Maybe, but I see potential for this to go somewhere bad, like Jack Thompson suing over games or various politicians trying to get games banned. I don't like to see such biased press taken as the gospel truth in the mainstream media which influences how voters view games.

Normally I'd be 100% for this, but people who disagree with her have been doing this for ~7 years to no avail. It seems that she, like other similarly hateful personalities in the industry, continues to find success in the industry because of her connections and politics rather than what's actually contributed. Add on top of that the willingness she's shown to "destroy the careers" of aspiring writers she personally disagrees with (again, there are examples of this on Twitter I could probably find if you haven't already seen them), and we're talking about a problem that can't be solved by just ignoring it.

Well, Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter haven't gone away either, because the tactic works. When I say "if everyone ignored her" I am speaking of a fantasy world that doesn't exist, because the tactic works. I recognize that.

Honestly at the end of the day though, what can you do? People like that will always have an audience. People who want to scream at the top of their lungs in a public place will always be heard. Someone, either from genuine agreement, peer pressure, or for money, will always offer these people a microphone. I don't think there's anything to be done about it, and I think it helps your sanity if you instead focus on making your own point, rather than be outraged at hers.

I'm glad "GamerGate" exists as a counterpoint, because the truth in this sexism/inclusiveness debate is in the grey middle area, as it usually is. These two stark, contrasting extremes don't speak for the majority, they simply provide the two poles from which people form their opinion in the middle somewhere.

you are soooo the enemy!

Wow, that reads like a pamphlet for extremism. Cray cray, as my wife would say.

Both Rush and Anne are recognized as being fringe voices, though. I don't think anyone in their right mind would consider them objective, and I'd be happy if that's all Gamergate ends up accomplishing, because right now people like Alexander are writing as though they're the de facto objective side of the argument when in reality, they're the Limbaugh-esque politically-charged fringe.

After all, there's a reason I can't find any Time pieces written by Limbaugh and Coulter. I don't think it's realistic that we'll be able to ban these people from the industry altogether (though I can dream), but outing them as vicious partisans who misrepresent the facts to suit their agenda so that they're recognized as such is good enough and certainly an attainable goal that the outrage is a crucial element to.

Hmmm... fair points and goals, sir. I concede to your point.

To add to the replies to Stringing Velvet's question, what we could do is get advertisers to pull out of gaming websites, like Intel did. Kill their funding, That's where it hurts them the most. Make them sure that there's consequences to declaring gamers dead and not your audience.

you people scare me...

I wonder if #gamergate people would advocate this.

As I understand it one of the concerns is that journalists are writing biased articles because of corruption - the relationships with Zoe Quinn being the catalyst.

I'm not sure that the solution to that is to withhold funding until the journalists write articles that the masses agree with. To me that just seems like another form of corruption - money in exchange for certain articles.

I would have thought that we want a "free" press and the key really is to have many voices, some that you agree with and some that you disagree with. I don't think it would ever happen, but I think it would be a bad place where the majority (who lets face it make bad decisions all the time - look at every government ever elected - look at what tv shows are popular, etc) effectively decide what articles should be published.

Well, the removal of the ads is not as a sign of censorship, but as a kind of accountability for the gaming media's coordinated attack on their audience. Intel could have ignored the emails to them, but they didnt want to advertise in a venue that insults what is the most part of their audience. lets get this clear, this wasnt an opinion written in an article or op-ed, it was a coordinated attack on gamers, organized in some private cabal, published not only in one, but many publications at the same time. That is not free press.

If you didn't know, there's a huge difference between an article you don't agree with and an article that is downright OFFENSIVE and INSULTING. For example, i don't agree with many things that Total Biscuit says, but i still like his videos and watch them often.

Another classic example would be the RPS New Vegas review. I'm pretty sure most Fallout fans disagreed with that review, but no one in its sane mind proposed any kind of action against RPS because of that. It was just a review that most people didn't agree with. Want another example? Dragon's Age 2 and the stellar reviews it received.

However, imagine if i said something like "black people are assholes". Is that an opinion? Fuck no, that's racism, not an opinion. Claiming that all gamers are white male fat virgin misogynist nerds is not an opinion, it's an offense to a particular group. Like someone already said, it would be like saying that christians are assholes.

Your blind faith for these radical feminists is really clouding your judgement.

It's not about writing articles that the masses agree with. Rather it is about accountability. If they're going to generalize and insult their readership, then it might not be worth it for advertisers to pay to put ads on the site. Why would game companies want to be associated with an anti-gamer message that alienates their customers? I don't think it's too much to ask for articles to be professional and to disclose any connections to games being reviewed, and if some sites don't want to do that then they should be prepared to accept that some advertisers might not want to be connected to their articles. If people feel strongly enough about the insults to avoid buying the products which advertise on those sites, then that's going to factor into the company's decision whether it's profitable to advertise there or not.

I have no problem with Intel decided they don't want to advertise anywhere for whatever reason they want. They are a private company that can advertise with whoever they want.

As a consumer of media, It just seems to me that, even if you think the articles were coordinated attacks on gamers organised by a private cabal, the answer might not be to divert money from writers that say things you don't like to writers who say things you do like. That just means there will be a different group of people claiming the media is biased, when what I thought #gamergate people wanted was an independent media.
I guess it is all in the eye of the beholder. What some people find offensive and insulting, others may not. I'm sure some people find the things TB says to be offensive and insulting. I don't think that anyone claimed gamers are "white male fat virgin misogynist nerds". If that comment was made, does it differ from racism? Personally, I don't think gamers are a race.

I don't know that I have ever felt personally insulted by an article that I have read so I guess I don't quite understand what some people are feeling. It just seems to me that if the result of this is to have a media that is not independent, but panders to a particular group of people, that is not a good outcome.

I think it is good that writers disclose relevant connections to games being reviewed, but I think that is a different issue.

My concern is that I personally don't want the media to not write about controversial topics because it will cost them money. Now that said, it is obviously a consideration whenever any media organisation that is reliant on advertising publishes any article, but there is a balancing act.

For me, independence is the key and that means independence from publishers, developers, advertisers (to the extent that is possible) and readers.

I don't want games writers to just talk about how wonderful gamers are, how we are the greatest people in the world and how we can do no wrong. I think its good if some writers write about that, and others write about how we are all pigs. We can then choose which we consume.

Maybe that's just me though. As I said, I wasn't personally insulted by those articles so I guess I am coming from a different place than many others.