will just ignore anything you say.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Uh. That's not the disgusting trend that is being exposed here. The disgusting trend being exposed is how a vocal minority (hopefully) will latch onto anything to spread disgusting lies and lash out at women, while hiding behind weak claims of "journalistic integrity".
I mean, they are literally discussing the pros and cons of harassing Zoe Quinn until she kills herself. (warning: not for the faint of heart.)
Are you sure that's the side you want to be on?
What these people are doing to her is utterly despicable. Their presence on one side of the debate utterly and totally taints that side's message especially in regards to this issue.
When people like this are agreeing with you, you should rethink, reevaluate, and respecify your message by leaving the entire incident involving her out. Because otherwise, your message will get lost with the likes of these truly disgusting individuals and normal people will just ignore anything you say.
...That's what we're trying to do, but then we keep getting told that we can't separate them.
|
|
...That's what we're trying to do, but then we keep getting told that we can't separate them.Uh. That's not the disgusting trend that is being exposed here. The disgusting trend being exposed is how a vocal minority (hopefully) will latch onto anything to spread disgusting lies and lash out at women, while hiding behind weak claims of "journalistic integrity".
I mean, they are literally discussing the pros and cons of harassing Zoe Quinn until she kills herself. (warning: not for the faint of heart.)
Are you sure that's the side you want to be on?
What these people are doing to her is utterly despicable. Their presence on one side of the debate utterly and totally taints that side's message especially in regards to this issue.
When people like this are agreeing with you, you should rethink, reevaluate, and respecify your message by leaving the entire incident involving her out. Because otherwise, your message will get lost with the likes of these truly disgusting individuals and normal people will just ignore anything you say.
The trick is to separate your arguments from the OP with is neck deep in the whole Zoe and extreme misogynists situation.
I would actually suggest a new thread. For example, you can attack group think in gamer journalism because these guys all get together and party at the same industry bashes. The review scores will vary but a lot of the ideas are expressed similarly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
^ everyone in this thread needs to read this. Particularly Necromancer.This is the most rational thing I've read about the accusations of corruption in games media:
There's no conspiracy, and the lack of evidence that there is no conspiracy is because no conspiracy exists for there to be a lack of evidence of. I think. I'm confused...
EDIT: Linkified
I read it as it was posted and I've just read through it again, but it comes off as dismissive even if it wasn't as vitriolic as other links. I'll post some of my thoughts as I was rereading the article and the relevant text.
"Well you need to be more transparent, then."I mean, do we? This comes down to two factors: How many people are actually interested in this stuff, and at what point does the line get drawn? Do I need to start keeping a little black book about everyone I’ve ever had a brief chat with? In an industry this tiny you end up bumping into everyone - and yes, that means having a drink with that developer you quite like, but it also means having to politely shake hands with a snooty exec that genuinely still wants you eviscerated for the time you gave his game a 6/10.
Watching people whip up spider diagrams that prove most people in games know each other was a genuinely insane waste of time - you could have just asked any of us whether or not that was true, and any one of us would have happily told you. Frankly I’ve been a bit unimpressed at how much detail these diagrams lack - everybody knows everybody. To suggest that means cronyism is very naive, mind - not everyone in the industry likes each other, they just hide that relatively well out of a sense of professionalism. It’s not something I’m personally very good at, because I’m a feisty prick who should really know better.
But the core of this call for transparency comes back to an absolute lack of trust. Yes, we all know each other. Yes, most of us have shared a drink with countless developers over the years. If you don’t trust us not to let that influence our work, then no form of transparency is going to change that - we’d simply be providing you with citations to help prove this invented corruption. If you don’t trust a writer or a publication, don’t waste your time reading their stuff.
All sorts of hard work goes on behind the scenes to ensure stuff remains above-board and ethical. I mean, look on Twitter or poke your head into a pub and ethics is practically the only thing that games journalists ever seem to bloody talk about, to the point where it’s almost downright tedious.
Perhaps constantly broadcasting this group-think neurosis has been partly to blame for the current belief that ethical problem musts exist. If that’s the case it’s brutally ironic - this desire to champion squeaky-clean practices only exists because most games media desperately want to rekindle the trust that was unfairly snatched away wholesale because of the actions of an unscrupulous few. If you think you’re still furious about the Gamespot Kane and Lynch stuff, you’ve no idea how professionals feel. To see your entire profession tarred so absolutely with the same brush as a bunch of exec pricks you’ll never even meet is properly heart-rending.
This assumes that the journalist will only have a cup of coffee and a chocolate with a developer interviewee. The cries for transparency are focused on financial ties and sexual relationships. Journalistic integrity means recusing oneself when a conflict of interest arises or openly stating their relationship (whether it involves dollars or lube). The writer specifically avoids this concern.
Not every journalist will shag developers desperately seeking positive feedback and publicity, but those that do will ruin it for their peers.
"No I do believe that the games media are working together to silence us."Oh, right. Well that’s tricky. You’re sort of working from a frame of reference that’s so vastly different to the reality that I know exists that I’m not really sure how we can go about having a meaningful conversation. It’s like we’re trying to work together on a map of the earth, but one of us believes the world is flat and the other one believes the world is a triangle, you know?
The only way I could talk about how to improve games journalism with you would be to force my brain to entirely reject things I know to be true in favour of things you believe to be true. And I can’t prove that what you believe isn’t true, because it’s impossible to provide evidence that disproves evidence that as far as I can tell doesn’t actually exist.
Gosh, sorry- this has become awfully complicated. I guess the short version is that there’s no point in us having this conversation - I’m unable to integrate your perspective into the version of reality I know to be true, and you seem unwilling to consider the proposition that the conspiracies you believe in might not be real. So yeah, I’m off to do something else. Sorry.
That question is wrapped in tin foil and, again, dismisses concerns. I do not believe there is a conspiracy between video games journalism sites to stifle debate unless it has to do with their own unethical behavior (censorship, stealth revisions). I do believe that there are third parties that have no interest in video games that would love to inject their personal world-view into a culture they neither understand nor care about. And I also believe that these third parties would have zero compunctions against manipulating large groups of people for job security and/or religious/philosophical agendas.
[tangent]
You know, Jack Thompson never had this degree of support while campaigning to change the amount of violence in video games.
[/tangent]
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
