SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 5, Informative) by wantkitteh on Thursday August 13 2015, @09:51AM
To clarify, it appears from the article that the GamerGate "side" consists of those opposing the views that video games have a tendency to be sexist/racist/whatever.
The article itself is quite excellent - it manages to tread carefully while simultaneously being pretty informative. On the other hand, the comments section.... ugh...
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2015, @12:02PM
Thanks for that, convinced me to RTFA and it is indeed balanced and informative from my POV*.
Like a lot of people, when the whole thing started happening I couldn't find a cogent explanation of WTF all the hullabaloo was over and what the pro- and anti- sides actually were, nor a list of what issues were apparently up for debate. Questions as to what was actually happening were met with asking me to filter out some meaning from a bunch of hashtag-infested bile. Apparently a woman was involved at some point although what she did/didn't do was left unclear but it was very bad/very good. A man might also have been involved and what he didn't do/did was terrible/fantastic. At least one of the men/women involved was a journalist of some description. In a nutshell I had absolutely no idea what the whole fracas was about and no-one seemed capable of providing a nice summary from someone not well versed in TwittedditBook conventions and the article provides most of the translation required.
Thanks Brad Glasgow for taking the effort and writing the piece and thanks TheMightyBuzzard for submitting it. Although the whole shebang still seems like another of those events that will be filed with an eye-roll into "humans act like such fuckwads sometimes".
* For clarity - I'm an adult male who sometimes plays games on a computer. Wouldn't classify myself as a "gamer", whatever one of those is. For the sake of preserving as much of my sanity as remains I tend to steer well clear of soshul meedja. Play mostly single player strategy or simulation stuff because I'm a curmudgeon with little patience for asshattery but whenever I have ventured into the foray of online multiplayer, women (or people pretending to be women) have been present and mostly treated like A. N. Other player, which to me is how it should be.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Hairyfeet on Thursday August 13 2015, @02:10PM
Well IMHO what caused things to blow up (and for the record nobody cared who ZQ banged, it was the fact that she was getting glowing press from those she slept with) was the whole "gamers are dead" thing which a leaker showed was a concerted effort of a bunch of insiders who were getting together to decide who to "push" and who to ignore on a hidden mailing list called GameJournoPros. Then of course because ZQ is a third wave feminist here come the SJWs [youtube.com], a group so vile that playing SJW or Stormfront [reddit.com] you'll be hard pressed to guess with even 50% accuracy whether you are reading a post by an SJW or a writer for Stormfront (or in the case of Jews if they aren't one and the same, as SJWs REALLY hate Jews for some reason) and that is when the excrement really hit the bladed cooling device as you really can't get SJWs involved in anything without a bunch of shit and drama following.
To me the debate is really VERY simple...are gaming websites journalists or are they propaganda written by publisher insiders? They really can't be but one or the other. If they are journalists they should have a written code of standards, just like every other avenue of journalism, and if they are the latter then they should disclose that so we know that their "articles" are about as newsworthy and unbiased as those GNC "miracle pill increases sexual prowess and boosts muscle!" you see on the front page of Yahoo. If you think the games made by Quinn and Wu are worthy of the heaps of praise they have been heaped on by the members of GameJournoPro? Fine and dandy but as a consumer I want to know if the ones writing that praise are getting or receiving money or favors from these devs because its MY money and I want to know which games are GOOD, not which games have the most insider connections or the biggest wallets. And if you don't think this is a problem...when was the last time you saw a big triple A game get a truly shitty review on any of these websites? I'm sorry but "8 is the new 2" really doesn't cut it, not when you have sites throwing perfect scores at games like Dragon Age II.
If you would like to see more about the insider connections of the game websites (and don't mind it being a little ranty) and want to avoid most if not all the "pro/anti" GG stuff you could try Downfall of Gaming Journalism [youtube.com] by Rageaholic, which was started a full 2 years BEFORE the whole GG mess, even back then there was those pointing out how incestuous the relationship between these "gaming journalists" and the devs and publishers they were supposed to be reviewing were. If these websites want to be the gaming equivalent of MSNBC and Fox News, with pundits pushing "their side" for all its worth? Fine, just admit it so that we all know that is what it is, don't pretend to be independent journalists when you are doing nothing but pushing a set of devs or publishers you have sat down and agreed upon with your supposed competition beforehand...is that REALLY too much to ask for?
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by wantkitteh on Thursday August 13 2015, @02:40PM
I don't understand why there's even a debate about this. We've known for a fact that game reviewers have been courted by publishers for decades, they've been up-front in telling us so for ages. You'd have to be blind not to have noticed. As far as I'm concerned, GamerGate is kidding itself if that's what it thinks it's about. And I couldn't care less about it, nothing constructive is going to come out of it at all and anyone involved on either side is just making themselves look sillier by the day.
It's easy to split the gaming press into it's two constituent parts; the publisher kool-aid drinkers [gamingnexus.com] and the independent honest thinkers [bit-tech.net]. Just read the reviews and compare, anyone with an IQ point can tell the difference after a while. Are we really having a huge row because some people can't accept that they have to decide for themselves whose opinion they should trust about video game reviews?
And don't get me started on the whole racism/sexism angles of GamerGate - those issues predated this whole sorry mess and any progress on them has been set back decades thanks to everyone who's decided to put their oars and pull in whatever direction they needed to for their own needs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2015, @04:38PM
Ah, "setting back progress" arguments! Pretty good indicator of where you lie on the issue.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2015, @05:58PM
Are you saying he's a concern troll?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by kurenai.tsubasa on Thursday August 13 2015, @11:09PM
Wantkitteh does have a valid point here. What should be a few separate issues that could be more cogently discussed individually seem to have been rolled up into a huge ball of wax. The huge ball of wax makes it easy for the main stream media to boil it down to: “men who play video games are sexually frustrated misogynist criminals.”
This plays nicely into the larger narrative that men are somehow preventing women from entering tech careers because they're horrible, sexually frustrated misogynists.
Why always sexually frustrated? What if the man is homosexual? I digress.
On the other hand, some men become a bit more cagey around strange women because, thanks to the efforts of the Ada Initiative, we now seem to have Schrödinger's Victim running around. It's devolved to the point where an accusation of sexism is a conviction with no appeal. Better not tell jokes, and only speak when spoken to, because who knows if that woman is Schrödinger's Victim, especially if you've never had a girlfriend!
In the back of my mind, I do worry a bit about what's on the horizon and where this is leading, but the longer this goes on, the more difficulty I'm having trying to understand it all.
All these narratives do is put up barriers and put men on the defensive. I suppose ostensibly that may ultimately hurt women as well. I could easily see a young man in college who has already developed extensive programming skills deciding it's best to keep away from the one or two brave women in his class, fearing that they're there to accuse somebody of misogyny at the slightest misunderstanding. Maybe that woman who needs a little help was forbidden by her parents from learning programming (rare, but it happens, and not just in Amish communities either).
If he's accused of sexism, the conviction is instant and final, and he becomes a pariah. Better to actually be sexist and only interact with women when it's absolutely necessary.
Look over there! She's getting an error message she can't figure out. I've already completed the assignment and there's still 15 minutes of lab time left. Should I head over there and help her out? What if she thinks I'm Schrödinger's rapist and trying to set her up for date rape? What if I make some other faux pas or microaggression and get suspended for sexual harassment? Better not bother.
(Disclaimer: Yes, I know presuming the woman will have the error and require the assistance of a man is basically sexist, but it's how it often plays out. It is a bit contrived as well, but I remember having similar thoughts after sitting through a date rape presentation. Otoh that was probably just culture shock in general after entering the man's world again.)
Maybe somebody should write a companion guide to Schrödinger's Rapist [wikia.com] intended to help women understand how to enter tech careers without being Schrödinger's Victim.
This is indeed backwards progress. Men should be able to speak with their female colleagues without fear of a perceived microaggression turning them into a pariah. If sexism is an accusation with no defense when leveled at a man, and if we privilege women with being incapable of sexism, how can there be equality?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2015, @06:11PM
This is just like the NSA spying apologists. What is with this wave of deny, Ignore, point out as obvious? There has to be a name for this weasely political tactic. This shaming of anyone that does not recognize or accept this obvious corrupt hidden agenda as being naive or "lacking a brain" makes it worse than merely being an apologist as it is an unprovoked attack on anyone that isn't an apologist.
This is something that human beings with any decency need to kill.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2015, @07:50PM
So clearly you've never pointed out to anyone that Facebook collects all sorts of personal information on people and does all sorts of questionable things with the information they gather. As I am sure you have never shamed them for being so cavalier with their personal information.
You're just an apologist sonofabitch.
(Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Friday August 14 2015, @08:57AM
Equating a world-wide multinational illegal data dragnet with some video game publishers trying to get good reviews from journalists. Can you see where you're going wrong here? Simply pointing the finger at both and screaming "Dishonesty!" doesn't even begin to show the slightest awareness of the repercussions of these issues. You have the choice of who you listen to when it comes to video game recommendations and no-one is going to die, be tortured, disappeared or doxxed because someone gave Battlefield Hardline a few extra %age points in return for a 3-day junket to Visceral's HQ, ostensibly to get early hands-on access for a preview a couple of months before the final release.
Also, what's with the putting words in my mouth? I've been a gamer for 30 years and I fully acknowledge there's a problem with video game journalism, but I'm perfectly capable of an adult response to someone blatantly trying to lie to me for money - I ignore them. I don't try to intimidate or harass them, forcibly censor their entire publication or out their every little secret in public to silence them through shame. There is such a thing as overkill and GamerGate (and their opponents) are pretty much the living embodiment of that right now. There is nothing appropriate about having any level of pride that a website is in financial difficulty and considering downsizing and/or closing down because they said something you disagree with. Only a complete arsehole would support that kind of response to anything about a video game.
Wow, replying to ACs again... where am I picking up these bad habits from?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2015, @01:56AM
Nobody cared because it was always just dudes getting pussy. The very second they found out it was a woman getting some cock instead, they suddenly found a reason to act concerned.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 13 2015, @02:43PM
Fine, just admit it so that we all know that is what it is, don't pretend to be independent journalists when you are doing nothing but pushing a set of devs or publishers you have sat down and agreed upon with your supposed competition beforehand...is that REALLY too much to ask for?
Do you really have to ask that? There's money in the trappings of credibility, even if all you do with it is flush it for a little profit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2015, @08:14PM
OK, but then ABC, CBS, [MS]NBC, Forbes, etc. covered #GamerGate with slanted as fuck rhetoric. So, this pulled back the curtain on the entire news media and revealed that everyone, including 20/20, is pushing an extreme radical ideological stance "GamerGate is a hate movement" while pretending not to do a single bit of research. Some of those companies own "indiependent gaming news" outlets. CBS owns Gamespot, for example.
So, when you say this:
Do you really have to ask that? There's money in the trappings of credibility, even if all you do with it is flush it for a little profit.
Most people didn't realize ALL MAINSTREAM NEWS was completely and utterly corrupted. And the silence from major outlets was deafening.
Others, like myself, knew that people's minds would be blown as they realized all the media normal folks "trust" is bought off, and chose to promote visibility of the GamerGate issue even if we assumed everyone already knew "game journalism" was corrupt.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2015, @11:01PM
All of those 3 letter "News" organizations will spin a story into what sells. That's their business model.
And backing a false Narrative that makes them look good is better for business than the truth.
Whipping the public into a stupid frenzy is what they excel at these days.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2015, @02:54PM
>it was the fact that someone erroneously claimed she was getting glowing press from those she slept with
FTFY (source: plenty, try wikipedia)
And no, you do not get to argue this unless you come up with a decent source.
Some niche news-sites are not impartial..oh the horror. Have these people really not something more interesting to worry about? Apart from a ridiculous debate, a minority of the GG people have been engaging in such awful behaviour that the group as a whole lost all credibility. If you agree with a subset of their opinions, and feel its worthwhile to get worked up about, just invent a new hashtag. In any form of politics, you want to make it clear you are different from the people that make you look bad. Or you deserve to be associated with them.
--
Posted anonymously in an attempt to disprove hairyfeets sig!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday August 13 2015, @03:29PM
With who? Advertisers have found GG quite credible so far, as shown by the manifold victories in getting them to drop corrupt information sources.
And hand the SJW types a victory while having to start name recognition over from scratch? Whereupon claims of harassment and threats will promptly come in from SJWs about the new hashtag? Thank you but no.
Republicans have to put up with racist assholes, democrats have to put up with SJWs, and #gamergate has to put up with its trolls. The only ones they've lost credibility with are those who wouldn't listen to them if the choice were between that and having their ears amputated.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2015, @06:10PM
> Advertisers have found GG quite credible so far, as shown by the manifold victories in getting them to drop corrupt information sources.
Please give us a short list of these advertisers. Not just the "corrupt information sources" - the actual advertisers which have dropped said sources.
Because my impression is that they are like Intel - an unthinking instinctual reaction to avoid anything controversial soon reversed [forbes.com] followed by an endorsement of the very people gamergate rages against. [cosmopolitan.com]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday August 13 2015, @07:12PM
The list includes, but is not limited to, Ford Motor Company, Nissan, Mercedes, BMW, and Adobe. Those are just the ones a moment's thought brings back that have dropped Gawker. Not everything's a victory, of course, but every victory is still important.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2015, @07:53PM
> The list includes, but is not limited to, Ford Motor Company, Nissan, Mercedes, BMW, and Adobe.
The Adobe that said the following: [adobe.com]
We were mistakenly listed as an advertiser on the Gawker website (which we are not), so we asked Gawker to remove our logo
Oh what a victory for gamergaters - the company that wasn't advertising on Gawker continued to not advertise on gawker.
Basically the same thing with all those car companies too, as the editor of gawker site Jalopnik said on KIA: [reddit.com]
Mercedes has not recently advertised with Gawker and is not currently advertising with Gawker, thus there were no advertisements to pull
Thanks for educating everyone else reading along as to how wrapped up you are in the delusional narrative of gamergate relevancy where convincing someone to continue not doing what they have been not doing is a victory!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2015, @11:04PM
thanks for being a Try Hard. How far are you reaching for those straws now?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2015, @04:13PM
and for the record nobody cared who ZQ banged, it was the fact that she was getting glowing press from those she slept with
She should have known that the standard payment method is cash?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2015, @02:03AM
That's why her sex life isn't at the center of the issue, right? Oh wait...
(Score: 4, Funny) by ikanreed on Thursday August 13 2015, @12:09PM
Why do I always hear about how awful comments sections are in comments sections?