That's all. I've been a reader since 2007, an active poster since 2008 (both here and, later, via the Facebook-embedded comment thingy), and a subscribed publisher's club member since 2011. I canceled my subscription today, following that utterly-disgusting Gamergate "article" lending a megaphone to insanity.
And I'm not looking to debate anyone here. I'm not going to defend my decision to stop spending my own money. And I know that this ultimately means nothing to the Escapist's bottom line -- that the tiny pie-slice of revenue which derives from pubclub memberships is likely dwarfed by that which is gained from ad-revenue. But this is the only means I have at my disposal to reach out and let those involved know. You've lost a reader today. Worse, you've lost a long-time, loyal, PAYING reader.
Why?
Because sometimes, there aren't two sides to an issue. Sometimes "fair and balanced coverage" is engaging a false dichotomy, one side of which is batshit insane. Sometimes merely acknowledging a party or stance, as a news organization, is socially and journalistically irresponsible. There's a reason, for example, that the New York Times hasn't ever launched an investigation into President Obama's birth certificate, or whether or not Karl Rove is actually a lizard-man: because to do so would NECESSARILY, merely by virtue of existing, tend to grant legitimacy to an utterly-insane point of view, and a toxic group of people who espouse that view.
Gamergate?
Gamergate is like that. There's no defending it. Not even a little. The journalistic duty to fair, truthful coverage does NOT mean that any and all points of view are equally valid and worthy of examination. It is the case that sometimes a particular point of view is simply wrong, either factually, ethically, or both; and offering legitimacy to that viewpoint, through your authority as a gaming culture outlet, is equally wrong.
And I get the urge to play devil's advocate, I really do. When the whole of the internet is screeching in one direction, it feels like it's your duty to chime in and say, "Well let's suppose, for the purposes of discussion..."
But, and I have no more tactful or eloquent way to put this: you fucked up this time. In a big way. And in a way which is telling of issues deeper still.
And that's all I have to say about that.
And I'm not looking to debate anyone here. I'm not going to defend my decision to stop spending my own money. And I know that this ultimately means nothing to the Escapist's bottom line -- that the tiny pie-slice of revenue which derives from pubclub memberships is likely dwarfed by that which is gained from ad-revenue. But this is the only means I have at my disposal to reach out and let those involved know. You've lost a reader today. Worse, you've lost a long-time, loyal, PAYING reader.
Why?
Because sometimes, there aren't two sides to an issue. Sometimes "fair and balanced coverage" is engaging a false dichotomy, one side of which is batshit insane. Sometimes merely acknowledging a party or stance, as a news organization, is socially and journalistically irresponsible. There's a reason, for example, that the New York Times hasn't ever launched an investigation into President Obama's birth certificate, or whether or not Karl Rove is actually a lizard-man: because to do so would NECESSARILY, merely by virtue of existing, tend to grant legitimacy to an utterly-insane point of view, and a toxic group of people who espouse that view.
Gamergate?
Gamergate is like that. There's no defending it. Not even a little. The journalistic duty to fair, truthful coverage does NOT mean that any and all points of view are equally valid and worthy of examination. It is the case that sometimes a particular point of view is simply wrong, either factually, ethically, or both; and offering legitimacy to that viewpoint, through your authority as a gaming culture outlet, is equally wrong.
And I get the urge to play devil's advocate, I really do. When the whole of the internet is screeching in one direction, it feels like it's your duty to chime in and say, "Well let's suppose, for the purposes of discussion..."
But, and I have no more tactful or eloquent way to put this: you fucked up this time. In a big way. And in a way which is telling of issues deeper still.
And that's all I have to say about that.
