Lets get back to topic on this. Broken up into 3 parts that people seem to be talking the most about.
Why this is terrible?
Someone was harassed a bullied because of an ideological difference or because someone wanted to be a raging asshole. Much like the case every time this happens online, this is a terrible display of humans being assholes to one another.
This does not mean that her being harassed is more or less important then other people being harassed, nor that her gender makes it more noteworthy. The tone and emotion of her video as well as how she reacted shows that she was rather upset by the whole thing, but beyond any sort of personal value from knowing her as a personality, her story is no more inherently more important then the millions of other people being harassed. Ironically, the only reason we are hearing it now and we care is because it is raised as a counterpoint to another equally important/unimportant case of harassment that has been championed by the media lately. In this instance Jayd's story is representative of any random story out there as people try to explain what is wrong with Anita's story getting the attention it has by comparing the two.
Why this is different then Anita? Why aren't they treated with the same weight by some? Why is Jayd taken at word but anita not? Isn't it hypocrisy to call Anita out but not Jayd?
Because people love to compare, and because people have harped on Anita for bullshit, this is an expected topic. It is also pretty damn obvious to anyone not trying to be intellectually oblivious that these people would be believed differently simply for being different individuals making claims that are reliant upon their character to back their word.
But that requires breaking it into two parts.
First is realizing that the claims are of a different value from one another, determined by the character of the ones making the claims. Do remember that these are claims made to be taken at face value on the trustworthiness of the word of the person speaking them. The claims being believed or not is a matter of the personal belief of the person hearing the claims. Each is believed differently, though there does seem to be some consistent reasons shaping why people would respond differently to one over the other.
Jayd, by virtue of being a relative unknown, has no record of good or bad character to most people hearing the claim. She is blank and is at default "believable" in the same way any random person would be in making a claim that is possible and not unexpected. There is also consistency in the claim by responding in a way that would be rationally expected for the situation is what one would expect from someone harried and harassed off the internet and as such the claim retains the default status of "believable but unproven". The idea that the story is straight and reasonable and thus believable. Thus most people would then apply the idea of assuming the truth until proven otherwise and working from there.
Anita on the other hand is more known, and has a history of profit directly proportional to the harassment she claims she receives, and she does claim it often. She has also been shown to have a history of dishonesty. This makes her character less believable, as a history of dishonesty would suggest that she is less trustworthy then an average person making the claim. Furthermore, she acts in a way counter to basic reasoning on how someone harried would respond, adding inconsistency to her behavior and casting more doubt on the truthfulness of the claims. Because of all that many people(not all but certainly many)go with the status of the claim here as "unbelievable but unproven". Thus they respond with skepticism and doubt of the same claim. After all, when there is a very valid motive to lieing, one that has been seen used before, and the character of the person making the claim has been shown willing to lie in the first place, then yeah, you will get a different response then an unknown acting in a way that fits the claim.
So we have the explanation of the different values for the same claim, what is the second part?
Importance. As said before, any case of online harassment is terrible and it is unfair to try to say one is more important then another. Even death threats and doxing happens often enough online and to many sorts of people, so trying to argue one is more important -or newsworthy if you will- is at best a futile exercise and at worst a dishonest misrepresentation of an issue to suit an agenda. What does this have to do with the first part though?
Well when it comes to the hardcore harassment online, all cases are about the same in terms of importance over all. Peeling it back to claims, if all else were equal, claims would also be of equal importance. And when we apply the values from above, we see that Jayd's, as having a higher likelihood of not being a false claim, should be given more importance if someone was solely trying to argue about harassment online. Hers is simply the more believable, and thus more relevant, claim in the comparison. And that is a large reason the two claims are treated different by some.
To boil it down into a statement many will still disagree with after all said above, Jayd is simply believed more because her character hasn't be shown to be untrustworthy yet. As I said above, hers is simply a suitable analogy of any other case online that was ignored while Anita's was picked up on.
Why is this hypocrisy to for news to talk about Anita but no one covers Jayd?
Well, after going through the first two point, the first answer is pretty clear: Jayd's claim is more likely to have happened thus if one had to choose, it would be the better source. But we all know that she won't be reported on at all. So why not?
Well that is a lot of speculation and I wanted to avoid anything claiming truth to anything openly speculated in this instance. It could be because of the various connections Anita has to the journalists reporting her story, connections that have caused the Gamergate issue in the first place. It could that it would require reporting that self-proclaimed feminists were the ones calling and harassing Jayd. It could be that the journalists didn't believe her claims. Really, that isn't that important.
What is, is what we know, that the journalists ran another "Anita under attack" story, elevating her personal claims, which are already dubious to many who don't take her at her word, and tried to use it to promote several ideas, including that Gamers are evil and attacked her, that this is misogyny, and that this is an epidemic that needs to be addressed. and in doing so, made what could be considered a wider community and social issue, all about one woman who isn't even that widely believed to be telling the truth and thus damaging the integrity of any journalist reporting on any harassment because people are shallow a lot of the times and will be less trusting of the reporting on harassment afterwards.
How does that relate to hypocrisy? Well, for all the protests and calls against it, the actions of journalists actually have are more likely increasing the likelihood that claims of that level of harassment are not taken seriously, thus increasing the chance of people harassing more and more often.