Over the last few months, the world of gaming has become a heavily polarized maelstrom of emotion, leading to a massive industry-wide rift that’s pretty much torn the community as a whole.

Sexism in gaming has become a controversial, hot-button topic for good reason: it’s something everyone feels strongly about, and thanks to a number of heavily-biased, badly-researched sensationalized articles, the term “gamer” now has a weighty stigma attached to it.

Without a doubt there is sexism in online gaming. You only have to check out the recent posts on Fat, Ugly or Slutty, a site where female gamers report and post their latest instances of harassment.

One documentary wants to shed some light on the subject, and it was created well before the consumer GamerGate movement signaled a change in the industry. It’s called GTFO.

GTFO is a doc film created by Shannon Sun-Higginson that explores how women are treated in the realm of online gaming. Funded on Kickstarter back in May 2013 for a tune of $30,000, the final version of GTFO was recently showcased at this year’s SXSW event.

Women are treated differently than men in the online gaming space, and often the abuse is frightening, obscene and completely volatile–and there’s not much anyone can say to refute it.

It does happen, as bad things happen to good people, but unlike the circumstance of the cosmos, a lot of this is in our power to help stop.

The Path to Changing the Online Space

We’ve seen women come forward and share their stories in droves, but the media has depicted their interactions in a way that’s dramatized to drive home a singular point: women are treated horribly in video games, and it has to stop.

But how do we make it stop? Can we just keep recycling outrage opinion pieces with clickbait articles over and over, stirring things up, and hope eventually harassers will just give up on their own free will?

It’s an age-old question, really, that’s plagued humanity from the get-go: how do we make people treat one another without discrimination, sexism and hate?

The answer isn’t found in the kind of stories I’m talking about.

These articles, these bits of “coverage” have been decidedly one-sided, and as a result, gaming itself has become demonized and synonymous with unsavory keywords like “misogyny” and other terms that have, unfortunately, stuck.

In an effort to steal headlines, earn clicks and improve page rankings rather than actually report information in a clear and fair way, the media has stigmatized its own constituency and self-destructed a hefty portion of interactive entertainment.

Rather than revealing a seedy dark underbelly of the anonymous online space that is online gaming, it became more about perpetuating a sort of popular socio-political agenda. The road to progressive change has been mired and muddled with soapbox-style shock-drama reports that are designed to elicit emotional responses out of the reader.

Over the course of the rift, we’ve seen a ton of articles, op-eds, videos and everything else that’s called for a reformation of games culture.

But instead of focusing on how we can change all of this, it’s focused on the threats and harassment themselves, which seems to be the major point.

As far as GTFO goes, it just chronicles the strife that some women face in everyday gaming sessions. It’s not an even playing field, and the anonymous ether of the internet ensures some people get away with the things they say and do. But that might come to an end soon enough.

I haven’t seen the full documentary, but based on the trailer, GTFO seems to follow the same kind of shocking dramatization wherein female gamers share the horrible things that were said to them online. This is an important mechanism for education, as viewers and gamers alike should know about this kind of thing, but there’s more to the story–and more to the world of gaming.

The documentary is something that should be explored. But how it’s portrayed is also important; docs like these need to examine how female gamers are treated on a whole, as the good is just as relevant as the bad.

Through online gaming, people have fallen in love and married one another–many people have met as a result of their time spent in, say, World of Warcraft.

Surveying the Playing Field

Traditionally online first-person shooters are hyper competitive realms that are dominated by male gamers, and as such, there’s tons of trash talking and online interactions that borderline on abuse on an everyday basis. And when women in gaming jump into the fray, they’re often met with unsavory and startling displays that show how much freedom the internet gives harassers.

But is that to say that every gamer is like that? Is that to say that everyone who plays Call of Duty is a terrible person? No, of course not. But then again anyone–whether it’s a woman or man–should be able to play a game without getting trash-talked and demoralized.

And does every girl gamer have these kinds of interactions in every game? Can she play, say, Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn without having to worry about someone treating her badly?

Are there any games where female gamers are safe?

Perhaps not, and in reality it feels like no one is safe in an online game–pure and total safety is something we apparently waive when we connect to the digital world–but I think that documentaries like GTFO are trying to make people question why these online spaces can’t be safe, especially for female gamers

Shannon Sun-Higginson has been working as a documentary producer and director since graduating from Wesleyan University in 2010.

Restoring the Human Element

Sadly, it seems like a lot of the time people make serious money or build fame off of the discussion rather than trying to honestly make things better–they profit from the misery of the very community they’re trying to help, which is a bizarre sort of symbiosis.

But Sun-Higginson, GTFO‘s creator, has no personal stake against GamerGate or even the gaming community. She’s not out for revenge, and she doesn’t even appear to be a gamer.

She just wants girls to be able to play games and be treated well. The reality is, though, the online gaming space isn’t savory: it’s a realm where our darker sides can run rampant without any real-life repercussions, and that kind of freedom often brings out the inner-beast within us.

The way to making online interactions more desirable for everyone isn’t going to happen by demonizing gaming, or even demonizing male gamers. Doing this only ensures you’re playing on the harasser’s playing field, which is quite dangerous.

It must be done by showing these harassers that the online avatars they’re attacking are actually people–which is something we often forget when playing online.

The human element must be restored to online gaming, and the responsibility lies in all of us–not just the game companies that create the games, or the ones that host the services.

The human element must be restored throughout gaming as a whole. It can’t come from outside, it has to come from within the community.

I think that documentaries like GTFO might be able to act as a catalyst to kickstart this, but only if they’re worried less about propelling their own fame and pushing their own agendas and worried more about actually positively helping the spaces they claim to care about.

The post GTFO Documentry Takes A Look at How Women Are Treated in Gaming appeared first on VR World.

The digital games store Gamersgate has apparently been targeted by a swath of “threats” and “harsh words” after being erroneously associated with GamerGate, the movement that’s taken games media by storm.

While the digital distribution shares a common name with the gaming reformation, that’s where the similarities end. Gamersgate has nothing to do with the campaign whatsoever.

To set the record straight, Gamersgate CEO Theodore Bergqvist wrote a public memo on Facebook explaining the obvious.

“Announcement: GAMERSGATE.COM is NOT Gamergate!

“As many of you are aware of, recently there has been a fierce and infected discussion about sexism as well as journalistic ethics in the gaming industry.

“We’ve received threats and harsh words from around the world and want to make it clear for everyone that Gamersgate.com is not part of this controversy whatsoever.

“Next year Gamersgate.com celebrate our 10th anniversary and since start we have been selling games for download. We are one of the original download platforms and we do our best to support gamers so that they can buy and download games to good prices. Anytime, anywhere.

“Theodore Bergqvist. CEO – Gamersgate.com“

This message clearly exposes how polarized the community has become over GamerGate. In the case of Gamersgate, the platform has become yet another instance of collateral damage in the wake of the cultural rift.

In any case, be sure to drop by and check out Gamersgate‘s catalog of games–with over 6,000 games, they have a little something for everyone.

The post Gamersgate.com Isn't Affiliated With GamerGate, CEO Says appeared first on VR World.

In the wake of GamerGate, the video games media complex is exposing a very strong liberal bias.

This institutional bias has been a tool to systematically misinform readers and denigrate the gamer subculture. Everywhere websites are denouncing GamerGate, associating it with abuse, misogyny and anti-feminist ideals, and go lengths to show viewers why they should stay away–very far away–from the cause lest they become tainted by this corruption.

These sites shame readers and proponents of GamerGate with attempts to appeal to their humanism, effectively coercing emotional responses. Instead of objectively reporting on a cultural dilemma, these journalists become personally involved.

This is bias, and it’s nothing new in the media industry.

What is new is that the public doesn’t want to stand for it anymore. This rebellion–not misogyny or harassment–is the heart of GamerGate.

But to end it, they’ll have to go against the media: and as history has taught us, the media is one unapologetic, undignified foe.

Games journalists, like other journalists, have taken up the dual mantle of reporter/social worker–a dynamic that’s been in play for quite some time.

Society’s designated saviors

News media informs millions of people about the daily happenings of the world. From current events to politics and even gaming, the media is there, supplying us with an ever-present flow of content specifically tailored to our needs.

But what happens when the news is skewed? What happens when misinformation and agendas replace honest, unbiased reporting?

The media has the power to change how we see the world. By leaning to the left on cultural topics like sexism and racism, the news media forgoes its duty to the people in order to perpetuate coverage that falls in line with their beliefs.

Why would a news anchor or journalist embrace such an agenda — why jeopardize professionalism for personal beliefs?

Bernard Goldberg, a journalist who spent almost 30 years on CBS News, wrote in his 2001 book Bias that journalists often become “journalists/social workers” when involved in cultural events.

Read more coverage of BSN*’s GamerGate coverage here

“When ‘proper’ victims are involved, we become journalist/social workers. And we live by the journalist/social worker motto: Afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted.”

Goldberg also says that ” a lot of news people, after all, got into journalism in the first place so they could change the world and make it a better place.”

Every writer and journalist has their own personal motivations, ethics and ideals. Professional journalists travel the world to report on war, genocide, and other human strife.

It’s only natural for them to want to change the world for the better.

Even amid this harrowing woe, a journalist’s job remains as it always has: to report the truth to the people and not get involved. Regardless of this golden rule of journalism, some reporters make it a personal crusade to end what they see as corrupt.

“Increasingly, journalists see themselves as society’s designated saviors,” Robert Lichter of Washington’s nonpartisan Center for Media and Public Affairs told Goldberg in the late 1980’s, when homelessness was inflated and skewed by the biased, leftist media.

Now this mantle of “society’s designated saviors” has passed down to the games media.

The pen is indeed mightier than the sword, and the media has honed its blade with decades of practice. (Photo: Threadless)

When the pen becomes the sword

The most interesting aspect in all of this is not how “GamerGaters” have reacted to the cultural rift, but the response made by publications. If anything the fusillade of articles lambasting and attempting to humiliate the movement says more about the media than it does GamerGate.

And rather than take it professionally, the media has taken GamerGate personally.

In retaliation to the movement, key video games publications have brazenly attacked their own constituency in an effort to warp the public image of GamerGate. They actively compromise truth and integrity for cheapshots and provocative “clickbait”.

As I discussed in my article “How Sensationalism Continues to Ignite GamerGate“, this road is a dangerous one for any publication–whether its TV, print or online.

Much of this content is sensationalist in nature and is so saturated with bias that the writers neglect their duty to present clear, dual-sided content. What readers are given instead is eerily similar to propaganda.

“If you’re a person who cares about video games and also happens to care about other people, you should denounce GamerGate,” wrote T.C. Sottek in an October editorial on The Verge that attempted to explain GamerGate. “Don’t be fooled by ‘gamers’ who want to enlist you in abuse.”

Sottek’s piece feels like a personal tirade, a kind of rant, where he attempts to unceremoniously dismantle the movement while being oblivious to his favoritism of games journalist Leigh Alexander, games developer Zoe Quinn and left-wing feminist critic/activist Anita Sarkeesian.

The article features a video of feminism activist Anita Sarkeesian on-stage at this year’s XOXO Fest along with one of Zoe Quinn’s Tweets pointed at GamerGate.

“Manipulative identity politics, ripped straight from the handbook of conservative sophistry, are also at play,” Sottek affirms, unaware of the manipulative tactics involved with biased news coverage that laments a cause as “misogynistic”.

Sottek goes on to define how the movement transcends rebelling against corruption: “Gamergate is now a self-sustaining machine because it is fueled by reactionary rage and deception, existing now only to defend itself against criticism of ‘gamers.'”

In Gawker’s “What Is Gamergate, and Why? An Explainer for Non-Geeks”, Jay Hathaway wrote in a skewed interviewing-myself prose that “even regarded generously, Gamergate isn’t much more than a tone-deaf rabble of angry obsessives with a misguided understanding of journalistic ethics.

“But there are a lot of reasons not to regard the movement generously.”

This prose is inherently flawed as it supposes that a reader, not a biased author, is asking the questions. To elicit certain emotions from the reader, Hathaway continued to include harassment received by Zoe Quinn, which is thrown in to incite ill-will for the opposition.

This article is meant to be an explanation of GamerGate itself, but most of it discusses the harm inflicted by one side and neglects the harm that’s been done by sensationalist coverage. It’s also meant to be a person’s first entry point to the controversy, and not surprisingly, it’s skewed in favor of a left-wing agenda.

“The labels of “ethics” and “corruption” are, to date, a thin veil over an ongoing attempt to undermine women in the gaming industry and the games press,” wrote Eric Johnson in an October piece on Recode. “Anyone who advocates for gender equality, or better representation, or even just a more open discussion is considered an enemy to be bullied, boycotted or, in some cases, harassed.”

Eric Johnson’s article on Recode was headlined with a picture that’s been all-to-common in this kind of reporting. It features an angry-faced gamer looking at the viewer, projecting a very real picture of the “face of GamerGate”. This image is not unlike the dehumanized faces that accompany political propaganda, and it’s meant to instill an image that all gamers are led by raw emotion rather than sense.

This depiction is a tool, another part of the media’s arsenal to debase and disfigure an entire society–and a means to deter readers who don’t want to be known as hateful, angry people.

Johnson goes on to undermine the central reason why Intel (NASDAQ: INTC) pulled its advertisement campaign for gaming website Gamasutra, saying that the “voices of women gamers” is “seen as a threat to the gaming community”.

This is a sentiment that’s been largely affirmed by a biased press, and is far from the actual truth.

By pulling ads on Gamasutra, Intel was targeted by the biased media with a stream of biased news.

How Intel went from leading hardware maker to “misogynist” overnight

On August 28 Gamasutra ran an editorial entitled “Gamers Don’t Have to Be Your Audience, Gamers are Over” written by Leigh Alexander, a games writer who’s work has appeared on Time and various other publications.

The article was largely seen as a controversial slight to gamers, the site’s own constituency. It was seen as another “cheapshot” wherein a prominent writer was free to flex their clout and launch a tirade against their own core audience.

“‘Games culture’ is a petri dish of people who know so little about how human social interaction and professional life works that they can concoct online ‘wars’ about social justice or ‘game journalism ethics,’ straight-faced, and cause genuine human consequences,” Alexander wrote in the piece.

The content of the article was seen as the problem, and as a result, GamerGate boycotted Gamasutra altogether. If rebellion is the heart of GamerGate, the brains would be the consumerist boycott, which aims at not giving ad revenue to media presences deemed as corrupt.

The boycott was made readily apparent to Intel by way of GamerGate e-mails. Soon Intel pulled its campaign altogether, depriving the site of major advertising funds.

This, too, was sensationalized in the media. Overnight Intel had gone from world-leading hardware-maker to a “misogynist” collective aimed at “silencing women in the games industry.”

“Intel Backs Misogynist Gaming Taliban” reads an article on the UK-based publication Channel Eye. “Intel Buckles to Anti-Feminist Campaign By Pulling Ads on Gaming Site” chimed The Verge, which already has an established stance on GamerGate coverage.

These outlets conveniently overlook the swath of offensive content found in Alexander’s social media interactions on Twitter, which have since been deleted.

“Be careful with me. I am a megaphone, I am much less kind than Rami and I won’t mind making an example out of you,” Alexander said to Russ Roegner, an indie games developer, in one of her most damning Tweets.

Interestingly enough Gamasutra is a haven for indie devs like Russ Roegner, arming them with tools and contacts to establish their skills–that is until you earn the ire of a major force in their website.

It could even be argued that key websites support Alexander by writing smear content because of personal favoritism–not professional courtesy–and used their high standings in the media to retaliate.

Evidence of this kind of favoritism and cliquish behavior in the games journalism scene has since been exposed as part of the Games Journo Pros controversy, which involved a secret mailing list used by key games journalists.

In this list, high-profile games writers like Polygon‘s Ben Kuchera and Kotaku‘s Jason Schreier pressured others to avoid covering the Zoe Quinn scandal out of personal feelings. If writers will go out of their way to defend a developer, imagine what they’ll do for “one of their own” like Gamasutra‘s Leigh Alexander?

Suddenly the anti-Intel articles make much more sense.

These writers and journalists appear to want the public to believe GamerGate is a maelstrom of enmity, and are doing everything in their power to sway opinions.

Why? Because they’re guilty of liberal bias, they’ve broken one of the golden rules of journalism, and they don’t even know it.

Games media often operates in a way befit for a corrupt institution that systematically bends and redefines its own laws.

The Games Mafia: The casualties of sensationalism

As a result of biased coverage, the games media has made the very mention of GamerGate radiate with negativity. Many websites don’t want to touch it in fear of being associated with a campaign based on harassment. Pro-GamerGaters are being harassed and even doxxed–that is their personal information being disseminated through the Internet.

Some, like #NotYourShield hashtag creator and indie developer Jason Miller, have lost their livelihoods. Miller’s boss was contacted after his information was leaked and was let go from his job as a result of his role in the movement.

Other developers are afraid of the consequences of coming out in favor of Gamergate. They speak out anonymously in interviews with sites like The Escapist because they know how damning those two words can be–how powerful they are, and what they represent.

The liberal media has established their narrative, and they are responsible for contorting the public’s opinion in this way.

They are responsible for their part in creating this atmosphere where people’s professional lives can be turned upside down–and ultimately, the media is responsible for perpetuating the conflict with their sensational content.

Attacking GamerGate seems like a knee-jerk reaction to a very real threat–one that could out the media’s established, almost-incestuous relationship with itself. But even still the liberal media refuses to take responsibility for its part of the cultural rift simply because it doesn’t see what it’s done wrong.

This is not a media that’s free of corruption. This is a media that freely caters to liberal activism and shakes its finger at you for saying its wrong. It’s your fault, not theirs, and if you make a scene, they’ll put you in your place by smearing your name, ruining your livelihood and making sure you never work in the industry again.

This isn’t games media; this is the games mafia.

(Headline Photo: Twinfinite)

The post GamerGate: Does Games Journalism Have a Liberal Bias Problem? appeared first on VR World.

As had originally been reported, Intel (NASDAQ:INTC) had only briefly addressed their decision to pull ads from Gamasutra due to customer feedback regarding the publication’s editorial. Many publications have decided to pile on to the sensationalism of GamerGate and decided to claim that Intel is a misogynist company and that the company did this out of sexism. Even though, as stated before, the company employs a female President of the company and the head of the company’s desktop PC division is also a woman. At Intel, men and women are effectively equals and the idea of sex and sexism is almost a non-issue. Intel is without a doubt one of the most progressive companies as a whole in the tech industry and is one of the greenest if not the greenest tech companies in the US.

The backlash from this move has been vigorous and mostly unfounded, but Intel’s management appears to have decided to address the matter directly through a press release that they just sent out stating,

“We take feedback from customers seriously. For the time being, Intel has decided not to continue with our current ad campaign on the gaming site Gamasutra. However, we recognize that our action inadvertently created a perception that we are somehow taking sides in an increasingly bitter debate in the gaming community. That was not our intent, and that is not the case. When it comes to our support of equality and women, we want to be very clear: Intel believes men and women should be treated the same. And, diversity is an integral part of our corporate strategy and vision with commitments to improve the diversity of our workforce. And while we respect the right of individuals to have their personal beliefs and values, Intel does not support any organization or movement that discriminates against women. We apologize and we are deeply sorry if we offended anyone.

Clearly, GamerGate has expanded far beyond its origins and now even the tech companies are getting roped into it. But as it appears, Intel believes that they also need to apologize to those that believe that Intel did this out of sexism or misogyny, which is patently false. Even so, in today’s corporate culture companies are big and prominent as Intel are forced to try to appease both sides.

The post Intel Responds to Pulling of Gamasutra Ads appeared first on VR World.

Intel (NASDAQ:INTC) has recently become the topic of controversy when it decided to pull its advertisement campaign on popular gaming industry site Gamasutra.

The decision was largely influenced by the GamerGate movement’s daily e-mail boycotts, wherein users reach out to key advertisers and express their concerns over the content.

The community boycotted Gamasutra in response to the controversial “Gamers Are Over” editorial, which was largely seen as offensive and inflamed the cultural shift with its sensationalized content.

@BuckSexington Yes, our partners at @intel were flooded with complaints over a recent opinion piece, and they did pull an ad campaign.

— Gamasutra (@gamasutra) October 1, 2014

A high volume of e-mails were sent to Intel–one of the major advertisers for Gamasutra–regarding the offensive article. Users cited that they will no longer be visiting the website as a result of the content, and made their position clear.

As a result, Intel pulled their advertising campaign on the site, earning the ire and wrath of the other side of the gate.

After nixing its ad campaign, Intel was seen as an ally to the GamerGate initiative. This prompted a slew of backlash from apparent pro-feminist gamers who saw the hardware-maker as a pawn for “internet trolls”.

Users called Intel “misogynistic” for their decision, which kicked off a dedicated #misogynyinside hashtag. Some said that Intel “supported the harassment of women and journalists”.

Others said that by pulling ads on Gamasutra, the company “doesn’t support and opposes women making, playing or writing about games”.

Interestingly enough Intel has many female executives; Renee J. James serves as president of the company. These allegations seem to be a kneejerk reaction to the assumption that Leigh Alexander–the author of the controversial article–is being attacked, when in actuality it’s Gamasutra that’s being penalized

The hurling of very serious words like misogyny only serves to alienate the company even farther from the “Social Justice” crowd. Ironically these people are actually taking part in the behavior they find so abominable.

Assuming this logic, if Intel listens to its concerned community, then it must be completely involved with the “harassment” and “discrimination” attributed to the GamerGate movement.

But why did Intel pull the ads in the first place?

Intel has a massive stake in the PC gaming industry, and its processors power almost every enthusiast gaming rig in existence. So when gamers–one of its key constituencies–step forward to claim that a website that Intel advertises on has offended them, its to be taken seriously.

“Intel has pulled its advertising from website Gamasutra,” Intel spokesperson Bill Calder said. “

We take feedback from our customers very seriously especially as it relates to contextually relevant content and placements.”

Intel is keen on the growth of the enthusiast PC market as well as serving its customer base, not getting involved with a cultural shift. If anything, it wants gamers to thrive, not to “die”.

In any case, it will be interesting to see if the company will be further pressured by anti-GamerGate’rs and feminist gamers in the coming weeks. Many users are sending batches of e-mails and taking to Pastebin to voice their concerns on Intel’s decision.

In the meantime Gamasutra has lost a major advertiser, and the collective movement continues to gain momentum.

The post GamerGate: Intel Faces Backlash for Pulling Gamasutra Ads appeared first on VR World.

Sensationalism is not a new concept in the media; it can be traced as far back as Ancient Rome with the Acta Diurna, where it served as a means to inform the masses on politics and everyday news.

But now, in our current day and age, sensationalism is dangerous. Through the manipulation of emotion, sensationalist reporting can spark off great movements and further widen cultural rifts within a society, and can even be responsible for perpetuating the most tumultuous controversies of our time.

It can even lead to a moral panic.

To understand the impact of sensationalism one must examine examples of biased coverage that attempts to push a cultural agenda for moral advocacy, the nature of controversies in the media, the exploitative nature of trading objective journalism for a “profit motive”, and how sensational content can damage and ruin the reputation of those involved in a scandal.

Leigh Alexander’s sensationalized piece on Gamasutra was one of the more influential articles that invoked key emotions in a portion of readers.

Sensationalism and GamerGate: The political agenda to end gamers

“Sensationalism is a type of editorial bias in mass media in which events and topics in news stories and pieces are over-hyped to increase viewership or readership numbers.

“Sensationalism may include reporting about generally insignificant matters and events that don’t influence overall society and biased presentations of newsworthy topics in a trivial or tabloid manner contrary to the standards of professional journalism.” –Wikipedia entry, Sensationalism

Like in past controversies, sensational coverage permeates the landscape of GamerGate, an industry-wide movement that actively scrutinizes and criticizes the collusive, corrupt practices of video games media.

Rather than capture the industry-wide debacle in an objective light, key games media publications such as Gamasutra, Kotaku and Ars Technica took advantage of the situation in order to spin sensationalized content focused on the volatility of any controversy: harassment, socio-political pressures, to name a few.

“‘Gamer’ isn’t just a dated demographic label that most people increasingly prefer not to use. Gamers are over. That’s why they’re so mad.” –Leigh Alexander, Gamasutra (Aug. 28, 2014)

These articles brazenly featured such tabloid-esque headlines as “Gamers Don’t Have to be Your Audience, Gamers are Over“,”The Death of the ‘Gamers’ and the Women who ‘Killed’ Them” and “A Guide to Ending ‘Gamers’“, all of which stoked an already-building fire.

In these pieces, the writers — who have large standings within the gaming sphere — argue a clear ideal that “gamers are dead”, a concept that has inflamed its core constituency in an effort to embrace the apparent cultural shift.

The content appeals to the emotions of the reader, presenting certain content in such a way that manipulates the audience’s perspectives to fall in line with their own.

“Some tactics [of sensationalism] include being deliberately obtuse, appealing to emotions, being controversial, intentionally omitting facts and information, being loud and self-centered and acting to obtain attention.”

These outlets capitalized on the major cultural themes of sexism and the growing concerns of misogyny in video games — a concept that has been rigorously argued and spotlighted by Feminist Frequency’s Anita Sarkeesian — in order to bolster hits and cash in on the controversy.

By portraying GamerGate — and its supporters — in such a way, the media has skewed the debate in a very political way — suggesting a very clear sense of morality that can’t be opposed for fear of being a “misogynist” (or a number of negative cultural identities).

The newest Cracked article, 7 Reasons “Gamergate” Proves Humanity is Doomed, is an excellent example of sensationalism that cashes in on the controversy.

Not so long ago, Cracked allowed Zoe Quinn to write her own piece on the subject of her harassment — a piece that garnered over a million views. Let’s just say that the site has been profiting from this kind of coverage in a rather exploitative manner.

After receiving widespread views and hits from the last Zoe Quinn piece, Cracked published a rather biased piece that looks at GamerGate in a cynical–if not insulting–way.

Alleged deflection, collusion and agenda-pushing

Interestingly enough, many GamerGate proponents think that major sites are using sensational content as a means of deflecting the ongoing investigation of corruption in the games journalism field.

By contorting the image that their investigators are “obtuse shitslingers” and “childish internet-arguers”, the general population is pushed toward this conclusion–after all, this is a writer they may like or trust, so it’s easy to take their side.

It has been revealed that many top journos have been using their influence to collude with one another in the Games Journo Pros e-mail list in an effort to control the content that is written and omitted on their sites.

Further evidence of collusion is reinforced by the fact that 14 different websites — from Kotaku to Buzzfeed – published sensationalized GamerGate articles all on the same day.

Mass censorship across 4Chan, Reddit and various key publications is a disconcerting trend that falls right in line with collusive agenda-pushing of the established media base. Certain stories are written with comments turned off by default, effectively provoking emotions without giving those same invoked emotions a platform for discourse.

Headlines such as these are often seen as “clickbait”, and while earning views, this practice can often bring disrepute on big-name publications

 Moral panic: Storming the (gamer) gates

Key publications serve as entry points to the GamerGate controversy, and when that entry point is full of bias, it spreads to the Internet quite fast. Many readers are making up their minds based on the information skewed by a writer’s personal opinion, consequently being pulled into the argument and pressured to believe the “right side”.

This negative perception of GamerGate proponents, facilitated and nurtured by sensationalized content, shows signs of a small-scale moral panic.

In their book Mass Media (1999), A-level sociology teachers Emma and Marsha Jones define a moral panic as “an intense feeling expressed in a population about an issue that appears to threaten the social order.”

The broader topic of sexism in video games would be the issue at stake, but the behavior of pro-GamerGate followers is being cited as an example as the “misogyny” that’s perpetuated by the video games culture.

Stanley Cohen, author of Folk Devils and Moral Panics (1972), says that a moral panic ensues when “a condition, episode, person or group of persons emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests”.

Wikipedia notes that “those who start the panic when they fear a threat to prevailing social or cultural values are known by researchers as moral entrepreneurs, while people who supposedly threaten the social order have been described as folk devils.”

In this case, Anita Sarkeesian, Zoe Quinn and certain sensationalized publications could be known as the “moral entrepreneurs” and pro-GamerGate followers as “folk devils”.

According to Sociologists Erich Goode and Nachman Ben-Youda, moral panics have the following consistent characteristics:

• Concern – There must be awareness that the behaviour of the group or category in question is likely to have a negative effect on society.

• Hostility – Hostility towards the group in question increases, and they become “folk devils”. A clear division forms between “them” and “us”.

• Consensus – Though concern does not have to be nationwide, there must be widespread acceptance that the group in question poses a very real threat to society. It is important at this stage that the “moral entrepreneurs” are vocal and the “folk devils” appear weak and disorganised.

• Disproportionality – The action taken is disproportionate to the actual threat posed by the accused group.

• Volatility – Moral panics are highly volatile and tend to disappear as quickly as they appeared due to a wane in public interest or news reports changing to another topic.

Trailing even a small fragment of the GamerGate timeline it becomes evident that these findings are quite relative in the current gaming-centric controversy.

Many of these headlines are tabloid-esque, and the content within is skewed towards a side, revealing the author’s bias while delving into manipulative text.

The nature of controversies, scandals and the media

Controversial topics remain one of the most solid and lucrative points of coverage in the media. In a way, journalists are taught to “sniff” out the news the same way bloodhounds follow a fox’s trail–they are trained to identify potential breaking stories and exclusives.

This often leads to some of the most sensationalized mass media content that can have a significant effect on a person or group as well as society as a while. Notable examples include the Clinton/Lewinski scandal, the Casey Anthony Trial and even the Elian Gonzalez affair.

To understand why controversies and scandals are so popular, we have to take a quick look at human nature. Why do people want to read about the most gruesome and terrible things? Why does coverage of racism, sexism, murder, religion and other tales of human woe sell so well?

Newspapers, magazines and online content allow everyday people to traverse the world in the comfort of their own home. It might be something like seeing a scary movie, where people can subject themselves to a vicarious thrill without being subjected to the actual repercussions of an event.

Why are these publications doing this? What could they hope to gain?

“One presumed goal of sensational reporting is to increase or sustain viewership or readership, from which media outlets can price their advertising higher to increase their profits based on higher numbers of viewers and/or readers.”

“Sometimes this can lead to a lesser focus on objective journalism in favor of a profit motive, in which editorial choices are based upon sensational stories and presentations to increase advertising revenue.”

Reporting on scandals is a lucrative enterprise that’s encouraged simply for its gains in profit. For many online-based mediums, more hits means more ad revenue, and that means more cash flow for the company or publication. This kind of ruthless take on generating views has some very real consequences, and is often a dual-edged sword.

In the written form, sensationalism offers a unique opportunity for a writer to marry their personal beliefs with their professional medium. Writers can easily spin a narrative that falls in line with a popular agenda and then reap the rewards that come with being on the “right side”.

The problem with sensationalism, though, is that it severely lowers the credibility of publications. Tabloids have sold millions of copies of sensationalist content throughout the years, but as a result it compromises their integrity and reputation.

The National Enquirer, for example, will never be known for objective newsworthy content–it’ll always be known for its reporting on Bigfoot, botched alien autopsies, and other ridiculous–if not entertaining–notions.

Many of the sensationalized articles discuss the claims that video games–and gamers–are sexist without traversing the ethical dilemmas faced by collusion, lack of critical distance and other corrupt practices in the games media.

The ethical implications of sensationalism

If the past has taught us anything, its that biased and sensational coverage can jeopardizes the safety and reputation of those surrounded by controversial events.

This sensationalism introduces and keeps focus on the center of a scandal while pushing an agenda–which in turn invites provocation, both negative (fighting, dissent) and positive (attracting new “followers”).

The continued harassment of Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian has a causal link to sensationalist reporting, as it directly sparks emotion and perpetuates a skewed perspective of the controversy. That angst is then vetted on the perceived targets of the scandals themselves — much the same way the content in question targets GamerGate users who have yet to insult anyone.

“…public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues.

“Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist’s credibility.”

–Preamble to Code of Ethics, Society of Professional Journalists

This dangerous circle is an end result of the effect of moral panic as well as the sensationalism that occurs when professional and personal ethics are blurred together.

Furthermore controversial figures are elevated to a risky level of fame, and as such, its the media’s responsibility to carefully tread on the side of objectivity and non-partial reporting.

All journalists are encouraged to practice the principle of “limitation of harm”, one of the major tenants in the Standards and Ethics of Journalism.

“Limitation of harm” calls for the exclusion of certain details–names of crime victims or witnesses, minor children–that can cause harm to one’s reputation. These details can safely be omitted when they aren’t materially related to news coverage and put a figure or group at unnecessary risk of personal or professional harm.

Not doing so can not only put the publication at needless jeopardy by alienating a core constituency, but also making an unintentional target for one side to fight against. This in turn puts those involved at risk of peril on a professional or personal level.

The reticence of covering of The Zoe Post back when the news broke in August may have been a practice of “limitations of harm” on the part of journalists, however the Games Journo Pros logs point to a general air of favor rather than impartial neutrality.

The content is encouraged to be omitted when defamatory, and the reluctance (and outright dismissive attitude) of key journos to cover the scandalous links between Quinn and Kotaku journalist Nathan Grayson points to a sense of cronyism and collusion rather than professional ethics.

Further biased coverage inflames the opposition, thus making the entire debacle even more strenuous and serious, provoking the continuation of the struggle. If the media is profiting from the struggle, however, it’s far less likely sensationalist reporting will stop.

This kind of coverage seems to be wholly counter-intuitive to the equal-rights agenda that many of these publications are embracing (arguing against sexism in gaming, etc) simply because they are unaware that their actions are inadvertently provoking retaliation to the very figure they’re trying to defend.

Bias and sensationalism are incredibly potent forces in the media, but with this kind of power, comes a very real responsibility. This kind of coverage can stir up an entire society and lead to disastrous groupthink mobs that will stop at nothing to extinguish a perceived threat.

The last few weeks have shown that the games journalism media needs to take more care in the content it curates, and to reflect a higher standard of journalistic integrity. The public, and the readers, are calling for accountability and reform, and GamerGate has become a revolt on a consumer level.

Sensationalism may be lucrative, but that cost comes at a price; and right now it looks as if the publications are being prompted to pay their debts in full.

The post How Sensationalism Continues to Ignite GamerGate appeared first on VR World.

Renown feminist media critic Anita Sarkeesian (of Feminist Frequency fame) has been implicated to the support and co-creation of a musical “rebuttal” that lampoons criticism of her Tropes vs Women in Video Games series.

The mockery was directly aimed at a video published by the Factual Feminist, Dr. Christina H. Sommers, which actively scrutinizes Sarkeesian’s findings.

Sommers’ video has been seen by many as an interesting perspective in the subject of sexism in video games, and cites various studies to back her claims. Her content and words on social media platform Twitter have been embraced as a strong counterpoint to Sarkeesian’s video series thus far.

Instead of being met with discussion or civil debate, Sarkeesian and her partner Jonathan McIntosh allegedly helped musician Jonathan Mann curate a puerile video that autotuned Sommers’ voice against background music. Throughout the video, Mann can be seen dancing in an overlay across Sommers’ original video.

In a recent post on his Patreon page, Mann says that he not only met Sarkeesian and McIntosh at this year’s XOXO Festival, but that the duo actually contributed to the video by “giving feedback”.

Sarkeesian even went so far as to “help a lot with editing and subtitles”.

“So, I had the pleasure of meeting and hanging out with Anita Sarkeesian last weekend at XOXO. I had met her producer and partner-in-video-making Jonathan McIntosh last December at a YouTube event in LA. What lovely people.

“I’ve been fans of theirs for years, so it was great to get to know them a bit.  

“Watching Christina Sommers, the first thing that struck me about that video was that the audio was very clean – perfect for auto-tuning.

“I ran the idea by Anita and Jonathan and they seemed to be into it. So I set out to take apart her argument, point by point, in a song. They gave me some feedback on early versions, and then Anita actually helped a lot with editing the subtitles! I’m bad at details!”

Shortly after Mann’s video went live, Anita Sarkeesian Tweeted it out onto her feed, significantly boosting the signal across her 140-thousand-plus followers.

Here @songadaymann offers a funny autotuned rebuttal to the ludicrous claim that there is no sexism in video games: http://t.co/uigyxHXkws

— Feminist Frequency (@femfreq) September 19, 2014

While no concrete links of Sarkeesian’s and McIntosh’ involvement in the video have been made, it’s easy to see how the content could benefit their cause, and suspicion is quite high.

Oddly enough it appears that Mann thought nothing of revealing this information, but if accurate, this information has many implications.

This event is the second occurrence to implicate Sarkeesian in objectionable actions. Known YouTube personality and critic of feminism Thunderf00t has recently been suspended on Twitter, and according to him, Sarkeesian may have used her considerable standing to make it happen.

Sarkeesian has won over many big names in the entertainment industry–from games journalists to Joss Whedon of Avengers and Firefly fame–and as a result she’s become an influential voice and cultural force within the media.

Over the past few weeks the Internet has seen sensationalist content strewn throughout the media that consistently insults gamers and proponents of GamerGate, but this information points to a very valid sense of irony.

It may serve as a glaring example to the blatant hypocrisy of the purported “Social Justice Warrior” cause–i.e. mocking and taunting others in the name of “equal rights”, gaining attention, or accruing monetization through “clickbait” reporting.

This has proven to be yet another interesting development in the ongoing paradigm shift in gaming culture brought upon by GamerGate. It’ll further be interesting to see if this apparent collusion to smear constructed criticism will affect Anita Sarkeesian’s following, and if it’ll have any ramifications on her credibility as a critic of video games and its shifting culture.

The post Anita Sarkeesian Implicated in Mocking 'Autotuned Rebuttal' Video appeared first on VR World.

Popular YouTuber and Anita Sarkeesian critic Thunderf00t has been suspended on Twitter for taking part in “abusive behavior”.

In a recent video Thunderf00t reveals that the social media platform chose to temporarily ban his account from the service, citing a violation of Twitter’s abusive behavior policy.

The policy reads as follows:

Threats and abuse

Users may not make direct, specific threats of violence against others, including threats against a person or group on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, age, or disability. Targeted abuse or harassment is also a violation of the Twitter Rules and Terms of Service.

Interestingly enough, Twitter allows what it calls “offensive content” as long as it stays within the agreed upon margins.

Offensive content

Users are allowed to post content, including potentially inflammatory content, provided they do not violate the Twitter Rules and Terms of Service. Twitter does not screen content and does not remove potentially offensive content unless such content is in violation of the Twitter Rules and Terms of Service.

The YouTuber’s videos, which criticize Sarkeesian’s Tropes vs Women in Video Games series, have become a strong counterpoint within the GamerGate movement.

Speculation has arisen that this suspension was an attempt by anti-GamerGate activists to “warn” the YouTuber about spreading his content across the social media platform. “It looks like Anita Sarkeesian is personally responsible for getting me suspended on Twitter,” Thunderf00t said in the latest upload.

The account is currently suspended so we can’t officially verify the content of the user’s Twitter feed, but Thunderf00t goes on to point out that he “barely uses the account” and Tweets around average two messages a day.

Based on the content in the video it appears that he’s been suspended not because of his Tweets, but because of the videos he links to and spreads–the videos that criticize Sarkeesian directly.

This is an interesting development in the GamerGate debacle, which today saw a DDoS attack centered on The Escapist‘s GamerGate forums. The Games Journo Pros e-mail group was uncovered just yesterday, further reinforcing the argument that video games journalism is too tight-knit and lacks critical distance.

The implications of these claims remain clear, and solidify a more troublesome trend: the majority crushes the minority with just cause and its overwhelming might, using social media to further perpetuate the echo-chamber effect.

At this point Twitter is being used as a megaphone by journalists and industry veterans to enact a sense of moral authority, and it seems to be working; those with large amounts of followers are heard while others remain lost in the tumult.

And what’s worse is that critics–such as the Factual Feminist’s Christina Hoff Sommers–are actively dismantled by the media, albeit in an editorial, opinionated capacity. It seems that anyone who challenges a champion has an “example made of them”.

Furthermore it seems that Twitter may have a biased agenda to censor criticism, mimicking the current GamerGate censorship across 4Chan’s /v/ forum and Reddit. Can we expect mass suspensions of big-players in the movement, including Internet Aristocrat and perhaps even Adam Baldwin?

Anita Sarkeesian’s Tropes vs Women in Video Games has made major headway in industry-wide reform, but it has also opened criticism from various sources.

Thunderf00t has coined the phrase ‘Sarkeesian Effect’ for this apparent retaliation, but at this point it remains unclear if Feminist Frequency’s Anita Sarkeesian had anything to do with the suspension.

The suspension may just be on the part of Twitter, who holds discretion on case-by-case bases. It’ll be interesting to see how this develops in the future, and whether or not Thunderf00t’s account will be reinstated or not.

For now it looks rather suspicious–especially considering how Sarkeesian responds to criticism–but it’s too early to tell who’s at fault, whether it’s Thunderf00t himself, Twitter, or possibly FemFreq.

The post Twitter Suspends Anita Sarkeesian Critic for 'Abusive Behavior' appeared first on VR World.

GamerGate has been an ongoing struggle within the video games industry, with both sides waging war against ideals like misogyny and collusion within the media sphere. The movement has been clashing with the powers that be for weeks now, with either faction digging in their heels for the long haul, striking out when (and where) they can.

Now it seems that another strike has taken place, this time aimed at one of the last safe havens of GamerGate discussion: The Escapist‘s forums.

A recent DDoS attack specifically targeted the publication’s GamerGate forums, forcibly knocking it offline and effectively cutting off all communication on the subject–literally pulling the plug on one of the last asylums for GamerGate debate and conversation.

A DDOS attack is currently underway against @TheEscapistMag. The attackers are specifically targeting the GamerGate forum thread.

— Alexander Macris (@archon) September 20, 2014

“We will be shutting down forums temporarily while we work on a longer-term solution,” Macris, who oversees general management for The Escapist, said in a recent Tweet.

But this attack won’t sway the publication’s ardent standing in providing a free, public forum for GamerGate.

When asked if the DDoS would ultimately convince The Escapist to pull the forums and block all discussion on the subject, Macris answered with a flat “no”.

Several of you have asked with @TheEscapistMag will close down all discussion of #GamerGate because of this; the answer is “no”.

— Alexander Macris (@archon) September 20, 2014

The Escapist‘s GamerGate  forum remains a key and pivotal environment that allows proponents–and anti-GamerGate followers–to freely voice their opinions on the subject.

Since Reddit and 4Chan‘s /v/ have employed blanket censorship and starting pulling threads on the topic users flocked to the Escapist to keep the ball rolling.

At the time of writing, The Escapist’s forums remain down: “due to database issues the forums will be offline through the weekend.”

There has been speculation that the DDoS may have been caused by anti-GamerGate activists, and that this attack may be a retaliation to the recently unearthed evidence of collusion within the games journalism scene.

E-mail messages taken from Games Journo Pros, a private Google Group used by big-name games writers, further supports this theory.

Sifting through the messages leaked by Breitbart’s Milo Yiannopoulos we see an interesting conversation between The Escapist‘s Editor-in-Chief Greg Tito and Polygon‘s Ben Kuchera.

Kuchera argues that Tito should cut off the forums that discuss the Zoe Quinn scandal (the events that ultimately led to GamerGate), but Tito ultimately disagrees, saying that it’s important for people to voice their opinions.

I’ve decided not to write about this because it’s kind of ridiculous, but there’s a thread created on The Escapist forums that is getting attention. I am unsure where to draw the line.

As an editorial organization, I’ve made the call to ignore the story. But as the controller of a public forum on the internet, I’m struggling to find justification in shutting down discussion. There are voices all over the spectrum in there.

We will of course continue to moderate the crap out of the threads, make sure that all our stringent rules are kept. Should I shut down the thread? Should I bury it? I will be writing a post to add to the thread now, but other than that I don’t know.

Looking for opinions from the group because I’m stumped as to the best way to handle this. Damn it, Jim, I’m a writer not a skilled forum moderator!

This is the question: People are using your platform to harass a developer. Are you comfortable with that?

If there is harassment, I would shut it down immediately. And we’ve banned/warned on posts in those threads that are even close to that line.

I’m talking about the discussion. If I followed your logic, we should also shut down Twitter and the rest of the internet for being a platform for discussion. Which given recent events looks like a very attractive option.

Individual comments are being shut down if they cross the line, which I think is about as good as you can do in this situation Greg.

Telling people they can’t discuss the ramifications of the allegations *at all* is a bit much I think, given that the Escapist forums have always been a place for a wide range of discussions. Banning anyone who is making threats or crossing a line into dangerous rhetoric is really your best move here, IMO.

Ask yourself this:

1) Does that thread serve your community?

2) Is it making anyone’s life better?

3) Is it actively hurting someone?

4) Is that what I want the Escapist to be?

The answers, are no, no, yes, and I hope not. If using the forums to post hearsay to harass and abuse people isn’t against your current TOS, change your TOS. Don’t sit by and let your community be used to making gaming worse because of a technicality.

…The conversation may be distasteful to some of us, but I don’t know if the answer is to delete the thread. The Escapist is not giving harassment a home, but allowing civil discussion on a matter that people are emotional about.

As long as it stays within our rules of conduct, and yeah James I don’t think anything stated has violated the rules you posted, then pushing this down would only serve my own tastes and opinions.

That’s not what a public forum is designed to be, in my opinion.

This isn’t the first time GamerGate proponents have been DDoS’ed–The Fine Young Capitalists claim Zoe Quinn did the very same thing to their site.

DDoS tactics have been used quite recently to thwart GamerGate proponents, causing further speculative parallels to be made.

According to an interview with the Fine Young Capitalists, a feminist group dedicated to shining a light on under-represented groups in the media industry, Quinn used her clout to DDoS their site.

“But the major points are she DDoS’d our site, she called us exploitative, and her PR manager Maya Felix Kramer posted my Facebook information which Zoe replied to, alerting her followers.”

The group has since been stigmatized by anti-GamerGate followers, but has been championed by the pro-GamerGate movement. Despite the blowback, TFYC has moved on to successfully fund an Indiegogo campaign and continues their work in the field.

It’s important to keep in mind that nothing has been confirmed at this point. The origin of the DDoS attack hasn’t been revealed, and there’s no concrete evidence that anti-GamerGate “hacktivists” may be involved.

The evidence revealed thus far is speculative at best, no matter how convincing it may seem.

In any case, this is just the latest strike in what appears to be a long winding battle. What could be next? How far is either side willing to go?

Will GamerGate be extinguished forcibly by the powers that be due to the inherent danger it presents to the current “biased industry that lacks critical distance”?

Only time will tell, but we know for sure that GamerGate isn’t going away any time soon, and as the Streisand effect has taught us, further attempts to repress things of this nature will only make it spread farther.

The post GamerGate Escapist Forums Forced Offline by DDoS Attack appeared first on VR World.

Evidence has mounted that gaming journalists from key publications like Kotaku, Ars Technica and Polygon have been colluding with one another to control industry-wide news coverage, adding further credence to the widespread belief that biased agenda-pushing is running rampant in the field.

According to reports from Breitbart, a number of high-profile journalists communicate with one another via a private Google Groups e-mail listing known as “Games Journo Pros“, where they discuss what to write about, what to include, and more importantly, what to omit.

Breitbart, the eponymous blog of the late Andrew Breitbart, is known for its blend of investigative journalism which has been frequently accused by its critics of removing context when covering its subjects.

The reports indicate that writers actively discouraged other journalists to write about the Zoe Quinn scandal, which effectively uncovers the reason for the radio silence shortly after the news broke. Members of the group allegedly used their influence and standing in the industry to sort of intimidate other writers, pressuring other journalists to adhere to a moral code of ethics–and further chastising them should they disagree.

Games Journo Pros: Professional ethics, interrupted?

The group appears to be a sort of “online club” where prominent journalists come together to discuss the industry. But Games Journo Pros may be something more sinister and conspiratorial; it may very well be a means of directly controlling the content pushed out onto major publications.

This means of dominating video games media falls in line with advocating, embracing and publishing content aligned with personal agendas, which invariably breaches journalistic integrity.

There isn’t a clear defined line between professional and personal ethics; instead the result is a blurred mishmash that leads to mass censorship, moral advocacy, and the denouncement of readers–the very people that power the sites to begin with. The influence of the group is clearly defined by the players it involves–many of which have such high standings in the industry that they could easily pressure an entire populace of freelancers to “play ball”.

The group was brought to Breitbart’s attention thanks to a collective of e-mails from the Games Journo Pros group that implicate such key writers as Ars Technica‘s Kyle Orland, Polygon‘s Ben Kuchera, GamePolitics‘ James Fudge along with various freelancers and even members of the mainstream media.

‘Video games press isn’t broken, it’s just too tightly knit’

Based on the responses in the e-mails, it appears that the games journalism scene is incredibly exclusive and is its own self-perpetuating “boy’s club”, where everyone is friends with everyone and everyone is close.

When one writer, Ryan Smith, tried to ask the members of the group where they draw their lines in regards reporting on sexual controversies in the field, he was met with backlash from other members like Kotaku‘s Jason Schreier and Sarah LeBoeuf from The Escapist.

But quick question: how did some of you decide to publish the Josh Mattingly story from earlier this year: that appeared to be based on a private conversation about sex. Where do you see the line being drawn? And how do you guys feel about the Snapchat CEO’s emails from college being a story?

I was also wondering if when some of you published stories about Zoe Quinn’s harassment — did you actually ask for evidence of said harassment or just go by what she wrote on Twitter.

Uh pretty big difference between “a private conversation about sex” and sexual harassment, which is what the Mattingly situation was.

If you don’t see the differences between a story about a journalist sending crude sexual messages to a game developer and a story about a game developer allegedly cheating on her boyfriend, I’m not sure what to tell you.

So you’re comparing writing about someone who sexually harassed a female developer, which is a disgraceful way to act, and covering someone who is being victimized to the point of not feeling safe in her home? Is that a real argument you’re trying to make?

Hold on to your hats. I wasn’t equating the two at all. I was just asking where you guys draw the line.

I don’t know why you think there’s a line to be drawn. “Reporter at moderately-known games website sends sexually explicit messages to game developer who doesn’t want them” is a story. “Game developer allegedly cheats on her boyfriend” is not. That seems pretty simple to me.

Ryan Smith has also written an informative and eye-opening piece that delves into the “tight-knit” community that is games journalism, and how it “lacks critical distance”.

As Smith puts it, “What’s totally fair is the criticism of the relationships that members of the press maintain with not only certain game developers but with each other.”

Andy Eddy, Editor-in-Chief for @Gamer Magazine, echoed the group’s sentiment that Zoe Quinn’s possible breach of industry ethics shouldn’t be covered by any games media–and that they shouldn’t even “allow others to ruminate on it”.

My two cents: This is barely a game-industry story, no matter how some people want to frame it. This is a story about a person who happens to be in the game industry and their personal relationships (no matter how it may weave back into “the industry” and however poor the person’s judgments may have been) and public expose of private materials by that person’s partner as revenge, so I don’t think we, as games press, should support furthering the story by commenting, editorializing or even allowing others to ruminate on it.

Eddy further said that publications should avoid covering the topic even if it should generate hits. Interestingly enough, there are a swath of recent articles written about Zoe Quinn that “cash in” on the controversial nature of the scandal. It’s been a lucrative subject for these sites.

Personally, there are some lines I don’t think we should cross, and I’ve endeavored during my career to not go into those areas just for hit counts or reader numbers or “because people want to know.”

Kyle Orland (Ars Technica) even went so far as to say that Quinn receiving a boost in Patreon donations is “a silver lining”.

Silver lining: Quinn is getting a bunch of new Patreon patrons today, apparently: http://www.patreon.com/zoe

Kyle Orland has since delivered an apology on Ars Technica regarding the comments made in the group, and clarified a few things that may have been taken out of context.

Unearthing the Agendas

Breitbart’s columnist Milo Yiannopoulos has also recently published a dump of all of the received e-mails regarding the group’s discussions on the Zoe Quinn scandal. This collection all-but proves the discourse between group members on the subject, and folds quite neatly into the flurry of content and articles that leap to Quinn’s defense.

It appears that journalists are getting too close to the subject matter, and they’re sacrificing objectivity for a sense of moral authority. The long, winding batch of e-mails reinforces this sentiment quite clearly, as do the plethora of anti-GamerGate content plastered across various news media sites.

It’ll be interesting to see how this information rocks the foundations of the industry, and what reformations are made to games journalism.

Gaming remains a solid billion-dollar industry, and the media itself is largely responsible for its success, so these findings may not result in anything substantial in terms of ethical reinforcement.

How far does this go; are big-name publications colluding with industry giants? How far has this agenda-based bias spread across the field, and will it die down now that Game Journo Pros has been exposed?

Only time can tell, but for now, we know a little more about the games media and how it operates.

The post Inside The Secret World Of Games Journalism appeared first on VR World.