Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Journalist Writes About #GamerGate Without Making it a Hit Piece

posted by cmn32480 on Thursday August 13 2015, @07:41AM   Printer-friendly
from the harass-themightybuzzard dept.

The Mighty Buzzard writes:

Brad Glasgow over at GamePolitics.com did something unique when setting out to cover the gamergate movement, he asked people taking part in it questions rather than only their detractors.

I decided to run an experiment and see first-hand the difficulties one might encounter when covering an online movement. Rather than wait for GamerGate to come to us, I went to them. I joined their very popular Kotaku in Action (KiA) subreddit and interviewed several hundred GamerGate supporters from Tuesday, July 28 through Tuesday, August 4. It is my hope that what I learned will assist journalists with covering GamerGate and any similar movements in the future.

The Experiment

I asked one question on the KiA subreddit every 12 hours. The question was stickied (placed at the top in the most recognizable area) until I posted a new question. The new question was then stickied and they were given an additional 12 hours to submit replies to the old question and vote on their favorite answer. After I asked 7 questions I then asked 7 follow up questions on the final day.

The article was interesting enough but what I found hilarious was when he then tried to do a similar interview with the anti-gamergate types over at Gamer Ghazi, he was quickly banned.

I did experience some hostility from the anti-GamerGate side for covering GamerGate. While I was treated well by the people of GamerGhazi when I tried to speak with them, I was quickly banned by moderators, who said I have spent too much time posting on the GamerGate subreddit.

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Journalist Writes About #GamerGate Without Making it a Hit Piece | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 79 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2, Informative) by massa on Thursday August 13 2015, @09:24AM

    by massa (5547) on Thursday August 13 2015, @09:24AM (#222199)

    huh... maybe RTFA and see that most respondents consider GamerGate to be "a movement" (in your analogy, "the Axis", or "the Allies") instead of "an event" (which would be "the war").

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by FatPhil on Thursday August 13 2015, @10:57AM

    by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Thursday August 13 2015, @10:57AM (#222214) Homepage
    Notice that "gamergate" links to "gamergate controversy". All *gates historically have been issues or events, not single sides. Who were the watergaters? Who was the cigargater? Am I to conlude that the self-styled pro-, and presumably anti- too, gamergate side are ignorant of the terms they use? How much attention should we pay to their rhetoric when they don't even know how to use words?
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2015, @01:56PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2015, @01:56PM (#222289)

      Words can have multiple meanings. Using nouns to refer to a group is a valid practice in the English language [wikipedia.org].

      How much attention should we pay to their rhetoric when they don't even know how to use words?

      Personally, I'd rather judge people's arguments by their validity, rather than the language skills of the person making them.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday August 13 2015, @02:37PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday August 13 2015, @02:37PM (#222315) Journal

      How much attention should we pay to their rhetoric when they don't even know how to use words?

      You first have to show this is a problem. I just see rhetorical status signaling.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2015, @10:48PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2015, @10:48PM (#222563)

      shut up phil fish, go have another twitter meltdown.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2015, @01:52AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2015, @01:52AM (#222624)

      How much attention should we pay to their rhetoric when they don't even know how to use words?

      That's pretty much the definition of an ad hominem.