I think the problem is, it works both ways too. Not everyone on the Gamergate side wants to be a journalist, and some really shouldn't be journalists either (No, really, some people I interact with have no business being journalists). The same way that there are some people in Games Journalism that need to be more professional with their dealings.

As far as creation over destruction, I've seen a lot of people working on that, but it's a slow process when you have to create contacts and find ways into the industry to be able to report on things. It's not an easy thing to do despite what people say, it's a lot of work, you've got to get readers, get the site out there and get content for people to read.

In the meanwhile, shouldn't we push for Ethical Journalism anyway? There's a positive here, we don't have to destroy sites, although I think that ends up happening because Journalists are circling the wagon around their perks and benefits. It's something that even if we make new sites, are going to have to be dealt with or else Ethical Journalism is always going to be working on an uneven playing field.

I find this interesting as well. I find it particularly interesting that someone like Boogie2988/Francis, I man who is apparently a big supporter of #gamergate, a man who as been banned from neogaf forums because of his support for #gamergate, has barely been mentioned in these forums for accepting benefits in exchange for positive coverage of Shadow of Mordor (based on my lurking in these forums and a quick search - I could be wrong).

I thought #gamergate was created because someone allegedly rooted a journalist for positive coverage of a game (which turned out not to be true) and there was anger about that corruption, but there does not appear to be any significant outcry that Boogie has actually signed a contract where he agreed to give positive coverage of a game, not talk about bugs of a game and submit his video to the devs of the game for review 48 hours before publishing it.

I don't think its fair to judge the entire #gamergate movement based on what is said in these forums, but I can't help but note that there seems to be a lot of focus on SJW/feminist reviews and (mainly female) journalists who have not disclosed alleged conflicts of interest, and no mention of this issue (which maybe only to me, seems to be quite significant).

Maybe I am wrong though, maybe there has been a lot of talk about this but I have just missed it.

Well, for me, I'll be honest, this isn't where I go to have deep discussion about Gamergate, this is where I go to interact with people and see things I wouldn't see elsewhere.

Second, I don't watch youtubers, since I've been an avid reader since I was 7, and I read faster then most people talk. That and it's not really that entertaining for me. I like reading and absorbing information that way, I like articles and whatnot, that's what makes the lack of good sites annoying to me. So I tend to be the clueless one because I don't pay attention to that stuff.

The third issue. Youtubers aren't journalists, they're letsplayers, they're people who generally just play games. They're required by US law to disclose anything if they're being paid for the videos they do. But the fact that they aren't journalists is the bigger thing. TotalBiscuit did an entire video where he pointed out that he isn't a journalist, that he doesn't even want to be labeled as one. Sites like Kotaku and IGN and Gamespot and Polygon? They're Games Journalists when they want to be taken seriously, or when they want their site to be considered important, bloggers when they want to deflect criticism.

I wasn't aware of that. Did he disclose that fact, or not?

If not...

Hello, and thank you for responding to my post!

Yes, it's always hard creating something new, but if you're passionate about games journalism, you'll endure. You'll grow and learn. You don't need free early access to AAA games to start reviewing, to start creating, and start making (or trying to make) a difference.

That said, I do think the #gamergate brand has become poisonous, and something people now mostly associate with harassment, misogyny, terror-threats, delusional mob mentality, and hate in general - regardless of what anyone's original intentions were. One can still discuss games journalism without using the brand, and without getting wrapped up in any of the recent scandals (and pseudo-scandals). You don't need a brand or a movement to do that.

I don't know for certain. I have heard some people say that he did not initially, but as some have noticed from my previous posts, I am reluctant to believe these things without proof. I cannot imagine that he would not have mentioned it at all, particularly given what is going on.

What the videos say now is this "This video has been sponsored by WB. Thanks to them for sponsoring this video and allowing me to share gameplay."

Personally I don't feel that this disclosure is sufficient. For me, it is one thing to say that the video is sponsored by WB, its another thing to say, this video has been vetted by WB before release and I have agreed to promote positive sentiment and not show bugs or glitches.

Here is an article about it:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/10/08/middle-earth-shadow-of-mordor-paid-branding-deals-should-have-gamergate-up-in-arms/

Now personally I don't think that youtubers should be held to the same standard as journalists, and I think what Boogie/Francis did was out of ignorance rather than intent to mislead (not that that seems to matter to some #gg people), but I find it interesting that this seems to have been overlooked by #gg. I think it opens the #gg movement up to accusations that its not really about integrity (which will be happening anyway).

I just used DoritoGate as a metaphor for the larger problem of corruption in the industry. Corruption doesn't pick genders... pro, anti, or anything else in between in relation to Gamergate can become corrupted due to sponsorship, funding, or political agendas. When it comes to the academic influences, call me old fashioned, but I don't think race and gender studies have much use in education curriculum, much less video games. Society says it wants to eliminate these barriers and these 'class distinctions' then turns right around and hypes the shit out of them. You don't put out a fire by pouring gasoline on it.

And please don't call it 'your movement' in regards to myself. Sounds like you're trying to describe me when I'm taking a shit. That's what a movement is. It's a social or political group that seeks to take an issue to a certain point and then stop. A movement. I don't seek anything other than to see video gamers be left alone and uppity Marxist types shut the fuck up and go back to their campus back patting festivals. If people want to support Anita, fine. If they want to support Internet Aristocrat or Boogie... fine as well.

I'm for the market deciding what it wants to do. Hell, I'm vehemently against Steam, but Steam won. I don't use it, but I support the gaming world for choosing its own direction, choosing its own products and services. When we get into strong arming other people into doing what we want, we're nothing more than asshole bullies. And again, isn't that what these soft, plushy feminists are supposed to be fighting against? I don't even know where this talk of removing feminist reviewers from the industry came from. I do not support that. Everyone should have their voice heard. That way, the idiots can have their say and we'll all know where they stand. Banning people from sites or expunging them from the gaming world for having radical or unpopular views isn't a good step in any direction.

Ok, yeah... that's really troubling stuff. I'm not sure I completely agree with Boogie on this. I personally would have run screaming from that contract. However, I don't get the feeling that he's the sort of person that would willfully manipulate or mislead people, so I'd guess he honestly doesn't see anything wrong with it. And after all, I think he's known more for creating his parody videos than for being a reviewer, isn't he?

Still, I can see why TB was so irate about this, and I think it is definitely something that we should be concerned about.

I can see why it didn't make too much of a stir in Gamergate, though, precisely because it's not necessarily related to journalistic integrity and journalistic ethics. SHOULD it be related? I don't know. I feel like it's teetering on the edge of being relevant, just because youtubers are kind of a different breed.

This is something that has confused me too! It seems like what the #gamergate people say they want is two fold:

They want a games media free of corruption. That means no close relations between game makers and reviewers, no publishers and PR people making shady deals, complete transparency, and so forth. No money passing hands, people doing one another favours.

They also want "objective" reviews. Reviews where the reviewer tries to be an impartial spectator, removing him (or herself) from the review, not letting personal experiences or ideals influence the evaluation. This includes pushing personal agendas, such as gender equality. This point is not so much about corruption (unless it's corrupt to be subjective), and more about bad journalism.

The later one is more difficult and more controversial.

(What Anita Sarkeesian is doing is neither here nor there. She's not a journalist, she's not doing reviews, she's not reporting on any news. She's doing academic feminist analysis. Which seems about as objective as anything else, as she is reporting and analysing her findings through a certain academic standard.)

You're forgetting one, which is wanting the media free of a uniform bias, as well as corruption. I mean, the corruption allegations still are a little hazy, I simply disagree with anyone who thinks reviews should be divorced entirely from personal beliefs (there's a place for all sorts of game critique, and I personally much prefer reading an insightful piece of artistic critique than a "buyer's guide."), but the uniform bias and unprofessionalism of videogame journalism has been all but objectively proven in the last two months.

Hey jefequeso, thank you for responding!

Sorry to ask, but what do you mean by uniform bias? I don't think I've heard that term before. A rough definition (and maybe some examples) would be appreciated!

I totally agree that youtubers aren't journalists and should not be held to the same standard as journalists. That said, I think a lot of games journalists are just reviewers and not really journailsts either. I don't agree youtubers are just lets players, I think youtuber are becoming a very significant players in the "games reporting" industry - this is evidenced by the fact that the Shadow of Mordor devs specifically sought out and agreed to pay youtubers to cover their game.

I agree that I don't think that Boogie intentionally manipulated or misled people. But I also don't think that the writer who failed mention that 2 years before she wrote an article about a dev, she had a drink with him intentionally manipulated or misled people or that the writer who didn't mention the dev of a game she reviewed was a friend intentionally manipulated or misled people.

Personally, I think it is bad the Boogie did not give full disclosure (but not terrible) and I think its bad (but not terrible) that the reviewer didn't mention the person who made the game was a friend.

I guess I will just add this to the list of reasons why I am not a part of gamergate. Focussing solely on journalists who write articles and ignoring youtubers who have millions of subscribers (and probably get more views than many online publications) seems to me to be crazy.

Well, again though, I think the corruption angle is hazy at best, but the bias and unprofessionalism angle is rock solid, and very probably indicates that there's some level of (intentional or unintentional) "cliqueishness" behind the scenes of game journalism.

As far as youtubers go... I agree with TwilightBard. Going after too many things at once isn't going to help anyone, and if anything, the Shadow of Mordor debacle says more about the publishers than it says about Youtubers. And that's a battle for another time.