• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

MHWilliams
(09-05-2014, 02:06 AM)
MHWilliams's Avatar
Here's a take that's closer to my thoughts.

https://medium.com/@upstreamism/to-f...e-7f3ce77301bb

Regardless of which of those concerns you raised, many of you made the point that the gaming press generally does not adhere to traditional journalistic standards. You have a point. “The standard should be higher,” you told me. I’m inclined to agree.

There are, however, significant distinctions that need to be made, and virtually no I spoke to made them. More than once, I was pointed to the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics or the “10 Absolutes of Reuters Journalism” as a baseline for reform. Some of the standards we find in those are applicable across the board — bans on plagiarism, for example. Others are not.

To understand why, it’s necessary to acknowledge another distinction. Those codes were written primarily to uphold the reliability of news reportage, but not everything published in the gaming press is news reportage. Even stories that look like news aren’t always news. That’s because, historically, games journalism grew out of what’s called the enthusiast press — meaning that it was (and still is) written primarily by gaming enthusiasts, for other gaming enthusiasts.

It’s possible to see that distinction a bit more clearly if you compare the way games have traditionally written about in a venue like, say, the New York Times, versus the way they usually covered in gaming magazines. Even when they weren’t being downright skeptical, non-enthusiast publishers tended to be at least agnostic about the value of games in general. When you write for an enthusiast press, though, you’ve already thrown out some measure of objectivity, since it’s assumed that you and your reader already agree that games are worth your time, money and interest.

Its origins as an enthusiast press have left a deep impress on the industry. A current events reporter for Reuters may sneak into a war zone to get the unvarnished truth, but that isn’t how enthusiast presses work. They rely for most of their information on the companies whose products they cover. Most of the news stories you read on your favorite gaming site are based on press releases. The interviews wouldn’t be possible if the site hadn’t maintained an amicable relationship with the publisher. The juicy tidbits that weren’t meant to be revealed so early are typically the result of writers and developers chumming it up at expos and conferences.

“Corruption” probably isn’t the right word for all of that. It isn’t like gaming magazines and sites started out with the standards endorsed by the SPJ and Reuters, but lost sight of their values over time. All along, chumminess with the makers of video games has been the cost of access to the information you’ve demanded as a gamer. That isn’t a recent development, and if you’ve been supporting the gaming press up until now, then you’ve been complicit in supporting those relationship, whether you realized it or not.

And if you really think it through, you probably don’t want that to change entirely. After all, as gamers — which is to say, as enthusiasts — most of us enjoy the anticipation that’s created when a gaming site reports what they’ve learned about an upcoming release, even when that report is based on a press release. You cannot avoid or dissolve the relationships that make those reports possible, save at the cost of losing that coverage.

All the same, some gaming publications have, over the last several years, made a concerted effort to include more investigative journalism. You can usually distinguish it from news based on press releases by the fact that investigative journalism usually makes someone look bad. Which is how we should want it — that freedom to make someone look bad when they’ve done bad is what the codes and standards you pointed me to were written to protect. If you want that sort of coverage (and ask youself, do I want it? — maybe you don’t) then it makes sense to insist on more traditional journalistic standards. But because this is still a relatively new approach for the gaming press, doing so is less about decrying corruption than it is about encouraging the industry to grow.

Growth will mean insisting upon the distinction between serious investigative journalism and the sort of enthusiast reporting that has traditionally passed for gaming news. If you’re promoting #GamerGate because you like the way the gaming press covered games before writers starting investigating topics like labor exploitation and the gender divide, then you may want to stop insisting on higher journalistic standards. If those standards are important to you, then you’ll have to tolerate those sorts of articles, even when you don’t like the light they case on gaming. As William Randolph Hearst famously said, “News is something somebody doesn’t want printed; all else is advertising.”

The same goes for the third tier (after enthusiast and investigative reporting) of the gaming press: criticism. As much as, or maybe even more than, reporting, many of you told me that you wanted to ensure that game reviews remain objective. Depending on what you mean by “objective,” that may not be possible, but I think we can all agree that, at the very least, reviews should be relatively unbiased by the author’s relationship to the people or companies whose games they review.

At the same time, many of you told me that you wanted to see less social criticism in those reviews. If you really think that through, you’ll see that you can’t have it both ways. There’s a deep contradiction imbedded in the notion that, on the one hand, writers shouldn’t be beholden to developers when they review a game, and that, on the other hand, they should avoid criticisms they feel are relevant. Most game publishers don’t want to be criticized for the social prejudices they may have worked into their games. As such, the simple fact that a writer or editor would be willing to publish a social criticism ought to be treated as evidence that the venue is maintaining some independence from the industry on which it reports. Even when it doesn’t interest you, even when you disagree with what’s been said— even if, as some of you expressed, you feel personally affronted on the game’s behalf — you ought to welcome such criticism as a check on the sort of cozy developer/press relationship you’ve called corrupt.

If the sheer fact that they’re using your name to harass other gamers isn’t enough to motivate you, then maybe recognizing how they’ve worked to undermine your goals will. The fact of the matter is that some of the people they’ve driven away are people who have spent years working to transform the gaming press from an enthusiast press to a more properly journalistic industry. They’ve done so by daring to say and print things that games developers don’t necessarily want them to say. They’ve fought to make gaming more inclusive for people who have generally felt excluded. They are, in other words, deeply allied to the causes you’ve espoused, and they’re being targeted because, against all odds, they’ve managed to gain ground. You can’t afford not to rally to their defense because you can’t afford to see them give up.

There's more there, but it's worth a read.
Shingro
Member
(09-05-2014, 02:08 AM)
Shingro's Avatar

Originally Posted by jschreier

Hey mods, if you're reading this, I wish you hadn't locked that Slate thread. There was some good discussion there about a single topic, whereas this thread is kind of about 500 things at once. (kinda like GamerGate!)

signed.
bishopcruz
Member
(09-05-2014, 02:11 AM)
bishopcruz's Avatar

Originally Posted by sneaky77

I guess this is where my personal dissonance comes in, because there is absolutely nothing that has happen that you can look at impartially and come out with the conclusion that any of the attacks and how far and vicious it is have gone, can be defended.. nothing.. at all.

But at no point in the article are the attacks defended. At all.

Now you can argue that he didn't go far enough. But in general that isn't the point of the article which in my reading is attempting to parse what has at this point become impossible to parse, which is the entirety of gamergate. Gamergate currently means about a million different things to a million different people, is a mess, and has overall been handled poorly at about every critical juncture. It stared with the post about Quinn's breakup with her disgruntled boyfriend, hateful reactions to it coupled with questions about impartiality, and has pretty much since then ballooned into an uncontrollable shit-storm. Hell, I think the article's biggest failings are trying to do far too much in one piece. You can see it in the editing of the piece, it is poorly edited when judged by the standards of his previous work, and is kinda a mess as a result. I find it an interesting mess, and a pretty good attempt at being as fair as possible to everyone but the trolls, but you can definitely see it bursting at the seams.
Lime
Member
(09-05-2014, 02:12 AM)
Lime's Avatar
If you are going to link a Forbes article, here's one that's much better than Erik Kain's uninformed perspective: http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthi...nd-harassment/

Originally Posted by Jarate

Im sure he has never spoken to a single women in the industry about this

Im 100% positive that there are no women in the industry that are supporters of gamergate

I'd bet he would get a different take and comment on his piece if anyone who've gone through this debacle as a woman from the get-go. Or simply read some of the good articles that've been written by e.g. Ryerson.

Originally Posted by MrHoot

You know he did write that he tried to reach Quinn and is awaiting a response right.

I don't think discrediting his whole article because he didn't spin it entirely around mysoginy or harassment is relevant to his actual point regarding the gamergate movement

The problem is that you cannot divorce the debacle from the harassment and the misogyny. It is the very principle and outset of how the ball started rolling. It is impossible to separate the different tags from their origins.

Also, there are other tons of other people than Zoe Quinn that he could contact.

Originally Posted by Curufinwe

Ask him on twitter.

Or just continue to spew unfounded assumptions and assertions in here because you can't handle a writer having a perspective on this issue that isn't in lockstep with your own.

You seem to have a problem? Go take some fresh air if you're in such an antagonistic mood.
The Adder
Banned
(09-05-2014, 02:17 AM)

Originally Posted by sneaky77

I guess this is where my personal dissonance comes in, because there is absolutely nothing that has happen that you can look at impartially and come out with the conclusion that any of the attacks and how far and vicious it is have gone, can be defended.. nothing.. at all.

Good thing no one did that then.
Fredescu
Member
(09-05-2014, 02:19 AM)
Fredescu's Avatar

Originally Posted by RockTurtle

suddenly,everything was grounds for attacking people for their tastes. liked dragon's crown? you are a sexist and misogynist juvenile. you like fighting games? you are a sexist and racist if you belong to the scene. you like assassin's creed? you are a sexist and don't want women to be in your games.

and if you say "hold on, those are some strong accusations for people just wanting to play a game", then you get hit with a "UNLESS YOU ARE FOR PROGRESS YOU ARE AGAINST IT". i won't even dwell into the "white male" backlash if you dared dissent. or the empathyô discussion stopper. because if you aren't in this group, you obviously must be in the MRA group.

I'm coming from a position of ignorance on this, so pardon me if it's obvious, but did you jump from talking about (relatively) mainstream game journalists, to talking about blog posts and forum discussions, or did IGN and Gamestop and so on really accuse people of being racist for liking Assassins Creed?
Lime
Member
(09-05-2014, 02:19 AM)
Lime's Avatar

Originally Posted by MHWilliams

Here's a take that's closer to my thoughts.

https://medium.com/@upstreamism/to-f...e-7f3ce77301bb





There's more there, but it's worth a read.

Good read. The closing paragraphs pretty much lays it bare:

You lose because it gets harder to espouse your cause when people associate it with harassment and misogyny. You lose because the number of people actively working to make the press more reliable and gaming more inclusive dwindles a little more. You lose because more people feel excluded from gaming. You lose, most of all, because hate takes a greater share of the world.

I sincerely hope you get it figured out.

And there it is.
besada
Banned
(09-05-2014, 02:21 AM)
besada's Avatar

Originally Posted by jschreier

Hey mods, if you're reading this, I wish you hadn't locked that Slate thread. There was some good discussion there about a single topic, whereas this thread is kind of about 500 things at once. (kinda like GamerGate!)

The problem is, there are lots of articles that people think are worthy of a thread. So the question is, where do we draw the line? Do we let everyone start a thread for the article they thinks best sums things up? Or, do we follow general board policy, which is "new news, new thread?" In this case, we chose to follow board policy, and since the article is a summation of the entire schmear, we closed it and directed traffic here.

If anyone would like to discuss this further, you're welcome to PM a mod.
Jarate
Banned
(09-05-2014, 02:23 AM)
Jarate's Avatar

Originally Posted by Lime

I'd bet he would get a different take and comment on his piece if anyone who've gone through this debacle as a woman from the get-go. Or simply read some of the good articles that've been written by e.g. Ryerson.

Im 100% sure that's he's never read dissenting opinions before writing his article. Im sure he's never talked to anyone personally affected by harassment in this whole ordeal.
TheD
The Detective
(09-05-2014, 02:26 AM)
TheD's Avatar

Originally Posted by Jarate

Im 100% sure that's he's never read dissenting opinions before writing his article. Im sure he's never talked to anyone personally affected by harassment in this whole ordeal.

Appalling that any attempt to talk about these issues without going overboard are attacked by people like you!
Curufinwe
Member
(09-05-2014, 02:27 AM)
Curufinwe's Avatar

Originally Posted by Lime

If you are going to link a Forbes article, here's one that's much better than Erik Kain's uninformed perspective: http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthi...nd-harassment/



I'd bet he would get a different take and comment on his piece if anyone who've gone through this debacle as a woman from the get-go. Or simply read some of the good articles that've been written by e.g. Ryerson.



The problem is that you cannot divorce the debacle from the harassment and the misogyny. It is the very principle and outset of how the ball started rolling. It is impossible to separate the different tags from their origins.

Also, there are other tons of other people than Zoe Quinn that he could contact.



You seem to have a problem? Go take some fresh air if you're in such an antagonistic mood.

Kain is not uninformed, you simply disagree with him. You are the one with the problem here, not me. Go read the thread about Kain's article. Your opinion of it is not shared by many. If anyone needs fresh air it's the person who has spent all day complaining on GAF that their personal opinion on all that's wrong with the Videogame industry isn't constantly reflected on gaming websites.
Deitus
Member
(09-05-2014, 02:29 AM)
Deitus's Avatar

Originally Posted by MHWilliams

Here's a take that's closer to my thoughts.

https://medium.com/@upstreamism/to-f...e-7f3ce77301bb

There's more there, but it's worth a read.

There's some really good stuff in there. Thanks for linking.

Originally Posted by besada

The problem is, there are lots of articles that people think are worthy of a thread. So the question is, where do we draw the line? Do we let everyone start a thread for the article they thinks best sums things up? Or, do we follow general board policy, which is "new news, new thread?" In this case, we chose to follow board policy, and since the article is a summation of the entire schmear, we closed it and directed traffic here.

If anyone would like to discuss this further, you're welcome to PM a mod.

To be fair, this thread wasn't originally about Zoe Quinn, Gamergate, or any of the related debacle. All of that probably could have gone in it's own thread instead of here, on account of being new news.

But that ship has sailed and all of the discussion ended up here, so I guess it makes sense to continue to do so.
Gsak
Member
(09-05-2014, 02:29 AM)
Gsak's Avatar

Originally Posted by jschreier

I'm a little fuzzy on the specifics, and I know we have internal metrics too, but the number Kotaku's staff care about is U.S. people per month. You can see that by going on Quantcast and checking U.S./people: https://www.quantcast.com/kotaku.com

So our actual readership, using that "people" term instead of uniques, would be 10m global readers per month, and about 5.2m U.S. readers.

Apologizing in advance if this question appears hostile bit it's really not. Why is Kotaku only interested in US people per month? I find it kinda weird.
Lime
Member
(09-05-2014, 02:38 AM)
Lime's Avatar

Originally Posted by Jarate

Im 100% sure that's he's never read dissenting opinions before writing his article. Im sure he's never talked to anyone personally affected by harassment in this whole ordeal.

Well, I simply assumed that he wasn't aware of the fundamental aspects of this shitfest started and continued rolling since he basically relegated his opinion and description of the effects of the constant harassment of women in the games culture into a post-release update. How else would he choose to omit the fundamental aspects and consequences of how the movement has been seeped in misogyny through its course?

If the explanation instead is that he did in fact consult alternative voices and perspectives on how this shitfest has manifested itself as detrimental to some women in the games industry, then I guess he simply didn't adequately understand their experience or simply chose to dismiss it as irrelevant. Which is even more sad to think about :(
Nephrahim
Member
(09-05-2014, 02:39 AM)
Nephrahim's Avatar

Originally Posted by Gsak

Apologizing in advance if this question appears hostile bit it's really not. Why is Kotaku only interested in US people per month? I find it kinda weird.

I assume most of their advertisements are directed toward american audiences.
bigmf
Member
(09-05-2014, 02:45 AM)
bigmf's Avatar
I liked the other thread because it was a look at one aspect of the whole schmoz rather than the overall monolithic mess of issues.

Certain people in gaming media have been crapping on their audience for several years now, eg. entitled gamers, overhyping games, gamers need to accept drm, not accepting drm ruined the Xbox, etc.

It took an unrelated mess to cause the blow up.
jschreier
(09-05-2014, 02:47 AM)
jschreier's Avatar

Originally Posted by bigmf

I liked the other thread because it was a look at one aspect of the whole schmoz rather than the overall monolithic mess of issues.

Certain people in gaming media have been crapping on their audience for several years now, eg. entitled gamers, overhyping games, gamers need to accept drm, not accepting drm ruined the Xbox, etc.

It took an unrelated mess to cause the blow up.

The fundamental problem is that, as many have pointed out, the current mess isn't about that, and those people who really do believe it is are smothered by the voices criticizing "Social Justice Warriors" and bullying talented writers like Jenn Frank.
Lime
Member
(09-05-2014, 02:47 AM)
Lime's Avatar


and Zoe Quinn tweeted this:

ZoŽ ʻTom-Kunʼ Quinn ‏@TheQuinnspiracy 3h

In a shit mood from waking up to a former employer from almost 10 years ago getting in touch because THEY'RE getting bs phone calls now

ZoŽ ʻTom-Kunʼ Quinn ‏@TheQuinnspiracy 3h

They came after my partner yesterday too. Because yknow, ethics.

hellclerk
Everything is tsundere to me
(09-05-2014, 02:50 AM)
hellclerk's Avatar

Originally Posted by Moral Panic

I think the forbes article just washes over all the hateful and horrible things that have happened and just writes as if it isn't real people having their personal lives thrown about.

So cry about what I care about, but God forbid you bring attention to the actual issues.

Are you for serious? It's probably the best, most balanced piece on the issues out there. The internet abuse is tangential at best.
Moon_frogger
Member
(09-05-2014, 02:51 AM)
Moon_frogger's Avatar

Originally Posted by Lime



You seem to have a problem? Go take some fresh air if you're in such an antagonistic mood.

Funny how I was just thinking the exact same thing about your posts.
bigmf
Member
(09-05-2014, 02:52 AM)
bigmf's Avatar

Originally Posted by jschreier

The fundamental problem is that, as many have pointed out, the current mess isn't about that, and those people who really do believe it is are smothered by the voices criticizing "Social Justice Warriors" and bullying talented writers like Jenn Frank.

Right, so a separate thread about gamers getting pissed off at sections of the media was interesting, if it could be pulled out of the cacophony of gamergate, not your shield, Quinn, Sarkesian, misogyny, Sjws and a partridge in a pear tree.
Lime
Member
(09-05-2014, 02:54 AM)
Lime's Avatar

Originally Posted by doomed1

The internet abuse is tangential at best.

Uhm, no. The whole Quinnspiracy or whatever it is called was *literally* internet abuse.

Then there was the Phil Fish doxing thing. Which is internet abuse.

Then Anita Sarkeesian having to leave her home. That was also internet abuse.

Then Jenna Frank. Who quit because of internet abuse.

Then there was Mattie Brice. Who also quit because of internet abuse.

So no. The internet abuse is not "tangential at best".
Fehyd
Banned
(09-05-2014, 02:56 AM)

Originally Posted by bigmf

Right, so a separate thread about gamers getting pissed off at sections of the media was interesting, if it could be pulled out of the cacophony of gamergate, not your shield, Quinn, Sarkesian, misogyny, Sjws and a partridge in a pear tree.

Send a pm to the mod staff. TBH, I agree, theres just too many different arguments going on, and lots of strawmen being created to really have much of a discussion about any one singular topic.

I'd prefer a topic where we could discuss aspects of recent occurences other than misogyny.
Tetsuo9
Member
(09-05-2014, 03:10 AM)
Tetsuo9's Avatar

Originally Posted by MHWilliams

Here's a take that's closer to my thoughts.

https://medium.com/@upstreamism/to-f...e-7f3ce77301bb





There's more there, but it's worth a read.

I think he did a great job trying to understand what #gamergate people wants, it is very valuable as a point for to go forward. #gamergate people needs to define some clearer goals. Maybe change the tag based upon the new goals or drop it if the goals end up not being worthwhile.

This gamergate thing truly reminds me of a street protest. They are always like that, many different people with many different goals together because of some weak general ideas. But no protest would be possible if we accept the blame of the violent minority, or the people that gets stuck in the traffic, or the small business owners lose money because there is a riot in front of their shop. It's ugly, but that's how it is. At least that's how it was in the Chilean student protests since 2008, I participated in those extensively, and always peacefully.
Moon_frogger
Member
(09-05-2014, 03:15 AM)
Moon_frogger's Avatar
Like, the issue of ethics in the gaming press and the issue of the seething, gross misogyny permeating every aspect of mainstream gaming are 2 separate issues right? It's not like only one of them is allowed to exist, right? and it's ok to discuss both right? Cause everything thing I've seen for the last 2 weeks is basically pressure to only discuss one of these topics as if I need to choose a 'side' obviously one of these issues is far more urgent and in need of our collective attention but I won't be pressured by anybody to say that one or the other is insignificant. Some of these press types want us to believe that they are beyond criticism and reproach. It's insulting.

Having said that, if gamers are going to rally en masse to protest something, It shouldn't be the unfair and childish remarks of some enthusiast press. Now that we have their attention, I wish there was some way we could redirect that energy to evoke positive change in the industry and curb the rampant sexism in mainstream gaming. Any ideas, people?
ultron87
Member
(09-05-2014, 03:20 AM)
ultron87's Avatar

Originally Posted by MHWilliams

Here's a take that's closer to my thoughts.

https://medium.com/@upstreamism/to-f...e-7f3ce77301bb

There's more there, but it's worth a read.

This is great. I hope everyone reads it.
besada
Banned
(09-05-2014, 03:20 AM)
besada's Avatar
So, I was convinced we needed a #gamergate specific thread. Here it is:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthre...#post128521967

Read the OP.
Trame
Member
(09-05-2014, 03:21 AM)

Originally Posted by MHWilliams

Here's a take that's closer to my thoughts.

https://medium.com/@upstreamism/to-f...e-7f3ce77301bb





There's more there, but it's worth a read.

Wow, this is a really good article. And it speaks to why a lot of people are kind of in disbelief that people are insisting misogyny has nothing to do with "GamerGate". One thing you have to think about when there's a Twitter (or internet, generally) war is signal-to-noise. There are effectively an infinite number (assuming you stop caring after the first thousand) people on either side, all with different opinions and different approaches to making their point. It's impossible to keep track of that, so a handful of voices are always going to dominate the discussion. On the journalists side, although there are plenty of random voices, feminist or otherwise, the signal is definitely the journalists themselves. They're the ones being heard, for fairly obvious reasons (they're directly involved, and have a natural platform).

On the other side? Well, there's a few groups. The people who are doing the harassment are being heard loud and clear, and for people who have closely been following the stories of people being effectively forced to leave gaming behind to stave off future harassment, they're the biggest voice. The second biggest are people making videos on YouTube, many of whom (e.g. InternetAristocrat) are explicitly anti-feminist, and outlets like Breitbart who frankly wouldn't even care about this normally but see the opportunity to ride a wave of resentment towards feminists and their allies (seriously, Breitbart doesn't give a shit about games or game journalism). The third is probably summary articles that skim over the harassment or do nothing but present the arguments side by side (like the Al Jazeera article), and only because they're the only thing else with any visibility that doesn't explicitly paint GamerGate in a negative light.

Everyone else is the noise. Which isn't to say that if you honestly just care about corruption in the games journalism that your opinion is meaningless, just that it is not being heard. I mean, if you say something here, we here in this thread will hear it, but your viewpoint is not perceived as representative of this movement. There are probably no games journalists right now thinking "wow, people are really upset about corruption, we should change our practices if we want to keep our audience." They're thinking "wow, if you so much as defend someone with feminist leanings, or someone who's already under attack, people are going to harass your family and try to ruin your life." And that's because the people doing the real life harassment and culture war rants are so much louder and, frankly, so much more immediately important than anyone else who's sharing the tag with them.

Thread Tools