Thank you for clarifying!

You mean, the fact that the games often get similar scores and comments when getting reviewed? So you're saying #gamergate wants more diversity in their games jouranlism, and actually more subjectivity? As pure objectivity from every outlet would certainly mean the reviews would be very similar.

But does the gaming press actually work together deliberately to create a consistent, uniform narrative? Can you give any examples?

When you say bias and unprofessionalism, what kind of things are you referring to?

Notwithstanding the possibility of it being deliberate in some cases, I would say it's more the case that modern gaming journalism has become very self-selecting and a large majority of those practicing it have very similar backgrounds in the liberal arts. (Being uncharitable, how many of today's gaming journalists are part of the "wanted to be big-time investigative journalists but got stuck covering video games for lack of options" group?)

You don't need much coordination if everyone is ready to sing from the same hymn sheet from the start.

This "scandal" has done nothing but left a bad taste in my mouth. Not because of allegations of corruption against gaming journalists, as let's be honest, most news media in journal is corrupt in some form or another, but the bile that has spewed forth as a result of it. All this has done is make gamers look even worse in the eyes of the general public.

Not that many, one would assume. Most I would say generally enjoy video games, and enjoy writing articles on them.

Umm, if you're talking about Shadows of Mordor, that video linked earlier was pretty incensed about that.

I have to say that I'm rather impressed by the mental gymnastics you're going through in order to not notice any of this. There's a ton of things to get outraged about and we have to get outraged over every single bit of it in order to be credible? And not just get outraged about it, we have to post massive letters about how outraged we are about every one of these things otherwise we don't have any credibility with you.

Don't you think that's a ridiculous standard to have? Seems far more like you're trying to rationalize being on the side you're on rather than actually believing it.
Isn't that pretty much inevitable though? The press was going to tar and feature the movement regardless of how accurate the portrayal was. It's the benefit they get from owning these media outlets.

The problem here is that most media outlets are either corrupt or incompetent on anything related to the video games, so there's not going to be an objective reason based response to it. And certainly no accurate or fair portrayals.

But, it's always been like that for as long as I can remember. Games get covered in a way that makes non-gamers feel good about themselves and to hell with gamers.

On the bright side, I don't think people take the media terribly seriously on this subject, even people that aren't gamers tend not to take their views terribly seriously.

Whilst suggesting that we need to be outraged about every one of these things is a wonderful strawman, its not what I said at all. My comment was just that I was surprised that I hadn't seen it mentioned. I did say I might have missed it. It seems like others may have as well (perhaps read above comments, have a look at the article, etc - but hey, being super defensive is great too).

I don't suppose you would like to refer me to the post that mentions the video?

Well, just look at the way they've covered Gamergate, both in articles and on their social media accounts.

That's certainly not the impression I've got through this whole ordeal.

It's earlier in the tread, I don't have it on speed dial. It was Sterling's video earlier on. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/9782-Shadow-of-Mordors-Promotion-Deals-with-Plaid-Social

And there's not much point in us being outraged by it when somebody has already expressed the outrage.

Plus, you should be more careful with your implications if you're not prepared to stand by them.

Hey thanks for the link!

Interesting that it's a video from an SJW like Jim rather than from a #gg person. I guess you're right tho, if one person is outraged by something it's pointless for anyone else to be.

What implications do you think I made?

Who said anything about getting outraged? I was talking about providing additional coverage.

Hedwards did:

I hope you are not getting outraged by the lack of coverage. Your outrage is probably pointless. I am sure there are already people outraged by it all. :)

I'm just stirring. I do understand Hedwards' point. I don't think we can expect #gg to jump on every example of ethics in games reporting. Just for me personally, I find something like this more important than many of the other issues raised by #gg people.

Of course Hedwards will probably say that is because I am apparently a woman and a feminist who lacks the ability to think rationally, but thats ok with me.

Sure, one can simply wish away a neurological birth condition... A lot try to "man it up" / "woman it up", and aim to kill themselves after decades of trying, "a lot" is like 40%.

The attempted solutions where :
- not do anything about it -> high suicide rate;
- cure with psychiatry -> high suicide rate;
- hormonal masculinization of trans women and feminization of trans me -> total disaster;
- hormonal substitution and/or gender confirmation surgery -> the suicide rate becomes comparable to the main population suicide rate.

Unlike body dysphoria, gender dysphoria is proven to be cured by physical changes. And peer-reviewed studies after studies show that it isn't a delusion, but more likely a difference in the masculinization / feminization process before birth.

The "it's for the money" just doesn't hold water. Hormones are cheap, surgeries, in the $15k-$20k range, can only be done by an handful of surgeons who requires a psychiatric diagnostic of the condition, and being on anti-depressants and therapy for life isn't any cheaper.

"Gender studies" don't have anything to do with sexual transition practices. It's based on constantly updated clinical experience, on what works and what doesn't, with a coordination effort WPATH who defines best practice guidelines.

"Common sense" is to not use entertainment media as your only source of information.

Oh really? I didn't know Phil Fish was a woman. One of the first stories uncovered by GG was how much of a fucking joke IGF was (and still is) and how FEZ won the award when it participated. Guess what, it has nothing do do with women. But please, keep spreading the lie that GG is a hate movement against women if you wish. I'm pretty sure it's better to paint the movement as something evil when you don't have arguments to counter it.
You don't know where it came from? I certainly do, it came from the people who want to destroy GG, the same ones screaming that GG is a hate movement against women. It has never been about that, it has never been about feminism, it has never been about Anita. Journalists simply don't want to discuss the issue of ethics in journalism, so they're trying to brand GG as something evil to discredit it. It's simple.