I thought the tone was alarmist at the beginning, but I felt that ended when the article began giving the other side. I believe the article was written solely to generate controversy, which is why the crazy lady was allowed to speak. Then it gave the other side, which wasn't as strongly supported (but was still there), although Billy Pidgeon did have a good quote in the article.boholikeu said:Have you ever taken a class on journalism or mass communications? The article was totally alarmist, mostly because the tone echoed the comments of the crazy lady. Read the first couple paragraphs again and tell me the article is "fair and balanced".
What's more, who they choose to interview and what quotes they choose to print also adds to the editorial slant of the article. Why choose the wacky "games=rape" lady as opposed to someone more knowledgeable? Why print quotes from her that are obviously not founded in any current studies? Why doesn't the article include studies that show that instances of rape are actually going down, and that the ESRB is actually enforced much better than the MPAA ratings? Bias is created through what is and isn't covered.
Mostly, I'm just angry at Andy's article because it is so blatantly misleading. It NEVER mentions that the Fox article gave significant space to the games' industry's response