It looks like you are not aware of the background of that interview. These questions HAD to be asked, because the whole interview is related to the #gamergate affair, which is about other journalists who accuse gamers and people who don’t agree with them of mysogyny and sexism against women. That particular journalist actually did a pretty good job, that gamesite is one of a few which gives opportunity to #gamergate supporters to express their opinions.
2 Likes
yup in light of that I agree with you (realized it after the fact) however that interview did highlight my own thoughts well enough. I did find it interesting that the interview had a disclaimer on it though 
Yep, that disclaimer is pretty stupid and really unnecessary. They have it on every interview though.
Do not be upset 
… a phenomenon of our time. Journalists / reporters should report and inform. The process of opinion formation is up to the user. Most of today’s journalists see themselves as judges or public relations genius. When a test is played like that o.k. to be. But not in the interpretation of statements during an interview. But this discussion comes 15 years too late, the train has departed.
Eventually, no one wants to hear this twisted Ramblings, it does not bring progress.
Well, #gamergate started out as a case of corruption of journalistic ideals in rating games. Then the whole tag was hijacked by the Social Justice Warriors of the alleged “feminist” stance (has nothing to do with real feminism)…
But originally, before it was misdirected, the whole #gamergate scandal was about games journalists that had written great scores for mediocre games, for reasons that had to do with publisher relationships, advertiser deals, fear of losing early access. I wouldn’t call it surprising though. Just apply Edward Hermann’s and Noam Chomsky’s study of the mass media to the subject of games journalism, and the product is the exact same as is for all other news. As described in the book “Manufacturing Consent” - except you could call it “Manufacturing Great Ratings.”
Listen… Oculus VR’s Palmer Luckey and John Carmack faced exactly such a question at Oculus Connect.
Palmer’s response was very cautious… but John Carmack’s response was brilliant and completely defused her whole self-righteous demeanor. The way she asks her question, you can tell she feels very proud of the question, as if it has some kind of truth-seeking value. Carmack’s response is golden.
1 Like
Wow, how do you port a specific “sex” into a technology…will the oculus rift only work if you have a dick? I missed that part of the design lol.
Well, the whole story is slightly different and little bit more complicated, but I won’t go into detail, i’ve already written too much about it on this forum. The fact is that SJWs were part of the #gamergate issue from the beginning, because they are one of the examples of the journalist bias.
10 articles in one day on a single topic… collusion? Corruption?
Um, no. Paid Placement (known more popularly today as “native advertising”).
You cannot win a battle if you’re not focusing on the actual target… the entirety of the “sex” question is distraction. The real target/issue is the subversion of journalism by advertising.
Yes, we see that. But how should you bend the discussion back? Should we stop defending ourselves, which means that we *accept the accusation *?
In our digital world, it has become easy and inexpensive to make your own newspaper / magazine. Every blogger with a handful likes given feels called to be a journalist. Some succeed and make it to the light of public opinion. Guess it goes with most of them not to journalistically clean, researched information but attention, clicks and reach to justify Banner Advertising. Such one-man-bands then write each other’s “highlights” from each other. (We had sometimes do so earlier, but at least called the source)
Does this need answering?
Anyways to me this whole gamersgate debacle or whatever it’s named now seems a lot like two groups arguing different things completely oblivious to what the other party is actually talking about.
It’s almost like one person stated; “apple juice is unhealthy” to which someone else replied “No gas chambers were found in Auschwitz” followed by two months of arguing their own points and making personal attacks on what they believe people disagreeing with them.
It’s quite like that, except you don’t need to use made up examples, it’s much easier with a simple reality.
One person states “stop pushing politics into games and report objectively”, to which the other person replies “MUUSHOOGYNYY, SEXXISMMM, HARRASMENNTT!!!”
1 Like
Yes but made up examples are lighthearted and usually diffuse the situation
Silence doesn’t mean you accept it, it means you’re not going to line the pockets of the outlet promoting it. Why so worried about what “they” think, anyway? Watch how quickly media drops it all once it starts hurting their wallet. You’ll be amazed.
You don’t fight for anything in social media. You have a public hissy fit then construct an elaborate fantasy between your ears about your epic victory and how fantastically righteous your PoV is…
Social Media Warriors… the warreirest…
Can’t believe this whine-fest …
I’ve said this for years… people always talk about ‘bias in the media’ like it is some left/right political thing…
I’ve said, of COURSE there is bias in the media. They are FOR PROFIT they are biased towards stories that GET RATINGS SO THEY CAN SELL ADVERTISING REVENUE. That’s what they do people. They sell ad spots for money while reporting … what they decide to report. What do you think is up with all the sensationalist coverage of things that ultimately mean nothing in our lives. Remember the wall to wall Jon Benet Ramsay coverage years ago? Look, I’m sorry, it’s a tragedy whatever happened to that poor girl… but why was she any more important than any of the other little girls that vanished in the same time frame? Why did we obsess over JUST THAT ONE… because the media hammed it up for all it was worth and people ate that coverage up. They sold a lot of ad spots by pimping that girl’s tragedy. Disgusted yet? It’s just a business. Fox’s ‘bias’? I don’t see it in ‘right/left’ terms. I see them as ‘reaching a different market’. Of course they distort, of course they play games with what is important and what isn’t. They all do. And they do it… for money. For profit. It’s not even a secret. Sure, there is NPR and non-profit news out there, but most of the news we get, from websites, TV or radio… is from a for profit business that sells ads.
Apply that logic to gaming ‘journalism’, and the known ethics of other industry players like EA… and frankly, I don’t read those rags. I assume all of their ‘articles’ are biased towards the big publishers… you know, the guys that pay them lots of money for ads in those magazines. When I see an big full page ad for a game from EA right before I read a review of an EA game… sorry, no way I take that review seriously. Conflict of interest anyone? It’s not unique to gaming. Pick up a guitar magazine… and read some of their ‘gear reviews’. Review my ass, it’s ad copy!!! lol Again, the review often follows a full page ad (one of many) from the very company who’s product is being reviewed. I bet you dollars to donuts it’s the same in gun magazines. Or any other ‘hobby’ focus you want to name. This is the true bias in journalism. Some might be on some ideological crusade, but most are biased towards making the most money they can from the people that pay them… their advertisers. The ideological crusade? Most times, just an act… for ratings.
2 Likes
Then explain why places like MSNBC need to be subsidized. If they weren’t ideological they might actually make a profit.
The sad part? We’ve let them. Seriously. The only reason they can deliver advertising at all is that they agree that at certain amount of time would be set aside for delivering public service programming commitments… what is loosely known today as “news”.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out how quickly they went about finding ways to get that lucrative advertising into “public service” required programming. Nor to discern the gradual (but inevitable) infiltration of advertising into all methods of delivering “news” and “public service” content. Nor to draw the logical lines between the degradation of “public service” and the subversion of “advertising as public service”.
Frankly, I have long considered a class action effort against the major networks, radio stations, and what’s left of the print media in the US asserting that this is the case and advocating for restriction of both how much advertising can be accepted per broadcast/delivery hour as well as how much (if any) advertising can be presented within “public service” and “news” delivery.
It really has gotten out of hand. And, frankly, I don’t think any of these outlets consider how badly they are cutting off their noses to spite their faces with it all; they’re teaching us to ignore them, which means they have to try harder and present more just to cut through the avalanche of advertising to be heard… vicious cycle… the consumer loses on all counts every time.
1 Like
Too small or uninteresting target group for advertising, bad advertising sales …?
@phydra In Europe it was the ban on tobacco and alcohol - Advertising, which initiated the downfall. That was quickly earning forming money, huge Etat’s. Has just all his dark side …
They don’t NEED to be, they PREFER to be… consider a moment why they might so prefer and you’ll have your answer.
(Hint: It’s the same pattern found in automotive, farm, highway, social program, and other federal subsidies.)