And Now For Some Truth

[Thanatos2k]

"Journalistic integrity" has been the fig leaf over the flaccid, disfigured, wart-covered genitalia that is the GamerGate movement since its inception. I come here to remove it.

The problem with asking for journalistic integrity is that you're not asking for it from actual journalists. Does Yatzhee have a degree in journalism? Do any of the guys at Giant Bomb or Destructoid? Guys, this isn't some Woodward and Bernstein level stuff here. Nobody's going to get beheaded for uncovering the secret munitions factories being built by Activision as part of their new viral marketing campaign for Call of Duty.

As one AAA developer was quoted as saying - "If you aren't a journalist, then don't come to E3."

These glorified bloggers want to have their cake and eat it too. They want all access to industry events, free swag, in advance review copies and builds that would be privledged to actual journalists, but also want to disavow any notion that they have to conform to any reasonable set of ethics.

It's unacceptable and the excuse that "Well they were never journalists" doesn't fly.

That just sounds like a complete abuse of the word journalism to me. What product reviewers are is advertisers, essentially. There's a reason why the so-called journalists at the Escapist are at the same level as the Youtube Let's Players. Because they don't exist for any other reason but to sell games. Any integrity on their part is an illusion. You continue to read their stuff because you want to be advertised to about the games you're looking forward to. And they get paid and get perks for being good at selling Activision's or EA's or Gearbox's brand.

These sites do not claim to be marketing wings of developers (though they often are used as such).

They are PRETENDING to be unbiased sources of reviewing and information. If they want to throw off the facade and say "We are a site representing feminism in games and will rate down any game we deem sexist" then sure go for it. Don't go to E3, don't get press passes to GDC or what have you. But to PRETEND like they are something they're not is unethical.

 

[BillyBlackSheep]

"Journalistic integrity" has been the fig leaf over the flaccid, disfigured, wart-covered genitalia that is the GamerGate movement since its inception. I come here to remove it.

The problem with asking for journalistic integrity is that you're not asking for it from actual journalists. Does Yatzhee have a degree in journalism? Do any of the guys at Giant Bomb or Destructoid? Guys, this isn't some Woodward and Bernstein level stuff here. Nobody's going to get beheaded for uncovering the secret munitions factories being built by Activision as part of their new viral marketing campaign for Call of Duty.

As one AAA developer was quoted as saying - "If you aren't a journalist, then don't come to E3."

These glorified bloggers want to have their cake and eat it too. They want all access to industry events, free swag, in advance review copies and builds that would be privledged to actual journalists, but also want to disavow any notion that they have to conform to any reasonable set of ethics.

It's unacceptable and the excuse that "Well they were never journalists" doesn't fly.

That just sounds like a complete abuse of the word journalism to me. What product reviewers are is advertisers, essentially. There's a reason why the so-called journalists at the Escapist are at the same level as the Youtube Let's Players. Because they don't exist for any other reason but to sell games. Any integrity on their part is an illusion. You continue to read their stuff because you want to be advertised to about the games you're looking forward to. And they get paid and get perks for being good at selling Activision's or EA's or Gearbox's brand.

These sites do not claim to be marketing wings of developers (though they often are used as such).

They are PRETENDING to be unbiased sources of reviewing and information. If they want to throw off the facade and say "We are a site representing feminism in games and will rate down any game we deem sexist" then sure go for it. Don't go to E3, don't get press passes to GDC or what have you. But to PRETEND like they are something they're not is unethical.

Aaaaaaaaaaand the weird, creepy anti-feminism pops up. Well, that didn't take long.

 

[Adam Lester]

These people are product reviewers. The only events that they cover are trade shows. The only stories that they break are reposting PR packets from AAA studios. The standards you're asking for don't apply to them because they're not important enough to be that rigorous. Seriously, this is a hobby. These guys aren't Time Magazine. They're Fisherman's Weekly. They're maybe a step up from Cosmo and a step down from Parade. And that's being generous.

If you seriously think that "journalistic integrity" is an issue here then you don't understand what either of those words mean. And you clearly don't understand the relative lack of importance that your hobby has next to real news.

Cosmo and Fisherman's Weekly don't write articles shaming or degrading their readers.

 

[BillyBlackSheep]

These people are product reviewers. The only events that they cover are trade shows. The only stories that they break are reposting PR packets from AAA studios. The standards you're asking for don't apply to them because they're not important enough to be that rigorous. Seriously, this is a hobby. These guys aren't Time Magazine. They're Fisherman's Weekly. They're maybe a step up from Cosmo and a step down from Parade. And that's being generous.

If you seriously think that "journalistic integrity" is an issue here then you don't understand what either of those words mean. And you clearly don't understand the relative lack of importance that your hobby has next to real news.

Cosmo and Fisherman's Weekly don't write articles shaming or degrading their readers.

I would argue that all of Cosmo's articles both shame and degrade their readers. Also, while Fisherman's Weekly is a fictional magazine that I invented as an example of a hobbyist publication in opposition to a hard-hitting journalistic publication like Time Magazine, I would argue that its make-believe editorial staff comes off as extremely resentful of its own readership. I mean, "10 Trouts To Catch If You're A Smelly Jerkface"? Come on, that's just mean.

 

[Something Amyss]

Exactly. By the definitions that the GamerGate people are using, PewDiePie would count as a "journalist". And clearly there are zero standards which that guy's working by.

It's not unreasonable to ask for journalistic standards from the media, even self-styled press. The absurd part is how poorly these standards are policed by the very people who demand them.

I think the bigger problem is the community itself. The people policing aren't very ethical, and for a long time (pre GG), people have basically complained about bad journalism and bias simply because review X doesn't say what I want it to say.

 

[Hebby]

For "gamergate". Let me guess! Started out with a "noble" idea. Honest game journalism and all that. But when a bunch of gaming nerds get what they think is collective power, they turn in to petty bullies and now (drunk with that power) they are screaming social justice warriors going after anyone that might oppose their agenda which they apparently now have. Drinking Cola and eating pizza between the "battles". Once more unto the breach dear friends...

Does that sums it up?

Tell both gamergate (who ever the they are in their boy rooms) and feminists to shut up and go back to their games and try to have fun. This is silly. Game journalism isn't journalism which actually matters. It is just product reviews.

 

[the December King]

"Journalistic integrity" has been the fig leaf over the flaccid, disfigured, wart-covered genitalia that is the GamerGate movement since its inception. I come here to remove it.

The problem with asking for journalistic integrity is that you're not asking for it from actual journalists. Does Yatzhee have a degree in journalism? Do any of the guys at Giant Bomb or Destructoid? Guys, this isn't some Woodward and Bernstein level stuff here. Nobody's going to get beheaded for uncovering the secret munitions factories being built by Activision as part of their new viral marketing campaign for Call of Duty.

As one AAA developer was quoted as saying - "If you aren't a journalist, then don't come to E3."

These glorified bloggers want to have their cake and eat it too. They want all access to industry events, free swag, in advance review copies and builds that would be privledged to actual journalists, but also want to disavow any notion that they have to conform to any reasonable set of ethics.

It's unacceptable and the excuse that "Well they were never journalists" doesn't fly.

That just sounds like a complete abuse of the word journalism to me. What product reviewers are is advertisers, essentially. There's a reason why the so-called journalists at the Escapist are at the same level as the Youtube Let's Players. Because they don't exist for any other reason but to sell games. Any integrity on their part is an illusion. You continue to read their stuff because you want to be advertised to about the games you're looking forward to. And they get paid and get perks for being good at selling Activision's or EA's or Gearbox's brand.

These sites do not claim to be marketing wings of developers (though they often are used as such).

They are PRETENDING to be unbiased sources of reviewing and information. If they want to throw off the facade and say "We are a site representing feminism in games and will rate down any game we deem sexist" then sure go for it. Don't go to E3, don't get press passes to GDC or what have you. But to PRETEND like they are something they're not is unethical.

Aaaaaaaaaaand the weird, creepy anti-feminism pops up. Well, that didn't take long.

Well, to be fair, the OP starts by calling GamerGate limp-dicked, so it was eventually going to rattle someone, that hostile, belittling tone and all.

(And I am well aware that no, "specific" reference was made to a penis. And that was cute, too!)

Interestingly enough, if anyone wants my opinion, I do think that the whole 'journalism under fire' thing is a bit strange, and might have been the reactionary lunge to credibility made by a small group who were caught being genuinely mad, if not emotionally invested, in the actions of some individuals, whether it was their business or not, at the onset of all this. I personally can see how scandals can be polarizing. But this built-up anger is not healthy. Without a means to control the movement, it becomes dangerous to it's own (albeit questionable) ideals.

Is GamerGate about inclusivity at all?

 

[Adam Lester]

These people are product reviewers. The only events that they cover are trade shows. The only stories that they break are reposting PR packets from AAA studios. The standards you're asking for don't apply to them because they're not important enough to be that rigorous. Seriously, this is a hobby. These guys aren't Time Magazine. They're Fisherman's Weekly. They're maybe a step up from Cosmo and a step down from Parade. And that's being generous.

If you seriously think that "journalistic integrity" is an issue here then you don't understand what either of those words mean. And you clearly don't understand the relative lack of importance that your hobby has next to real news.

Cosmo and Fisherman's Weekly don't write articles shaming or degrading their readers.

I would argue that all of Cosmo's articles both shame and degrade their readers. Also, while Fisherman's Weekly is a fictional magazine that I invented as an example of a hobbyist publication in opposition to a hard-hitting journalistic publication like Time Magazine, I would argue that its make-believe editorial staff comes off as extremely resentful of its own readership. I mean, "10 Trouts To Catch If You're A Smelly Jerkface"? Come on, that's just mean.

Okay, I'll give you the Cosmo thing and in my defense I don't fish and was jumping to conclusions about its existence.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I think the journalism angle came in much later as a way to fight back against articles like the ones written by Polygon and so forth. It's not about ethics, it's about people being obnoxious. It would be like someone snatching a copy of "50 Shades of Grey" out of your hands at the laundromat, skimming the thing and then topping it off by throwing wild accusations regarding your sex life. It doesn't matter if they're right or wrong in their assumptions, they're still a prick and it's safe to say that you'd be justified in flipping out right back at them.

 

[BillyBlackSheep]

These people are product reviewers. The only events that they cover are trade shows. The only stories that they break are reposting PR packets from AAA studios. The standards you're asking for don't apply to them because they're not important enough to be that rigorous. Seriously, this is a hobby. These guys aren't Time Magazine. They're Fisherman's Weekly. They're maybe a step up from Cosmo and a step down from Parade. And that's being generous.

If you seriously think that "journalistic integrity" is an issue here then you don't understand what either of those words mean. And you clearly don't understand the relative lack of importance that your hobby has next to real news.

Cosmo and Fisherman's Weekly don't write articles shaming or degrading their readers.

I would argue that all of Cosmo's articles both shame and degrade their readers. Also, while Fisherman's Weekly is a fictional magazine that I invented as an example of a hobbyist publication in opposition to a hard-hitting journalistic publication like Time Magazine, I would argue that its make-believe editorial staff comes off as extremely resentful of its own readership. I mean, "10 Trouts To Catch If You're A Smelly Jerkface"? Come on, that's just mean.

Okay, I'll give you the Cosmo thing and in my defense I don't fish and was jumping to conclusions about its existence.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I think the journalism angle came in much later as a way to fight back against articles like the ones written by Polygon and so forth. It's not about ethics, it's about people being obnoxious. It would be like someone snatching a copy of "50 Shades of Grey" out of your hands at the laundromat, skimming the thing and then topping it off by throwing wild accusations regarding your sex life. It doesn't matter if they're right or wrong in their assumptions, they're still a prick and it's safe to say that you'd be justified in flipping out right back at them.

Don't worry. I was just kidding around with the Fisherman's Weekly bit. You didn't have any way of knowing.

I think your analogy changes a bit when "reading 50 Shades of Grey" is altered to "stalking and harassing women".

 

[Adam Lester]

These people are product reviewers. The only events that they cover are trade shows. The only stories that they break are reposting PR packets from AAA studios. The standards you're asking for don't apply to them because they're not important enough to be that rigorous. Seriously, this is a hobby. These guys aren't Time Magazine. They're Fisherman's Weekly. They're maybe a step up from Cosmo and a step down from Parade. And that's being generous.

If you seriously think that "journalistic integrity" is an issue here then you don't understand what either of those words mean. And you clearly don't understand the relative lack of importance that your hobby has next to real news.

Cosmo and Fisherman's Weekly don't write articles shaming or degrading their readers.

I would argue that all of Cosmo's articles both shame and degrade their readers. Also, while Fisherman's Weekly is a fictional magazine that I invented as an example of a hobbyist publication in opposition to a hard-hitting journalistic publication like Time Magazine, I would argue that its make-believe editorial staff comes off as extremely resentful of its own readership. I mean, "10 Trouts To Catch If You're A Smelly Jerkface"? Come on, that's just mean.

Okay, I'll give you the Cosmo thing and in my defense I don't fish and was jumping to conclusions about its existence.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I think the journalism angle came in much later as a way to fight back against articles like the ones written by Polygon and so forth. It's not about ethics, it's about people being obnoxious. It would be like someone snatching a copy of "50 Shades of Grey" out of your hands at the laundromat, skimming the thing and then topping it off by throwing wild accusations regarding your sex life. It doesn't matter if they're right or wrong in their assumptions, they're still a prick and it's safe to say that you'd be justified in flipping out right back at them.

Don't worry. I was just kidding around with the Fisherman's Weekly bit. You didn't have any way of knowing.

I think your analogy changes a bit when "reading 50 Shades of Grey" is altered to "stalking and harassing women".

"Twilight" or "The Game"?

 

[Grottnikk]

Just because a subject is unimportant in the grander scheme of things doesn't mean that it cannot be reported on with honesty and integrity. And if it *can* be, then it ought to be. The people who are interested in the topic, no matter how trivial, deserve no less.

Why do they deserve honesty and integrity? First off, the journalist owes it to him/her self. I wouldn't stamp my name on something I'd written if I knew it wasn't true. Where the hell is the reporter's pride? Second, the people reading the article are paying the journalist in one way or another - whether it's by buying a magazine, clicking a link, or watching a show. I deserve my money's worth. This ties into the final reason - If I find out that someone's journalistic integrity has been compromised, then I'm not going to trust their opinion any more. If enough people stop trusting a journalist, then they can kiss their career goodbye (or move to Fox news ).

I don't think it's too much to ask that the person who's article I'm reading, who's opinion I may be trusting in order to make a decision whether to spend my money on a given product or not, adhere to a very basic and unimposing set of ethical standards. If it is, then the person writing the article shouldn't be writing the article.

 

[Thanatos2k]

"Journalistic integrity" has been the fig leaf over the flaccid, disfigured, wart-covered genitalia that is the GamerGate movement since its inception. I come here to remove it.

The problem with asking for journalistic integrity is that you're not asking for it from actual journalists. Does Yatzhee have a degree in journalism? Do any of the guys at Giant Bomb or Destructoid? Guys, this isn't some Woodward and Bernstein level stuff here. Nobody's going to get beheaded for uncovering the secret munitions factories being built by Activision as part of their new viral marketing campaign for Call of Duty.

As one AAA developer was quoted as saying - "If you aren't a journalist, then don't come to E3."

These glorified bloggers want to have their cake and eat it too. They want all access to industry events, free swag, in advance review copies and builds that would be privledged to actual journalists, but also want to disavow any notion that they have to conform to any reasonable set of ethics.

It's unacceptable and the excuse that "Well they were never journalists" doesn't fly.

That just sounds like a complete abuse of the word journalism to me. What product reviewers are is advertisers, essentially. There's a reason why the so-called journalists at the Escapist are at the same level as the Youtube Let's Players. Because they don't exist for any other reason but to sell games. Any integrity on their part is an illusion. You continue to read their stuff because you want to be advertised to about the games you're looking forward to. And they get paid and get perks for being good at selling Activision's or EA's or Gearbox's brand.

These sites do not claim to be marketing wings of developers (though they often are used as such).

They are PRETENDING to be unbiased sources of reviewing and information. If they want to throw off the facade and say "We are a site representing feminism in games and will rate down any game we deem sexist" then sure go for it. Don't go to E3, don't get press passes to GDC or what have you. But to PRETEND like they are something they're not is unethical.

Aaaaaaaaaaand the weird, creepy anti-feminism pops up. Well, that didn't take long.

It's just a specific example. Don't get too fixated.

 

[Fox12]

"Journalistic integrity" has been the fig leaf over the flaccid, disfigured, wart-covered genitalia that is the GamerGate movement since its inception. I come here to remove it.

The problem with asking for journalistic integrity is that you're not asking for it from actual journalists. Does Yatzhee have a degree in journalism? Do any of the guys at Giant Bomb or Destructoid? Guys, this isn't some Woodward and Bernstein level stuff here. Nobody's going to get beheaded for uncovering the secret munitions factories being built by Activision as part of their new viral marketing campaign for Call of Duty.

These people are product reviewers. The only events that they cover are trade shows. The only stories that they break are reposting PR packets from AAA studios. The standards you're asking for don't apply to them because they're not important enough to be that rigorous. Seriously, this is a hobby. These guys aren't Time Magazine. They're Fisherman's Weekly. They're maybe a step up from Cosmo and a step down from Parade. And that's being generous.

If you seriously think that "journalistic integrity" is an issue here then you don't understand what either of those words mean. And you clearly don't understand the relative lack of importance that your hobby has next to real news.

Would you say that this applies to a typical film reviewer?Would it have been acceptable for Ebert and Roeper to be paid by the same companies that made the films they reviewed? Would it be ethical for a book reviewer, or a restaurant critic, to be paid by the company they are reviewing? Of course not, it would hurt the reputation of the entire industry because you wouldn't be able to trust the reviews. Why are games different? Because they're not importent? They're not art? they're not culturally significant? That's not true, and it hasn't been true for a while. How can we epect games to be taken seriously if we don't take them seriously? They're just as legitimate as film, and we should demand higher expectation from people in the industry.

I'm not a #gg follower, but that doesn't mean they're wrong about journalistic ethics. It's a problem, and it will continue to be a problem until we demand better.

 

[Slayer4472]

"Journalistic integrity" has been the fig leaf over the flaccid, disfigured, wart-covered genitalia that is the GamerGate movement since its inception. I come here to remove it.

The problem with asking for journalistic integrity is that you're not asking for it from actual journalists. Does Yatzhee have a degree in journalism? Do any of the guys at Giant Bomb or Destructoid? Guys, this isn't some Woodward and Bernstein level stuff here. Nobody's going to get beheaded for uncovering the secret munitions factories being built by Activision as part of their new viral marketing campaign for Call of Duty.

These people are product reviewers. The only events that they cover are trade shows. The only stories that they break are reposting PR packets from AAA studios. The standards you're asking for don't apply to them because they're not important enough to be that rigorous. Seriously, this is a hobby. These guys aren't Time Magazine. They're Fisherman's Weekly. They're maybe a step up from Cosmo and a step down from Parade. And that's being generous.

If you seriously think that "journalistic integrity" is an issue here then you don't understand what either of those words mean. And you clearly don't understand the relative lack of importance that your hobby has next to real news.

*Monocle pops out*

My word! What an odious, uncouth statement!

To the docks with you, you rapscallion!

 

[Happiness Assassin]

Stephen Totilo, EiC of Kotaku does in fact have a journalism degree. When you call yourself a journalist, which he, along with Jason Scherier and others at that site, you should be held to a certain standard of ethics.

And even then, even if I were to concede that they weren't "journalists" but "product reviewers," I would say they are still held to some sort of standard. Without any kind of standard for such reviewers, what is to stop them from having their opinion bought out? When there is the potential to be a conflict of interest, no matter the damn label you use. Is adhering to a set of standards so hard? Just because this is a niche market, does not mean that asking for the journalism of said market to not be shit is some sort of ridiculous demand.

Also, I have yet to see anyone attack Yahtzee, as he is a comedian first and reviewer second. His job isn't to provide a quality opinion, it is to provide us laughs and he has made no attempt to hide that.

 

[Irick]

The generalization is mostly for the big thread, where I haven't been treated with much respect. I didn't used to generalize, I really didn't. Until several times more or less being backed into a corner until I finally gave up and just left the thread completely. I am now speaking out about it a bit more, so you'll have to forgive me because I know there are some people in there that are just wonderful people, you are quite engaging to talk to, as is Mikey, but in an overall sense, it's become a mess, if you don't mind me saying so.

Oh, I never even really entered into that big thread. I hate mega threads because the entire discussion becomes so cyclical and really no one knows any context for more than like three pages anyway. It gets really frustrating and the only people with the endurance to partisipate in a thread that has like seven hundred pages are usually going to be rediculously factionised.

At any rate, I also agree with the number/star thing. *snip*
Personally I think they should get rid of all of them in the media criticisms, but that's just me.

I agree, that's a point in general I dislike as well. It so much encourages people not to read the review and just look at the score, which doesn't give you any real use. Even Ebert's thumbs up thumbs down stuff was better. At least it was a solid recommendation of the worth of the film as a whole rather than some sliding scale gradient with no real meaning.

Also, I'm not sure what conflates to a conflict of interest. Getting a free copy of a game? Well most movie critics get to see the movies for free, or book reviewers get a free copy of the books. Knowing someone in the industry? Again, most well known critics in the other industries are known for being friends with directors, actors, producers, writers, etc. This happens in industries that are small. And these industries are much smaller than we are led to believe. Now if they're taking kick backs, obviously that's a huge conflict of interest. Or if, like IGN, they're advertising the game in question, and then write a review for the game in question and just happen to give the game a 10/10, that's a bit shady as well.

In the end it's up to the journalist to decide what they feel is worth disclosing, but a general guideline iss disclose everything that could reasonably influence your perception of the game. If getting free games is the norm, disclose when you have to buy yourself. If else, disclose when it breaks the norm. If you know a guy in the industry more than occasionally rubbing elbows as an industry event and you are reviewing something personal to them, you might want to mention that the developer is your friend. Contextualize that relationship so the reader isn't left out of the loop.

When it comes to monetization, yeah. I think I can litterally just sum that up as "don't be IGN"

But it seems to me (and here I am generalizing again, but this is just an over all notice, not on everyone) that the voice of GG doesn't seem to be going after people at IGN or the bigger sites that bring in revenue from the same people they are reviewing, but are going after small time journalists that just happen to be friends with small time developers. And that is something I find to be a problem. It may not be for other people, but I don't find that to be right, and I think that if there is a true problem, you start at the top and you work your way down.

Well, there have been some legitimate cases of string pulling and censorship when it comes to indie devs. I think Jim Sterling even did a video about it a while back in the context of rampant deletion of negative reviews, censoring of discussion on steam forums and abusing DCMA takedowns. Honestly, this is probably an issue too.

If it's a roach problem, you don't get rid of roaches by killing every single roach, you get poison, spray it in their nest, and then weed out the rest of them as needed, if that analogy makes sense.

...
So... what you're saying is... we need to poison the nests of bad journalism.
I don't know... is that still seedy bars and bushes?
:3

 

[BillyBlackSheep]

Stephen Totilo, EiC of Kotaku does in fact have a journalism degree. When you call yourself a journalist, which he, along with Jason Scherier and others at that site, you should be held to a certain standard of ethics.

And even then, even if I were to concede that they weren't "journalists" but "product reviewers," I would say they are still held to some sort of standard. Without any kind of standard for such reviewers, what is to stop them from having their opinion bought out? When there is the potential to be a conflict of interest, no matter the damn label you use. Is adhering to a set of standards so hard? Just because this is a niche market, does not mean that asking for the journalism of said market to not be shit is some sort of ridiculous demand.

Also, I have yet to see anyone attack Yahtzee, as he is a comedian first and reviewer second. His job isn't to provide a quality opinion, it is to provide us laughs and he has made no attempt to hide that.

Even if we were to accept the idea that these people are somehow journalists, even the ones that are primarily entertainers like Yahtzee or LPers (although I have no idea where you want to draw THAT line), then they'd still be at such an abysmally low rung of journalism that their code of ethics would be razor-thin.

As regards GamerGate, it's just not worth the fuss. Or the dedicated harassment campaigns for that matter.

 

[Mikeybb]

"Journalistic integrity" has been the fig leaf over the flaccid, disfigured, wart-covered genitalia that is the GamerGate movement since its inception. I come here to remove it.

The problem with asking for journalistic integrity is that you're not asking for it from actual journalists. Does Yatzhee have a degree in journalism? Do any of the guys at Giant Bomb or Destructoid? Guys, this isn't some Woodward and Bernstein level stuff here. Nobody's going to get beheaded for uncovering the secret munitions factories being built by Activision as part of their new viral marketing campaign for Call of Duty.

These people are product reviewers. The only events that they cover are trade shows. The only stories that they break are reposting PR packets from AAA studios. The standards you're asking for don't apply to them because they're not important enough to be that rigorous. Seriously, this is a hobby. These guys aren't Time Magazine. They're Fisherman's Weekly. They're maybe a step up from Cosmo and a step down from Parade. And that's being generous.

If you seriously think that "journalistic integrity" is an issue here then you don't understand what either of those words mean. And you clearly don't understand the relative lack of importance that your hobby has next to real news.

I appreciate the argument that enthusiast press requires less of it's writers than actual journalists.
They're small time, as you say.

Though, by that logic, some of the issues they try to tackle would then be a little bit more than their talent and skill can do proper service to and as such, any time they do try to engage with something important, it'd probably be a little bit beyond their amateur hour efforts.

I still think that expecting more from the writers in question isn't a bad thing, but there is some strength to the argument that if you want professional levels of journalism, expect to have to pay for it.

Final point.
I cannot ever be too far in opposition to a person who can use the phrase "flaccid, disfigured, wart-covered genitalia" in an opening sentence.
It's poetic.

 

[blackmanon4chan]

snip

ok, i didnt read any of your post. i must admit cuz it's time for serious time. ive even borrowed the serious room from stanley principle and have filled it with a even more serious table. ive gone to the most serious store i could find, replaced that old worn out table and got a new even more serious table.

now im going to take off my central most gamergate hat(as this is officially politics now with centers). and im going to ask you this right here. did you really think a condescending cry to reason was going to work? right now im working on the assumption that all gamergaters are the extreme super misogynist working from the hollowed out volcano that is 4chan and im trying to process things. and im flummoxed why you though this was going to work. you basically start of insulting their entire cause and then proceed to talk down to the lot of the gamergate audience, with an idea that they will all fall in line afterward and obey your plea. im not trying to be mean, trust me i get the idea of "women are in danger, we must protect them" sentiment coming from my fellow anti(ive taken off my gg hat and put on an anti one). but seriously did you believe that undermining them would work? before you rebut with well they've been doing to us. i need to preemptively strike with "did that line of logic work in elementary school?" but man if you wanted to actually end some movement that you believe is truly wrong coming at the issue with understanding rather than pure contempt is the better way to go. don't point me to other peoples comments i care about yours. dude i get the attempt really, you believe people are in danger. i get it, this wasnt the right way to go about trying to get what you want. once again i dont care about others comments or someone else who did what, we start change with the man in the mirror. but then look at me I've taken a condescending tone when talking about another who has taken a condescending tone lol. lighten up dude.

ok anti hat off, central most gamergate hat back on. Mother **** gawker!!!!!!!!! yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

[V da Mighty Taco]

Le sigh, I really can't stand either side of this debate. It seems like neither side is willing to treat each other as actual human beings and actually discuss things civilly. Nope, the person one disagrees with is just an evil SJW or misogynist. The people in GamerGate can't possibly be genuinely upset at both the state of the game's media and the constant demonization of gamers as a whole, they just want to put women down. Nor can anyone disagree with GG without being part of the conspiracy to push an SJW agenda or just being too ignorant to know better. Clearly, what people say their opinion is isn't actually their opinion at all. Regardless of side, beliefs, or what they're actually stating, everyone on both sides of the fence is clearly just a bunch of harassment-endorsing haters. Strawman arguments are just a myth!

-_-

I know this looks like hyperbole, but this is honestly how both sides come across. Virtually everyone seems to be of the opinion that they don't have to hear out the other side or show them any respect because that other side is too vile to deserve it, which leaves us all in this fucked up scenario where everyone is guilty of hypocritical bs and absolutely nobody has the moral high-ground. No, shitting on people in GamerGate doesn't make you the better person. Nor does shitting on anti-GamerGate. It just leaves everyone covered in shit - that's why it's called a shitstorm.

I do genuinely hope I don't get mod-wrath for this, but I honestly feel like this needs to be said. Nobody seems to have any perspective or empathy at all for those they disagree with. There's also a massive tendency for both sides to ignore, downplay, or even attempt to justify full-on harassment of people on the other side. Yes, journalists and anti-GGers have been harassing people too, just as much as GG has. Seriously, just as much. There genuinely is not a better side in this.

Spoiler: At this point, I'm just tempted to side with Ganondorf. Compared to everyone in this debate, he seems downright classy.

At this point, I'm just tempted to side with Ganondorf. Compared to everyone in this debate, he seems downright classy.