Well, I'm glad we both agree that the increase of casual and mass market games has not been a problem.

News sites talk about Gamergate because it's the news topic of the day. DRM has been also been discussed in the gaming media repeatedly, whenever something newsworthy about it arises.

Thanks. I appreciate the concern, it's misguided though :D I agree with you there's a place for everyone. If you check my posts you will see a lot of implied neutrality, calls for tolerance and that the climate of hate is deplorable. I do think accusing gg of intolerance and hate when they are reacting to what they perceive as intolerance and hate is biased or malicious.

And they are somewhat right, justified even. Or do you absolutely refuse to see the bad vibes, not just from the articles you mentioned, but in most of the progressive/ feminist critique that's been trending up? If the critiques were (here comes gg rational/ethical stuff) objective, fair, unbiased, none of this would be happening. If the critiques were not often implicitly advocating intolerance and repression or self censoring of opposite opinions, none of this would be happening. Instead both sides have entrenched their emotional positions and refuse the others validity.

Put in harsher words, it's a culture war now. Wars are always tragic, there's always innocent victims on both sides. Two things though:
With wars, who started it is not a childish argument. Both sides always have valid arguments and justifications.
With wars, you can take sides or not. I consider myself neutral, but my sympathy is mostly on the side that is stronger for freedom of speech, freedom of association and equality of opportunities. I don't agree with criminalizing hate, collective responsibility nor equality of outcomes.

See? Societal focus. Political focus. I don't pretend to be arguing about representation in gaming...

Please. Watch the video.

You say this as if having such opinions is bad... it's only bad to be intolerant of different opinions. Which both sides are doing, obviously. Did it really take this long to notice a lot of the anger in gg is because of 'elites' constantly delegitimizing their ideological opponents?

The parallels to what feminists argue about patriarchy are so obvious to me... the blindness to what others are actually saying is profoundly puzzling.

I have. There's a lot of bs there. Why don't you tell me some particular you want me to comment on? I don't have the time nor inclination to make a thorough critique of critical theory.

Edit: is it the language of conflict you are maybe passively aggressively pointing out? I found that part funny... as if calling a spade a spade changes reality in any way...

To Raggie, any opinion counter to his/hers is wrong. Don't bother with any more discussion, it's pointless. You can't win until you fully ascribe to hi/her world view. There is no compromise.

I don't agree that it is only bad to be intolerant of different opinions. I think it is a misunderstanding of the role of media to expect them to write what you want to read and to then accuse them of unprofessionalism or corruption because they do not. Whether its SJWs saying "you should write what I want to read" or gg'ers saying "you should write what I want to read", both are wrong. The writers should write about their genuinely held opinions.

As I have said, I think media should be independent. I also think it would not make for good reading to read an opinion piece from someone who genuinely doesn't have the opinion he or she is attempting to put forward.

If you think the role of the media or journalists is to write what the masses want to read, we disagree on a very fundamental level.

Sorry. There is some idealism inside my cynical shell. I will never stop believing rational dialogue can bring tolerance and understanding.

It's very frustrating and emotionally charged to engage opponents honestly, but when it pays off it is incredibly rewarding. A drop in the ocean i know, but I define my life's worth, and those drops are part of it for me.

Thanks, but I was actually right there during the Gamespot scandal, listening to the rumors and watching to see how things unfolded. It just surprised me because Kain always seems to be held up as the "best of the best" in the industry, whereas I've heard nothing positive about Gerstmann since his leaving. Not that I'm claiming that my personal experience reflects the majority's views or anything.

Not everything posted in this thread or other conversations involving GG people directly pertains to people's reasons for supporting the hashtag, and it's disingenuous to suggest as much. We're having a conversation, not listing the reasons why we stand on different sides of this. That said, an argument can be made for Kain objectively being the better journalist because he takes feedback into account rather than digging in his heels, reversing his position on issues like GG and the Mass Effect 3 ending furor. Those purporting to be journalists should have a certain amount of flexibility in order to understand the issues as best as possible rather than through a partisan prism. Gerstmann (and so many others), on the other hand, shows little but stubbornness.

Also, I'm sick to death of this "viewpoints you disagree with" nonsense. No one wants to censor people's views, but shouldn't reviewers try to view games outside of their deeply-held beliefs when they could unfairly color their judgment? Shouldn't editorials focusing on us at least show the common decency to not begin with the premise that we're harassers lying about not harassing? Is journalistic due diligence and assuming people and groups innocent until proven otherwise dead? Opposing things like that isn't a call for censorship of opposing points—it's a demand for them to do their job better.

So if instead of your straw man, I say the media should present both sides, keep their opinions to themselves, or make them explicit as opinions instead of masking them as fact. Then I am righter?

It's like you take objectivity to mean something completely different than I do...

You know what other branch of institutional power is suppose to be objective? Law enforcement. Compare if our approaches to how media should act are logically consistent across those spheres. Maybe that will be a useful analogy to understand me better.

So much steam around here *clears his glasses*

Why are so few people here talking about how you could make gaming journalism for real, like... something that gets a high ranking on the Reuters scale rather than the lowest one (like now).
Talking about how certain rules should apply to this that apply to real journalism too?
How people writing those articles should be chosen?
(Studied journalism and/or gamedesign? Passing certain tests regarding the objectivity of at least their words chosen?)

The people in this business do everything to lure people away from those questions and are quite succesful.
Using feminism as a trump was very clever, although underlines how corrupt their habits are.

It's really all just nepotism and unprofessionalism.

It's really sad, that this isn't self-evident.

It's about not showing (ideally not having) any opinion, but about presenting information so that people can decide about their opinion themselves.
htown1980 doesn't want journalism, she want's propaganda and advertising and this is all that we get at the moment.

Well Kain may be a better journalist, but I don't know if that is the same integrity.

In response to your questions:

1. Shouldn't reviewers try to view games outside of their deeply-held beliefs when they could unfairly color their judgment? Yes, reviewers should not be "unfair", but what does that mean? How would someone simply ignore one's deeply-held beliefs? In my view it is simply not possible.

2. Shouldn't editorials focusing on us at least show the common decency to not begin with the premise that we're harassers lying about not harassing? I don't think it is correct to say that all #gg'ers are harassers and lie about not harassing. I certainly don't think that is what Gertsmann was suggesting (the rest of the article he makes that clear). However, I think there is evidence that some #gg'ers do harass, just as there is evidence that some people on the other side do harass.

3. Is journalistic due diligence and assuming people and groups innocent until proven otherwise dead? Opposing things like that isn't a call for censorship of opposing points—it's a demand for them to do their job better. I don't think innocent until proven guilty is a pinnacle of journalism, I think it is a pinnacle of the law. Journalists will often advocate a certain position where there may not be sufficient evidence to support it beyond a reasonable doubt, that is the difference between journalism and the law. I think the position put forward by most journalists, including Gertsmann is a lot more nuanced than "#gg'ers are nothing but harassers".

Sure, I disagree with that. If someone writes an opinion piece that is biased (they all are) that is fine, provided that opinion is genuinely held.

I don't think that person should be forced to present both sides. The media should be permitted to choose how they present the information they present. To suggest that the media must do this or must do that is compromising the independence of the media, which is a pinnacle of western democracy.

On the other hand, I think it is good for there to be a variety of media, that is also important for democracy. You can choose what media you read, and I can do likewise, but there is a big difference between saying a journalist should cover "both sides of a story" and saying journalists should have the freedom to cover whichever "side" of the story they wish.

Thanks for explaining to everyone what I want :)

I don't think allowing journalists the freedom to write what they want is propaganda, but I could be wrong. I still think that is better than having a group of people forcing journalists to write what they want them to write (whether that is covering both sides of a story, or covering gamer's backs, or something else).

To me the real strange part is how journalism is treated, especially in the journalism world where a very small group of people actually even read books and articles in this day and age of instagram and youtube. It's like people think journalism is some secret force power that is only taught to someone after they've been training at the jedi academy for 25 years. Jesus Christ, I've known people while working retail who couldn't read a shipping code label that had journalism or communications degrees. Hell, you can practically get one from the back of a wheaties box. These 'journalists' are so for what reason? Their expensive fedora? Their college of choice? Their obsessive knowledge of Lovecraft novels, or the actual written material in their chosen subject? The fine folks at RPS or Kotaku are not specially trained ninja warriors who hold a skill too ancient and powerful for the peasantry to handle. They're goofs who got really skilled at shaking hands, saying YES a lot, and most importantly... knowing who in what position that can benefit their own. It's just like any other man-made relationship grid. It's all about who you know and only being cynical enough to believe that a parasitic mindset can actually empower oneself, but not too cynical to let it show.

To add, I've seen posts here at this very forum that could match the intellectual ability of any paid journalist within the gaming world. Their power structure only has power because they're good enough to convince everyone of their elite status within the system. It's a magic trick, and anyone randomly right here at this forum could do just a good of a job talking about games than anyone at a major gaming news site. That's one purpose behind the 'gamers are dead' pieces. They know the peasants have seen the man behind the curtain and their position is in danger... they're becoming dangerously close to being made OBSOLETE. The old paper newsprint media is dying. Internet blogs and websites that feature 'editorial columnists' or 'news wire writer' are just digital imprints of the old dinosaur media format. They're becoming irrelevant, so by going on the offensive with the Gamergate stuff, they've served two goals. One, they've inserted more academic feminism horseshit into the public arena. Two, they've made an issue very public and controversial, at least enough so that people will pay attention to them so they can feel relevant for just a little while longer.

True, but integrity isn't the issue with all game journalists. Generalizing about them would be as bad as them generalizing about us, and I'm sure Gerstmann and others have integrity. The problem with some of them is as minor as being unwilling to look outside of their echo chamber. Of course, many others in the industry have more serious charges being levied against them.

If you grew up with alcoholic parents and are reviewing a game about alcoholism, recuse yourself if those personal experiences are being triggered by the game and influencing your judgment. In fact, "triggering" would be a good way of wording it in general. When that happens, someone else with a completely different worldview should run through the game to determine whether it's a universal kind of insensitivity/badness or the first person's subjective experiences coloring it. That way, truly sexist and offensive things can be called out without everything being a "sky is falling because the game taught me how to stealth-kill with a stealth-kiss sequence" moment.

Relevant Reuters guidelines:

- Always strive for balance and freedom from bias
- Always reveal a conflict of interest to a manager

Innocent until proven guilty may not be a pinnacle of journalism, but not fabricating stories is. Assuming people's innocence until the facts dictate otherwise is a great way to avoid that. I don't know if you've noticed, but the overwhelming hate we're so often accused of? Totally fake. Of course, that ends up being a negative against us, too. Striving for balance, indeed.

Alright. I described Gerstmann as the "beacon of journalistic integrity" not anything else.

In that example, I would have no problem with the person reviewing the game. It would be helpful if he or she disclosed the alcoholic parents thing but I would still find that viewpoint valuable. If I wanted to read an opinion from someone who didn't have alcoholic parents, I am sure there would be many opinions I could read. I personally don't want every reviewer to ignore his or her background or personal views, I want reviewers to consider those things (as they influence as all), I want variety. I want to find those reviewers I agree with and those that I disagree with so that I can read both.

I don't want bland reviews checked by multiple people and a consensus reached before publication, I want people to express their opinions. Of course, if someone wants to start up a website where they do just that, go for it, more power to you! More variety is great!

I don't think revealing a conflict to a manager is a sufficient response to a conflict of interest.

I think a lot of articles published about #gg (such as the ones suggesting it is only about harassment) get it wrong. I don't know that I am right about that, however. I also don't think the Gertsmann article is an example of that.