Therumancer said:
When you respond to me (uh, and you kind of did, at length), please quote what you are responding to. For example, I have no idea what parts of my comments you're referring to when you're saying things like "you misunderstand my motives" (when did I talk about your motives at all? I was concerned with the content of your post, not your intent; I still don't care about your motives, in fact. Or when you talk about acting like "there are no valid criticisms that can be made"? I believe I simply refuted the criticisms that you made, as opposed to stating that valid criticisms do not exist.), and so you're making it very difficult to give any response; I was so courteous as to quote you, after all. Also, you can go ahead and report me if you feel I was out of line in something I said; otherwise, I don't see the point in bringing it up.
And finally, in a completely-off-topic defense of satire, I'll have you know that mockery and rudeness can be very effective in demonstrating the problems with someone's position, so long as it's done properly with great skill and understanding.
Back on topicness, sorta: While some of the responses here have been inappropriate (yes, associate ourselves with hotheaded violence, that's the ticket!) a lot of this discussion has been quite reasonable in its "attack" on FOX News and its extremely low standards of journalism. Also, why is it a bad thing to label sensationalism as sensationalism and refuse to simply accept it? Why doesn't it "help matters"? Is demanding better quality journalism too impolite? Please explain.
Also, the need to remain in a "state of enmity" with gamers is due to audience demand, not actual issues with gamers or video games (unless a gamer ran over Murdoch's dog or something); you just said yourself they're about sensationalism, and so long as mainstream acceptance of video games is considered sensational by its viewers, Fox will continue to pander to them. It has nothing to do with whether we're nice to them or not.
