Stop right there... I don't even necessarily see that.
Tan, we've been over this. I showed you all the anecdotes about Smed, Brad, Thompson, TFYC, Brietbart writers (There ARE more.) and how the media coverage is radically different. Now, you may say "I need more proof"--and that's totally fair. But do you understand the point is I CAN provide evidence of a bias through multiple examples. And this standard IS accepted by the media when they review Anita's work.
IfAnita's work is accepted and praised at that threshold; then WHY isn't the counter example of THEIR behavior
alsoaccepted within the same threshold. But let me allow Anita to explain why the Media are being idiots, okay? (And again, the context of this is that arguments similar to mine, where the media is criticized, have been hand waved as myopic and anecdotal.)
Well, she'ssayingit's sexism. That's her opinion and she made videos about it. She isn't attacking anyone personally and her words have zero power to harm anyone.
Easy, lets not straw man (I think you did it on accident here though). I'm talking about
media coveragehere, Tan. I'm just using Anita because I'm basing my evaluation of the media being done by
herstandards (Which is why I find you giving the media a pass pretty ironic
). In other words--the media praise Anita's work; call it ground breaking and eye opening (I'm serious). One of Anita's pieces was illustrating the differences in how men and women are portrayed; she used about half a dozen examples in that video. I can illustrate, easily, 10+ examples with minimal effort of similar stories of men and women being harassed, and an extremely different narrative in coverage of said harassment. Now, you can say "but but--X or Y variable is different" and you are right. The problem is--WHY is
this(Anita's) standard scrutinized for variables and inconsistencies when used to analyze the media--but accepted as "ground breaking" when used to analyze a video game?
Understand? If the media is willing to question well presented evidence of their bias, by pointing out small sample sizes, inconsistencies in context (ect) then WHY haven't they ALSO applied that scrutiny to Anita's work? Because, as you, yourself has admitted; Anita has made some horribly out of context assessments, and some outright either ignorant statements, or intellectually dishonest ones. So why would her assessment be called "brilliant", while mine would probably be attacked as sexist. (Psst; because my target is a female critic, while hers is a video game. You were right earlier, the CONTEXT of who you are criticizing matters--"thems the breaks" though.)
I don't even think the media is wrong. I think it's unfortunate for non-sexist people who insist on having their legitimate criticism heard, but I don't blame the media for not giving them a soapbox. I think it's clearly the sexist assholes' fault. They're the ones whose shittastic behavior made all this an issue in the first place, and they're the ones whose continued shittiness has prevented much rational discussion from occurring. The media did pretty much the only thing they could be expected to do in such a situation.
You appreciate that the mainstream news media is big enough to cover both sides of most issues, and you've already stated that video game journalism is simply too small to be able to do that for every game-related issue. So where's the conspiracy here? Should every game get both a positive and negative review?
1.) The media is clearly wrong, they are violating their own ethics. Again, if you think the ethics mean nothing because this is mostly blogg/impression type writing (Which is a valid argument) then by all means, whatever. But since many of the Journalists struck back with "we're trained journalists rar rar rar!"--I'm going to hold their feet to the flame. (And once more, I'll remind you, their ethics require civil discourse EVEN IF the views are repugnant. Yet we have evidence of them placing pressure on various sources to shut down civil discussion. So, there is a lot wrong here; even OUTSIDE of their behavior in actual print.)
2.) I didn't say Gaming Media was too small to do that. I said Gaming Media is small, and therefor incestuous. Those are VERY different statements. The problem, Tan--is that much like the gaming industry itself, gaming media is ALSO growing. And they HAVE to grow into a broader, more diligent set of entities. They ALSO have to put their big boy pants on and understand that criticism and scrutiny are GOOD things, even if they find said scrutiny and criticism to be foolish (Again, talking about civil discourse.)...Once more, larger main stream print/media have positions that engage with the public directly called ombudsman; and they are a third party which has "veto" power even over editors. Their job, is to listen to outside inquiry and then investigate the journalists.
Long and short, it should not be the
journalist'scall to judge whether his own actions or bias warrant scrutinizing. I tried to ask Siz earlier if his paper had positions like this; from what I understand, they do NOT exist. So one of the points of this exercise is telling the game media to refine their own institutions and practices as this industry grows. Just as "Gamers" need to mature, and developers--so too do the news institutions which cover these things.
I would argue that those were not stories about Gamergate. They were stories about harassment and how sexist assholes ruin everything. That's a valid point and making it does not oblige one to talk about whatever those sexist assholes wanted to talk about.
There are stories that literally, and I mean literally, have called Gamergate a sexism driven movement. That IS a story about Gamergate, I'm not sure how you can misconstrue it. Just try to imagine this is another controversial subject or movement. Hell, take OWS. Imagine if the narrative in EVERY media station was essentially "oh, these are a bunch of worthless, jobless, lazy idiots"...Now, that WAS the narrative in a lot of press (Hello, Fox!) And guess what? It was PARTIALLY true. Does that mean it was okay to
disregardANY other angle to the story? Of course not. A bunch of news organization went out of their way to make sure people among OWS got a voice, to make sure their side was heard--even if OWS was a shitty, unorganized heap of a movement.
Long and short, Tan. If the media feels a "movement" like Gamergate is important enough to criticize, then that movement should be given a chance to answer those criticisms. Again, their
OWNethical considerations should make this mandatory. For fuck sake, Tan--even the Westboro Baptist Church, ISIS, Rwandan Genocide leaders (ect) were given chances to defend themselves in the news. Just
think about that for a minute. But I guess the "sexism" in gamers gate is somehow even WORSE than any of those things? That is what you're saying, that somehow the sexism in this case is SO bad that the media choosing to "only" cover one side is justifiable? lol....The fact is, many community heads, like TB have asked for a chance to respond. None has been offered. That is wrong, Tan. Not in a "philosophical, free speech" bullshit kind of way. It's wrong by the parameters of professionalism intrinsic within this industry that many of these guys claim to belong to.
(And, btw, I know you mentioned the industry was "too small" and it had to choose which story. Again, that would be fine if the choice was not homogenous. It is though, and the entirety of the current market is plenty big enough that at least some dissenting voices should be heard.)
