Gamer Gate

[flex wood]

But no games journalism and the people that call themselves journalist don't have to follow a code of ethics like everyone else that calls themselves journalist though because it's just games.

This is pretty much it. It's an industry where they give their product away for free and can only recoup costs and make payroll by doing advertising for the companies they purport to report on. Do you get it yet?

Except they don't only use advertisers from the companies they are reporting on. So many other outlets use the same model and don't pull the same shit. Why is it ok for kotaku and yet no one else? ESPN, CNN, MSNBC etc any writer for one of these would be crucified if they came close to doing some of the stuff the games journalists have been doing.

And no advertisement isn't the only way they get money. Many sites have subscriptions and even deals sections with referral links.

[jp1]

In my opinion the ethical standards being upheld are or at least should be in direct proportion to the importance of what is being reported on. It's just video games we are talking about here. I think that is the difference.

I don't believe we get unbiased reporting on any of the mentioned venues either, so there is that. It would be great if journalism was this idealistic realm of truth above all else, but it just isn't like that.

[flex wood]

In my opinion the ethical standards being upheld are or at least should be in direct proportion to the importance of what is being reported on. It's just video games we are talking about here. I think that is the difference.

So double standards are fine then?

I don't believe we get unbiased reporting on any of the mentioned venues either, so there is that. It would be great if journalism was this idealistic realm of truth above all else, but it just isn't like that.

Oh so nothing is unbiased so what's the point in trying to change anything I like the way you think. By that logic the oppression of minorities and women should not even be bothered to be changed because the oppression is everywhere.

[jp1]

In my opinion the ethical standards being upheld are or at least should be in direct proportion to the importance of what is being reported on. It's just video games we are talking about here. I think that is the difference.

So double standards are fine then?

I don't believe we get unbiased reporting on any of the mentioned venues either, so there is that. It would be great if journalism was this idealistic realm of truth above all else, but it just isn't like that.

Oh so nothing is unbiased so what's the point in trying to change anything I like the way you think. By that logic the oppression of minorities and women should not even be bothered to be changed because the oppression is everywhere.

You need to chill. It isn't a double standard to say that reporting on video games isn't as important as reporting on shit that actually matters, it's just a fact.

I'm certainly not saying "what's the point in trying to change anything" either. I'm afraid that journalism is flawed and biased because it is a profession that is carried out by humans. Certainly some exceptions are out there and some people try to be impartial and report fairly, it is just really hard not to skew a story (even accidentally) towards your personal preference.

[dsheinem]

Kotaku posting an article and then updating it at another time to say we fucked up while not bumping the original with the updates instead posting a separate article without links to the original article until well after the article ran.

Kotaku adding in disclosure about the writer living with the dev that they are writing about 2 years after the article has been posted.

Kotaku allowing writers to pay money to the people they are writing about and only making a policy about it after it is brought up by large amounts of people crying foul.

Again, some evidence of these things would be helpful. I can't chase up links for you all day, and unless you have screenshots or some such of how the feed appeared at a given time when updates were made to articles, evidence that kick starting a game led to unreasonably favorable coverage (or that Kotaku's editorial staff had knowledge of reporters funding what they covered), or that they would have been able to somehow "catch" someone in a relationship two years ago and adjust accordingly, I just dont' see this as corruption. No editor should be expected to follow the finances and fucking of a staff that's largely remote and largely freelance, and the best they CAN do is adjust policies or add disclaimers if/when wrongdoing comes to light.

I don't agree with some that games journalism has no responsibility to strive for ethical reporting, but I also think that there's mountains of evidence to suggest that most sites try to provide just that on a daily basis.

[jp1]

I don't agree with some that games journalism has no responsibility to strive for ethical reporting, but I also think that there's mountains of evidence to suggest that most sites try to provide just that on a daily basis.

I don't mean to say they don't have a responsibility to try and be ethical. My point is that this thing is blown way out of proportion. All journalists should strive for ethical reporting. However, it is worse when we are talking about misleading the public about some of the horrific shit that is happening in the world right now. Think about all that is happening and some journalist from a gaming website should become the focus of a major controversy because he got a piece of ass? It's just stupid. "Gamer Gate" is ridiculous.

I understand this is something you are passionate about Flex and I'm sorry if you feel like that isn't being respected. I would like to get a perspective that makes any of this remotely important so I can relate...I just can't. People are dying, wars are happening, economies are in shambles, kids are starving, etc, etc, I could go on for days before I hit some indie game developer having sex with a game reporter or six. If the site is so terrible and they are riddled with unethical and bad reporting that is a problem that should sort itself out, mainly by people who care (such as yourself) no longer visiting and dropping their ad revenue.

[flex wood]

Just had a post disappear due to getting signed out. I'll try and keep it short since I'm pissy about it now.

article that was written about Pat's roommate updated with disclosure about being roommates.

It doesn't say when it was updated but I am more inclined to believe it was recently since that information just came to light recently.
http://kotaku.com/5976294/now-there-is- ... ay-planetd

I miss spoke on the one about the update. They are first removed the originals comments.

This was the one about rape you found for me. I really hate their comment system since it only shows white listed posters instead of everything at once, but if you read the first couple of comments it clearly shows that they removed all the articles comments that weren't white listed and only put them back in after a significant backlash. I don't know how you see it but I consider that trying to whitewash the people that spoke out against the article.

As for the last one just fuck Patreons. There is no reason at all for a writer to be financially supporting anyone that they are ever writing a story about. It isn't a one time thing, it is them paying this person a sum of money monthly. The only way I can show proof of who has been supporting who is from shitty 4chan images. After all this shit went public the idiot people on patreon getting money from journalists realized that they could set their profiles to private so you can't see who is paying who, in turn making kotakus own "no financially supporting people you report on" null because now you can't see who is giving who money.

I totally agree none of this is stuff that should be the responsibility of an editor. None of this shit should be happening in the first place. There are tons of text book examples of conflicts interest that shouldn't happen in any journalistic field and especially one covering a subject I care about. How anyone can think that this stuff is ok is beyond me.

[marurun]

I tried to respond to this, but I had to delete all my words. But I can't seem to leave it alone... I'm not sure I can bear to delete these words, too.

My biggest problem with all this is that it is glossing over a problem we continually fail to be able to cope with: most male gamers and devs don't threaten women, but most or all women gamers and devs have been threatened. So even if a small minority of the community is responsible for most of the threats in the environment, those threats are still part of the environment, and trying to dismiss it ignores legitimate concerns. This means that gaming continues to be a toxic environment to women, even though most men in gaming aren't the source of the toxicity.

Rape as a tool of violence and expression of power is much more often (though not exclusively) levied against women than men. So if a woman is threatened with rape, that threat has a lot more weight than if a man is. Threatening anyone with rape is a problem, but it is a bigger problem for women because of history, culture, etc... This as a much more real and frequent danger for women in ways most men can't understand.

Gaming, as a community, has become somewhat tolerant of threats, almost due to over-exposure. This is bad. Anyone who threatens someone else should be bumped, banned, or whatever on the spot. We shouldn't tolerate it FROM anyone or AT anyone, men or women. So long as we tolerate toxic individuals in our communities, we allow our community to be toxic. This isn't JUST about women, it's also about the dudes. And it's not like gaming is unique in this regard. The comic book community also struggles with this.

And TotalBiscuit's video is totally named correctly. He really does just ramble the whole time. He makes some good points, but I really do think "Gamergate" is serving to act more as a smoke screen than a reform movement.

[the7k]

It's not just a video game or comic book thing, it's a "power of anonymity in the hands of a bunch of 8-15 year old boys (mentally, at least)" thing. They don't care what they say as long as it gets a reaction. If you are in any fandom that has a healthy dose of boys who aren't allowed to drink yet, you're going to have to deal with it.

In a perfect world, yes, death threats and rape threats wouldn't be getting thrown around like it's more common than "good game", but educating the people hurling threats isn't going to do anything. Even with "Don't Break Into People's Houses" ingrained into everyone's brains from an early age, I'm not going to be leaving my doors unlocked.

All you can do is make sure people who are doing it get punished... which, happens? Doesn't it? I mean, do we allow people to make death threats or rape threats here? I know it doesn't happen on any of the sites I regularly visit, even a lot of the more 'wild' places I go to.

Use those block buttons. And not just when people disagree with your opinion. An echo-chamber never solved anything.

Anyway, I don't intend to follow this thread as it's already gotten about seven pages since the last time I checked. Moving way too fast for me to keep up. I'll just sum up my thoughts as quickly as I can.

My concerns are not really with anyone other than the journalists. If you don't want to be "journalists" and would rather just be "bloggers", fine. Make sure you make that clear to Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony, too. Make sure you pass on the press passes at gaming shows and events. Make sure you stop requesting early copies of games for journalistic review and just wait in line at your closest game retailer like every other blogger on the planet.

If you do want to have all the power that journalists have, then you have to take the responsibilities as well. You want to write an opinion piece on how Johnny Cage's three head decapitation Fatality is an attack on people with headmates? Fine, go ahead. If your primary source for the article is your roommate, then there's going to be problems.

Your opinion piece or review means nothing if we don't value your opinion. If we find out later that someone is influencing that opinion, whether it be financially related or it simply being that you are close friends with someone who might be negatively or positively affected by your opinion, then your opinion is worth about as much as a Zimbabwean Dollar. At the very least disclose your connections, but preferably you should not put yourself into a position where you'd have to disclose anyway.

In the case of reporting, however, opinion shouldn't even enter into it and you should definitely be as objective as possible. Save your opinion for another piece after the objective report comes out, and if someone you support or someone who supports you is involved, now is the time to hand that assignment to someone else.

[Flake]

Except they don't only use advertisers from the companies they are reporting on. So many other outlets use the same model and don't pull the same shit. Why is it ok for kotaku and yet no one else? ESPN, CNN, MSNBC etc any writer for one of these would be crucified if they came close to doing some of the stuff the games journalists have been doing.

And no advertisement isn't the only way they get money. Many sites have subscriptions and even deals sections with referral links.

I don't think you understand that every article about any game on any video game site counts as an advertisement for a product, even if no actual money has exchanged hands specific to that article.

For a games journalism website to stand out from the crowd of re-poster and click bait websites, they have to have access that the average person would not have to game development companies.

Why is this so hard for you to understand? How can you ever expect, seriously with a straight face expect journalistic integrity from people who are wholly beholden to the industry they try to report on? Do you think it's a mystery that although a scale of ten is the most common numeric expression of game reviews, almost every game seems to at least rate a 7? The average should be 5, but 5 is considered a damning number for a large games journalism organization like Destructoid or Kotaku to give. Hell, Kotaku abandoned the numerical review system for this very reason and now review games wholly on a buy/don't-buy basis. Even that system is fraught with conflicts of interest considering that Kotaku's review system only has merit if they obtain early access to a game - access that will for sure be cut off in the future if they give out too many don't buys.

Games are awesome but they are also entirely irrelvant and irreverent. They are not some inspired art form and they do not serve to make gamer culture somehow more important or special than any other hobby culture. No one holds websites that report on other hobbies like sports, knitting, cooking, or automobiles to some ridiculous standard where bloggers and article writers are somehow supposed to be "real journalists" and bias for/against certain brands, developers, or genre's has to be either avoided or justified.

If CNN sports has posts an editorial where the author bags on the Browns, no one loses their shit because it's sports. It's not news. When Dakkadakka trashes Gamesworkshop's business decisions, people will take sides but no one would ever question Dakkadakka's right to publish their personal opinions along side updates about Warhammer products. Food and Wine magazine is allowed to feature news about celebrity chefs while at the same time their writers are also encouraged to eat at and review these same chef's restaurants, often having the check picked up by the restaurant - no shit is lost.

Only video gamers seem to be so self absorbed as to think that product updates and reviews on video games (video games, of all things!) somehow is the equivalent of actual journalism and should be held to the same standard. This is absurd. It's video games.