runic knight said:
The problem was not that she was given good press or no press, the problem was how long it took to get an actual investigation into the issue, the behavior and attitudes of many journalists in shutting down any and all conversation about possible wrongdoing and the tactical and systematic censorship of discussion of possible wrongdoing.
Yeah, he didn't write for her. Doesn't mean he couldn't have used his networking to help get her story covered about the whole wizardchan thing, among a plethora of other possible issues that would suggest conflict of interest. Sure, could be nothing at all between the 5 guys she had relationships with that promoted her career. That still doesn't excuse the complete lack of accountability or professionalism in how the gaming press handled and continues to handle the situation.
I've said it before, had they simply released a story about it, said they were investigating and went that path, they would have had egg on their face, been laughed at a little and then no one would care. But no, they had to try to shame people for daring to ask about what certainly could have been a conflict of interest (remember, since no investigation had been done at the time, no one knew). That is why gamergate formed, not because some dev of a game had sex, but because the implications raised about the credibility of the sites covering her was met with total and abject hostility.
As far as this goes, I actually agree with you. While I'm not sure I'd accuse the motives of the press of trying to silence discussion to defend their buddies in the biz, it was a shoddy and knee-jerk response, that did highlight some problems in how some game journalists had come to view their role in the industry. Also, it gave the impression to a lot of people who had been wanting to know what was what, that there was no smoke without fire, and they really should have seen that coming.
Now, that's not me saying that they should have released reports into it until they actually had something of substance to report. Otherwise, they would just have been being the game industry equivalent of TMZ or Hello! Magazine (for the UK), neither of which are paragons of the touted journalistic integrity. However, when people were asking what was happening, they should have let it known they were looking into it, rather than ignoring it and actively trying to shut down the discussion. On that much, I believe GamerGate was right to take offence and campaign for better treatment.
However, there's a problem with you saying on this thread what any of this is and isn't 'about', while gamergate remains a nebulous movement with little agreed direction and no command structure, because then anyone who also claims to represent GamerGate can come along and start spewing crap, and for it to be taken as equally representative. I mean, we have people in this thread right now still trying to hang their arguments on what a conniving, abusive ***** they believe Quinn to be, while in the same breath claiming that they are the real victims of personal attacks.
You, personally, sound like you've got a level head on your shoulders, even if I still don't agree with your stance. However, in the context of everything that is happening around what you're saying, surely you can understand what it is about GamerGate that a lot of us don't have time for, and why were unconvinced by any one person trying to tell us what this is or isn't about?
All movements in history, no matter where they came from or what they stood for, that are remembered for making any kind of real progress, did so because they had leaders. The importance of leaders is that, when someone from the outside wants to get perspective on a movement and discuss their motives/aims, be they a government, a media outlet, or an ordinary citizen like me, they have people they
know they can go to who are understood as being representative of at least the major thrust of said movement, and have some tangible control over where that movement goes next. You can talk to a person. You can talk to a small group of people, but you can't talk to thousands of people at once, who's voices all carry an equal amount of weight, because they will always contradict each-other and drown each-other out, because people, even when united by something like GamerGate, remain individuals with their own perspectives and priorities.
If GamerGate can't take control of it's own voice, and make sure it's conveying one, distinct message, then people like me will continue to be left in the dark as to what you really want.
