The big Phil Fish, Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian discussion thread

wes

BMMachine wrote: »

To me, it paints it in the same light as a person making a joke about someone. It has no effect on the industry at all. #biggerpicture

Oh dear your using hash tags now.... This whole thing has gotten even stupider than it already is. Don't get me wrong, I share the blame in this, but the hash tags are all you.

Anyway, in regards to what your saying, but sorry, it still paints a picture of a rather unprofessional industry.

BMMachine wrote: »

you were making a demand of a company to terminate another persons employment.

Already said I was wrong in doing that in the reply to you......

BMMachine wrote: »

I'm not saying who can or cannot comment on twitter - what I am saying is who cares what Adam Baldwin thinks about gaming journalism Theres a difference, he can comment away as long as it isn't demanding something stupid to happen to someone else. #context

Wait a second just a second a go he was millionaire who has no business in this..... So now you don't care what he says. Then, why bother mentioning his post in the first place then?

BMMachine wrote: »

Calling people crackheads in a joke on the internet will either be funny, or it won't. See the laugh/cringe bit above? Apply it here.
If your opinion is easily dissected and shown up as having no actual weight to it then don't come crying at me with your sarcasm. #betteryourself

Well your hash tags are certainly cringe worthy......

wes

kunst nugget wrote: »

Exactly, but the youtubers aren't being attacked about their lack of ethics, are they.

Ok, that would be a fair point, if youtubers were claiming to be journalists. There not journalists, and no one is going to hold them to the same standard, or take them as seriously (at least they shouldn't be).

kunst nugget wrote: »

They're presenting themselves as purveyors of truth and justice, the same as the sites are doing but with extra conspiracy theory and added 'little guy fighting the power' vim and vigour.

Ok, you see even if there both as bad as one another. Journalists should surely be held to a higher standard, right?

Look if these sites want to start presenting themselves as being bloggers, and not journalists, then fair enough I honestly could care less then, as I wouldn't expect a whole of them, as bloggers aren't journalists, and I wouldn't expect the same standards as someone calling themselves a journalist.

johnny_ultimate

wes wrote: »

Look if these sites want to start presenting themselves as being bloggers, and not journalists, then fair enough I honestly could care less then, as I wouldn't expect a whole of them, as bloggers aren't journalists, and I wouldn't expect the same standards as someone calling themselves a journalist.

Kotaku has long defined itself as a blog first and foremost.

wes

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Kotaku has long defined itself as a blog first and foremost.

Ok, yet they refer to themselves as reporters:

Stephen Totilo Bio

Stephen Totilo is a reporter based in Brooklyn, New York. He's the editor-in-chief for video gaming site Kotaku.

Several of there employees are referred as reporters:

Reporter:
Evan Narcisse
Email | Facebook

Reporter
Jason Schreier
Email | Twitter

Reporter, Weekends
Owen Good
Email | Facebook | Twitter

Read more

Reporter
Patricia Hernandez
E-Mail | Facebook | Twitter

They don't use the word blog, on this page explaining what Kotaku is about:

What's a Kotaku? Who Works Here?

Thank you for reading Kotaku, a news and opinion site about games and things serious gamers care about. We're here to inform you and, sometimes, entertain you.

I don't see the word blog anywhere there, and if there is another page where they say it, then it would be rather confusing, as the refer to themselves as reporters and not bloggers as there job titles, and refer to the site as being for news and opinion.

kunst nugget

wes wrote: »

Ok, that would be a fair point, if youtubers were claiming to be journalists. There not journalists, and no one is going to hold them to the same standard, or take them as seriously (at least they shouldn't be).



Ok, you see even if there both as bad as one another. Journalists should surely be held to a higher standard, right?

Look if these sites want to start presenting themselves as being bloggers, and not journalists, then fair enough I honestly could care less then, as I wouldn't expect a whole of them, as bloggers aren't journalists, and I wouldn't expect the same standards as someone calling themselves a journalist.

I don't get this. Most people writing for games sites are doing reviews or op-eds - essentially puff pieces. How many times have you seen any of these sites partake in any sort of serious investigative journalism - I'm guessing none of them have taken the superjournalist oath or got their special journalism decoder rings - so what is this higher standard that they should be held up to?

wes

kunst nugget wrote: »

I don't get this. Most people writing for games sites are doing reviews or op-eds - essentially puff pieces. How many times have you seen any of these sites partake in any sort of serious investigative journalism - I'm guessing none of them have taken the superjournalist oath or got their special journalism decoder rings - so what is this higher standard that they should be held up to?

Ok, then they should stop referring to themselves as reporters or journalists then. If these guys want to be treated like bloggers, then they need to drop the reporter job title then.

kunst nugget

wes wrote: »

Ok, then they should stop referring to themselves as reporters or journalists then. If these guys want to be treated like bloggers, then they need to drop the reporter job title then.

So, are we still going to hold them to a higher standard? Are we still worried about the ethics of hard-hitting investigative games journalism?

BMMachine

wes wrote:

Oh dear your using hash tags now.... This whole thing has gotten even stupider than it already is. Don't get me wrong, I share the blame in this, but the hash tags are all you.

Very purposely put in to make the following point to you: the context to me using the hashtags is that this is essentially a debate about twitter, the main site that uses hashtags. Something said on the internet can be interoperated in many ways, it is up to the reader to see what meaning they take from it. They react to it and they make the choice about how they react. I was using the hashtags ironically as this is a debate about twitter, you decided that I was using them in a serious context because that is what you wanted to see so you could call it stupid and therefore try and weaken my position.
Remember what I said about mental victories on the internet earlier? If not have a read.

wes wrote:

Already said I was wrong in doing that in the reply to you......

Yes, that is why I used the word "were" as you were making this demand. You no longer are.

wes wrote:

Wait a second just a second a go he was millionaire who has no business in this..... So now you don't care what he says. Then, why bother mentioning his post in the first place then?

He doesn't have any business in it AND he can post what he likes. What he says will still mean exactly f-all. Why bother mentioning him? Because Leigh's reaction to him was why you wanted her fired.

wes wrote:

Well your hash tags are certainly cringe worthy......

They sure are aren't they. Its almost like I had a point to prove with them in multiple ways.

wes

kunst nugget wrote: »

So, are we still going to hold them to a higher standard? Are we still worried about the ethics of hard-hitting investigative games journalism?

Odd questions, as what you quote answers your question. Bloggers aren't reporters, and they are not going to be held to the same standards, and people don't take them as seriously.

Look a simple fact remains, youtubers are not reporters, and to the best of my knowledge none of them are making that claim. Surely, someone who is calling themselves a reporter should be held to a higher standard.

Let me use an example, now I am pretty sure that someone calling themselves a chef would be held to a higher standard, then let say a fry cook at Mc Donalds, right? We wouldn't expect the same standard of food from both of them, surely.

wes

BMMachine wrote: »

I was using the hashtags ironically as this is a debate about twitter, you decided that I was using them in a serious context because that is what you wanted to see so you could call it stupid and therefore try and weaken my position.

I got what you were doing. I just think that using hash tags are stupid. Sorry for daring to think the over use of hash tags is stupid. I hate when people use a 100 hash tags on instagram for example.

You reading way to much into what I said, and are inferring things that aren't there.

BMMachine wrote: »

Remember what I said about mental victories on the internet earlier? If not have a read.

You should have a read yourself. You are inferring stuff that isn't there. Hashtags are stupid, and there especially stupid when used outside of twitter.

Your little joke wasn't funny. I get what you were trying to do, but came off as being condescending.

BMMachine wrote: »

Yes, that is why I used the word "were" as you were making this demand. You no longer are.

Fair enough.

BMMachine wrote: »

He doesn't have any business in it AND he can post what he likes. What he says will still mean exactly f-all. Why bother mentioning him? Because Leigh's reaction to him was why you wanted her fired.

He has as much business to comment on this as anyone else. Its interesting that you seem to think you that you get to decide whose business this is exactly.

He got flack for having the temerity for retweeting a video, and as such got further involved in this and was then insulted for doing so.

BMMachine wrote: »

They sure are aren't they. Its almost like I had a point to prove with them in multiple ways.

That you know what hash tag are and can use them in a passive aggressive fashion. Well done with that.

kunst nugget

wes wrote: »

Odd questions, as what you quote answers your question. Bloggers aren't reporters, and they are not going to be held to the same standards, and people don't take them as seriously.

Look a simple fact remains, youtubers are not reporters, and to the best of my knowledge none of them are making that claim. Surely, someone who is calling themselves a reporter should be held to a higher standard.

Let me use an example, now I am pretty sure that someone calling themselves a chef would be held to a higher standard, then let say a fry cook at Mc Donalds, right? We wouldn't expect the same standard of food from both of them, surely.

That analogy is a bit off tbf. If a guy working at an upmarket sandwich shop calls himself a chef, it doesn't mean what he's doing is in essence any different to the fry cook. He might have a nicer working environment and more traffic through the door but that's about it. But the fry cook has a cheap on his shoulder because sandwich chef has a fancy hat. And in the grand scheme of things most people don't give a crap what either of them think.

BMMachine

wes wrote: »

I got what you were doing.


That you know what hash tag are and can use them in a passive aggressive fashion. Well done with that.

no you didn't and no I wasn't.

moc moc a moc

BMMachine wrote: »

#biggerpicture

#context

#perspective

#betteryourself

You're not on twitter you absolute cringe machine.

wes

kunst nugget wrote: »

That analogy is a bit off tbf.

I feel the same way in regards to yours.

kunst nugget wrote: »

And in the grand scheme of things most people don't give a crap what either of them think.

Yeah, we know most people don't care about the youtubers or the gaming enthusiast press, but we are on the Games sub forum you know, the kind of place where people will care. The fact that both of us are posting here, shows that we do care at least a little bit.

wes

BMMachine wrote: »

no you didn't

I honestly don't care either way Mr Mind Reader. The hash tag thing was stupid.

BMMachine wrote: »

and no I wasn't.

Sorry, but if you use hash tags like that it comes off like that. Perhaps if you don't want to be misunderstood, then don't use hash tags outside of twitter.

J_E

Well, would you look at that! Zoe Quinn went through the last day of PAX without 'fx bruises' and claims that she was physically brutalised. Strange that.

BMMachine

It helped prove a point that your argument against these journalists is paper thin at best as you don't really understand the context of what is being said by them. It also proved that you are too reactionary and don't think about all the angles you should be thinking about. You are worried about the standards in game journalism when you don't even know what those standards should be.

Sorry but I won't stop proving points by using a persons mentality against them.

kunst nugget

wes wrote: »

I feel the same way in regards to yours.



Yeah, we know most people don't care about the youtubers or the gaming enthusiast press, but we are on the Games sub forum you know, the kind of place where people will care. The fact that both of us are posting here, shows that we do care at least a little bit.

Tbh, you seem to be unable or unwilling to see where I'm coming from, and maybe I'm doing the same, so we're just going down a rabbit hole without anything of interest being added to the discussion so I reckon I'll leave it for now.

Potatoeman

How hard would it have been to say that they knew the people they were reporting on? At least the youtubers call themselves critics and not reporters. If you call yourself a reporter there is a standard of ethics implied.

J_E

Potatoeman wrote: »

How hard would it have been to say that they knew the people they were reporting on? At least the youtubers call themselves critics and not reporters. If you call yourself a reporter there is a standard of ethics implied.

What a lot of the bigger Youtube videos going around are doing, I would not exactly call refined criticism...

For one, the Quinnspiracy Theory videos you have linked to straight out said that Zoe was sleeping with men to further her professional career. You see the big issue with that? Also should add - these self-proclaimed critics have nobody to answer to, no representative body that they could suffer repercussions from, generally no accountability for what they say, just a bunch of thumbs up and 'right on, bro!' comments. I would be lead to believe the majority of game reporters do follow a standard of ethics - they're obliged to. They are also humans.

e_e

Cydoniac wrote: »

What a lot of the bigger Youtube videos going around are doing, I would not exactly call refined criticism...

Sure half of them don't even know what counts as objective/subjective. Even a lot of the more popular film critics on there just give a really shallow and hacky form of criticism. It's charisma over content most times.

wes

BMMachine wrote: »

It helped prove a point that your argument against these journalists is paper thin at best as you don't really understand the context of what is being said by them.

It helped nothing actually. Hash tags outside of twitter don't work.

BMMachine wrote: »

It also proved that you are too reactionary and don't think about all the angles you should be thinking about. You are worried about the standards in game journalism when you don't even know what those standards should be.

I think something along the lines of the many avalible codes that are already in existence:

http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

Especially the following:

Journalists should:

—Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
— Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
— Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.
— Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
— Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.
— Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.
— Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; avoid bidding for news.

BMMachine wrote: »

Sorry but I won't stop proving points by using a persons mentality against them.

No need to apologize at all. If you want to use hash tag, go for it. Doesn't make there use any less stupid outside of twitter.

J_E

e_e wrote: »

It's charisma over content most times.

You couldn't have said it better - an ego trip is what a lot of these big commentary channels suffer from. There is so much hearsay now propogated by them that it's near-impossible to find real, honest information on the story, unless you really dig deep and compare across sources.

BMMachine

wes wrote: »

It helped nothing actually. Hash tags outside of twitter don't work.

No need to apologize at all. If you want to use hash tag, go for it. Doesn't make there use any less stupid outside of twitter.

You either don't understand what I was doing or you are trying to bait me into the same type of trap.
Either way, I don't think that talking to you about this subject provides any value to me so I'll just put a line under your opinion and leave it at that.

wes

BMMachine wrote: »

You either don't understand what I was doing or you are trying to bait me into the same type of trap.

A trap? Seriously, WTH? We have reached a new level of silliness now. How exactly could I possibly trap you? Again, your reading stuff into what I am saying that simply isn't there.

Look, hash tags outside of twitter are silly. I get what you were trying to do, but it hard to take hash tags seriously. If you wanted to make a serious point, then the hash tag were a bad idea.

BMMachine wrote: »

Either way, I don't think that talking to you about this subject provides any value to me so I'll just put a line under your opinion and leave it at that.

Yeah, probably best to end this if you think that I am trying to trap you. Clearly, there is a great deal of misunderstanding here.

gizmo

wes wrote: »

So the information was publicly available and the editor didn't say a thing until well after the article was published. How exactly is that not a problem?

Are you mixing up the two stories? The information about Hernandez was discovered well after the story broke as, I assume, people started digging into the background of more Kotaku writers. That kind of research, if you want to call it that, is not something I'd expect any Editor-In-Chief to be doing, regardless of the standard of publication.

wes wrote: »

Kotaku have happily posted accusations against individuals based on posts on the Internet in the past. So at the very least the accusation should have been acknowledged as opposed to be flat out ignored. Something simple, like we are looking into the accusation. The only reason there was a comment was due to them being asked repeatedly. Surely, the common sense thing to was you know address the accusation, as opposed to brushing it under the carpet, seeing as Kotaku have posted stories on accusations against other people based on posts on the Internet, but when its one of there own, its a different story.

Do you have any examples of these accusations?

As for this issue, when it's one of their own they can afford to take the time to investigate the story themselves. Totilo did this and posted his findings on the evening of August 20th, the original blogpost was posted at an undetermined time on August 16th. Given the fact that most of the stories only started appearing on the 18th, I don't consider this a particularly heinous failing on the part of the EIC. Maybe he could have said "hey, we're looking into it" but at the same time, that would have given the accusations credibility they didn't deserve at that time.

wes wrote: »

If "journalist" are posting positive articls from there friends, then yes they should potential lose there jobs, but you know what I give gaming media to much credit. Its amateur hour for many outlets it seems.

Keyword there being potentially. As I said, if it had been more malicious then I could possibly get behind such a request, I gave examples of such instances above, but in this case no, I don't think it would have warranted Hernandez's firing.

wes wrote: »

There is a world of difference between liking someones working, and you know funding them. Sorry, but it is fundamental conflict on interest to be reporting on people you fund, that a huge issue.

I simply disagree with this. In the context of indie developers, I don't see it as being dramatically different from funding a specific project from a developer whose work you enjoy. There is no benefit to be derived from journalists giving them coverage when they release a game and therefore I don't see how that can be construed as a conflict of interest in itself.

wes wrote: »

Also, the 2nd case that I mentioned is by a youtuber who comments on games, and yet no comment on that case at all, by these outlets. Strikes me as very odd, seeing as there remit is posting gaming news, and surely abuse of youtuber who talks about games falls into that, seeing as these sites have been emailed about this, and yet last I checked no reports on it.

Having listened to a small bit of her last video, it is indeed a horrible thing to have happened but no, I don't think a random Youtuber getting abuse falls into the above category. That doesn't mean I don't think it's wrong, it doesn't mean I don't think it shouldn't be condemned and it doesn't mean I don't think it doesn't warrant a mention when talking about the excessive abuse being thrown around over all. It just means I don't think it warrants the kind of stand alone articles you're implying.

wes wrote: »

I think 10 article posted within 2 days of one another kind of proves my point of an organized effort amongst some of the games media......

We weren't talking about the articles, we were talking about specific examples of behaviour on twitter by some of the writers of those articles which gave a conflicting view of the demographic they were referring to when discussing "gamers". So far I have seen no such examples.

BMMachine

Okay, I will explain.
I used the hashtags so you would go on a little tirade about them. This was to prove that a)the hashtags are irrelevant but you are overreacting to them anyway and if you overreact to them you might just be overreacting to Leigh's comment on Baldwin, b)so that when you did react to them in this way, I could make the point about about peoples reactions to what they read online and how they interpret things in the way that suits them the most, c) to show you a double meaning of something so that you understand more about context - they could be ironic or they could be cringeworthy, you make the choice and d) to show subjectivism in how people react to jokes.

You made the choice in how you reacted. Apply that to your understanding of this situation with Anita, Leigh, Zoe Quinn et al and try and see the bigger picture.

wes

gizmo wrote: »

Are you mixing up the two stories? The information about Hernandez was discovered well after the story broke as, I assume, people started digging into the background of more Kotaku writers. That kind of research, if you want to call it that, is not something I'd expect any Editor-In-Chief to be doing, regardless of the standard of publication.

I am confused, you said the following:

gizmo wrote: »

For instance, should Polygon be writing an article about Patricia Hernandez knowing Anna Anthropy personally and then writing about it? I mean, the facts are there, it was a public twitter conversation and she wrote articles about Analogue. What does this alone prove about the wider industry in general?

You said the information was publicly available, what exactly would Stephen Totillo need to go digging for if as you said the information was public? Seems odd that her editor was unaware of this, or that this wasn't disclosed.

gizmo wrote: »

Do you have any examples of these accusations?

A Different Way To Respond To A Rape Accusation [Update]

A game creator being accused of rape via a facebook post.

gizmo wrote: »

As for this issue, when it's one of their own they can afford to take the time to investigate the story themselves. Totilo did this and posted his findings on the evening of August 20th, the original blogpost was posted at an undetermined time on August 16th. Given the fact that most of the stories only started appearing on the 18th, I don't consider this a particularly heinous failing on the part of the EIC. Maybe he could have said "hey, we're looking into it" but at the same time, that would have given the accusations credibility they didn't deserve at that time.

I would argue that not addressing it actually resulted in giving the accusations far more credibility, and appearance of bias.

gizmo wrote: »

Keyword there being potentially. As I said, if it had been more malicious then I could possibly get behind such a request, I gave examples of such instances above, but in this case no, I don't think it would have warranted Hernandez's firing.

I don't understand what your saying Hernandez's gave a positive press for a friend of hers, and that deserves imho some form of censure. Surely she was aware of the conflict, and updating the article months later is pretty poor imho.

gizmo wrote: »

I simply disagree with this. In the context of indie developers, I don't see it as being dramatically different from funding a specific project from a developer whose work you enjoy. There is no benefit to be derived from journalists giving them coverage when they release a game and therefore I don't see how that can be construed as a conflict of interest in itself.

Fair enough, but I disagree, funding the people your suppose to be covering is a conflict of interest.

gizmo wrote: »

Having listened to a small bit of her last video, it is indeed a horrible thing to have happened but no, I don't think a random Youtuber getting abuse falls into the above category. That doesn't mean I don't think it's wrong, it doesn't mean I don't think it shouldn't be condemned and it doesn't mean I don't think it doesn't warrant a mention when talking about the excessive abuse being thrown around over all. It just means I don't think it warrants the kind of stand alone articles you're implying.

I think it does, as it directly relates to the topic that various gaming sites are pushing, and not covering abuse, that shows a different narrative, then the one they are presenting is again problematic. We have situation were 2 different sides are doxing people. It is imho rather odd to not report both side of this, and again looks like undue bias towards there friends.

gizmo wrote: »

We weren't talking about the articles, we were talking about specific examples of behaviour on twitter by some of the writers of those articles which gave a conflicting view of the demographic they were referring to when discussing "gamers". So far I have seen no such examples.

Sorry, should have posted this earlier. It was primarily Devin Faraci, who runs bad add digest.

Here is an example:

https://twitter.com/devincf/status/503650957800919041

wes

BMMachine wrote: »

Okay, I will explain.

As I said earlier:

wes wrote: »

Yeah, probably best to end this if you think that I am trying to trap you. Clearly, there is a great deal of misunderstanding here.

I see no reason to get back into this, and I won't.

J_E

I couldn't help but notice this tweet posted just now in regards to journalistic integrity;