• GamerGate journalism panel disrupted by bomb threat
    149 replies, posted
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;48468006]I wouldn't say that about the death threats, there've been plenty of those from high profile GG figures, but yeah the SWAT calls and the like have pretty much all been trolls.[/QUOTE] You mean high profile anti-GG figures like Arthur Chu right. I don't like Milo, but he's never sent any death threats and the rest just simply wouldn't too. Most of the threats are towards high profile GG figures and some to a-GG figures.
SJWs keep complainging about "goobergabbers are evil terrorist misogynerds" as they make fucking bomb threats against gamergate gatherings good job showing them who is the "morally superior".
[QUOTE=Croix;48467921]i guess those pesky gamergaters ran out of women to harrass so now they just harrass eachother.[/QUOTE] here's your reply
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;48468846]You've never been on either of the two have you?[/QUOTE] Have you? Go on KIA now and disagree, you wont be banned unless you are doxing someone or something. I have personally had arguments with many anti gamergaters on KIA who are never banned.
[QUOTE=Blazedol;48469867]lot's of people journalism ethics is a pretty legitimate concern[/QUOTE] ethics in gaming journalism is truly the defining issue of our time. i tip my hat to the brave defenders of freedom who dedicate their lives to this cause :') [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Shitpost" - Craptasket))[/highlight]
This thread makes me sad because the only aGGer really isn't putting up a very good argument. I'd like to see a reasonable GG debate, but to be perfectly honest I literally never have l, it's always been side A talking to side A or side B talking to side B when A vs B starts there's no real debate because one side starts losing ground and the shit flinging and false accusations begin. I still feel like there's nothing to debate though, how could you be against journalistic integrity and how could you be pro the fake brand of feminism used to accuse everyone of being misogynistic that undermines real gender equality discussions?
[QUOTE=Rossy167;48470668]This thread makes me sad because the only aGGer really isn't putting up a very good argument. I'd like to see a reasonable GG debate, but to be perfectly honest I literally never have l, it's always been side A talking to side A or side B talking to side B when A vs B starts there's no real debate because one side starts losing ground and the shit flinging and false accusations begin. I still feel like there's nothing to debate though, how could you be against journalistic integrity and how could you be pro the fake brand of feminism used to accuse everyone of being misogynistic that undermines real gender equality discussions?[/QUOTE] GG was about exposing unethical journalism practices. Journalists didn't take kindly, slandered the movement as woman hater movement, uninformed people jumped to an opportunity to hate something on the internet.
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;48470651]ethics in gaming journalism is truly the defining issue of our time. i tip my hat to the brave defenders of freedom who dedicate their lives to this cause :')[/QUOTE] you could have just said "tips fedora" and left it at that and your post would have been just as shite anyway
[QUOTE=Teddybeer;48470319]9:54 PM - 2 Sep 2014 [URL="https://archive.is/lnN3p#selection-721.0-725.13"]9:15 PM - 2 Sep 2014[/URL] Or do I get it wrong?[/QUOTE] Watch as this goes completely ignored.
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;48470651]ethics in gaming journalism is truly the defining issue of our time. i tip my hat to the brave defenders of freedom who dedicate their lives to this cause :') [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Shitpost" - Craptasket))[/highlight][/QUOTE] Well, a lot of people seem to get their news and stuff from journalism and it'd be bad if a journalist you'd get your news from was, say, biased.
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;48470651]ethics in gaming journalism is truly the defining issue of our time. i tip my hat to the brave defenders of freedom who dedicate their lives to this cause :') [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Shitpost" - Craptasket))[/highlight][/QUOTE] Sure, let's forget how Gawker Media can put the lives of innocent people in danger with their completely unethical way of journalism. Their way of reporting can make targets out of innocent people, and they just don't care about that, as long enough dumbasses keep clicking on their asine crap. Just one of many examples is when Gawker effectively doxxed every single gun owner in New York. Heck, during the morning panel of SPJ Airplay, several panellists and a pro-GG guest (Paulo Munoz) pointed that out, and the SPJ-side panellists agreed with that too.
But Gawker isn't gaming media so that doesn't count? That's like complaining that you want quality service from food trucks and then you bash McDonald's.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;48470879]But Gawker isn't gaming media so that doesn't count? That's like complaining that you want quality service from food trucks and then you bash McDonald's.[/QUOTE] it covers journalism in general but it's focused on gaming journalism the most because A, it's the easiest target, and B, most people are interested in games more than any other piece of media, or at least on the internet. either way though who cares, what's happened happened and what happened was good.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;48470879]But Gawker isn't gaming media so that doesn't count? That's like complaining that you want quality service from food trucks and then you bash McDonald's.[/QUOTE] kotaku???
The whole debate is so fragmented that i stopped caring about #gamergate a long long time ago.
i'm all for greater journalistic integrity but if you don't like how a website does reporting, stop using it if you don't like gawker/rps/polygon/etc, just don't go to them for reviews watch totalbiscuit and superbunnyhop and whoever else you view as a trustworthy reviewer instead
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48471551]i'm all for greater journalistic integrity but if you don't like how a website does reporting, stop using it if you don't like gawker/rps/polygon/etc, just don't go to them for reviews watch totalbiscuit and superbunnyhop and whoever else you view as a trustworthy reviewer instead[/QUOTE] I think it's ENTIRELY responsible and reasonable for us, as consumers and potential customers of the companies that market on Kotaku and etc to let those companies know we feel like we're being mistreated, and fucked with, by the people who they're paying for ads. That's a reasonable thing.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48471551]i'm all for greater journalistic integrity but if you don't like how a website does reporting, stop using it if you don't like gawker/rps/polygon/etc, just don't go to them for reviews watch totalbiscuit and superbunnyhop and whoever else you view as a trustworthy reviewer instead[/QUOTE] So we SHOULDNT report their shady and unethical actions? Do you support people like Sam "bring back bullying" Biddie too? The Internet would be a better place if gawker went the way of the dodo.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48471551]i'm all for greater journalistic integrity but if you don't like how a website does reporting, stop using it if you don't like gawker/rps/polygon/etc, just don't go to them for reviews[/QUOTE] They still affect me though. In one instance, a writer was told to give a enthusiastically awaited game a bad score so that his review would be viewed more and bring in more ad money. Those sites can also give lower scores to games that don't have the correct political message or have a white male lead or the female character is "just a man with tits" or she's "reflecting badly on real women", so I end up buying a game and there are fewer people online, or even the monetary bonus awarded to the developers is cut because of a bad score. On the other hand they can give a 7/10 to a shitty game and then my friends buy it, ending up with not enough money for a game I actually play, and then all my friends aren't playing the same game as me. Metacritic scores include the professionals and the idiots. Metacritic scores affect me and my immediate circle and my games.
[QUOTE=Solo Wing;48471572]So we SHOULDNT report their shady and unethical actions? Do you support people like Sam "bring back bullying" Biddie too? The Internet would be a better place if gawker went the way of the dodo.[/QUOTE] Report to whom? The journalism ethics police? If you don't like what a website has to say, it's your choice to stop using it, but they are entitled to the freedom of the press just like every other publication operating in the US. [editline]16th August 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=01271;48471608]They still affect me though. In one instance, a writer was told to give a enthusiastically awaited game a bad score so that his review would be viewed more and bring in more ad money. Those sites can also give lower scores to games that don't have the correct political message or have a white male lead or the female character is "just a man with tits" or she's "reflecting badly on real women", so I end up buying a game and there are fewer people online, or even the monetary bonus awarded to the developers is cut because of a bad score. On the other hand they can give a 7/10 to a shitty game and then my friends buy it, ending up with not enough money for a game I actually play, and then all my friends aren't playing the same game as me. Metacritic scores include the professionals and the idiots. Metacritic scores affect me and my immediate circle and my games.[/QUOTE] Game reviews aren't even real journalism. By its very nature reviews are incredibly subjective and rely on the author's opinion, which falls out of standard journalistic practices. If you're using a single game reviewer to judge a game that's your own fault. What you're saying is you disagree with the opinion of the game reviewer, so its somehow a breach of journalistic ethics? Not sure how that works.
[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;48471614]Report to whom? The journalism ethics police? If you don't like what a website has to say, it's your choice to stop using it, but they are entitled to the freedom of the press just like every other publication operating in the US.[/QUOTE] I get that for sites that just have the problem of shitty pointless articles but there's that, then there's reporters attacking people who oppose them and journalists spreading misinformed bullshit that people eat up, plus what 01271 said
[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;48471614]Report to whom? The journalism ethics police? If you don't like what a website has to say, it's your choice to stop using it, but they are entitled to the freedom of the press just like every other publication operating in the US. [editline]16th August 2015[/editline] Game reviews aren't even real journalism. By its very nature reviews are incredibly subjective and rely on the author's opinion, which falls out of standard journalistic practices. If you're using a single game reviewer to judge a game that's your own fault. What you're saying is you disagree with the opinion of the game reviewer, so its somehow a breach of journalistic ethics? Not sure how that works.[/QUOTE] Report to their customers? Do you get how narratives work? When the media has a story they want to tell, they use this thing called a "NARRATIVE". The "narrative" is the story as it is to be believed if we listen only to the one side. But a narrative is incredibly powerful, because it grants legitimacy to one side, to the popular and media backed side. I'm sorry, but i'm not about to let people use a narrative that disparages me freely. I am within my freedoms to SPEAK UP about how they're terrible and spread that information. Or are you going to say I don't have the freedom
[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;48471614]What you're saying is you disagree with the opinion of the game reviewer, so its somehow a breach of journalistic ethics? Not sure how that works.[/QUOTE] Fine by me, seeing "bayonetta's tits are opressing me" once in a while is great comedic relief but when you have the (now disbanded, thanks gamergate!) gamejournopros mailing list where that opinion would become homogenized among its members if they want to keep a job in the industry you can get a bit of a problem. The other 2 points there you can't argue against really, 7/10 paid reviews and metacritic taking political opinions into account are indefensible.
[QUOTE=01271;48471667]Fine by me, seeing "bayonetta's tits are opressing me" once in a while is great comedic relief but when you have things like the gamejournopros mailing list where that opinion would become homogenized among its members you can get a bit of a problem. The other 2 points there you can't argue against really, 7/10 paid reviews and metacritic taking political opinions into account are indefensible.[/QUOTE] bayonetta has a 90 on metacritic there's a million other media sources that have less bias, use those. if i see a tabloid with a title talking about how the ghost of robin williams is having sex with angelina jolie, i ignore it, i don't buy it and then yell about it and try to bring about the downfall of the tabloid, especially when that tabloid can just reform into another company in a day the moment a lawsuit goes through
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48471688]bayonetta has a 90 on metacritic there's a million other media sources that have less bias, use those. if i see a tabloid with a title talking about how the ghost of robin williams is having sex with angelina jolie, i ignore it, i don't buy it and then yell about it and try to bring about the downfall of the tabloid, especially when that tabloid can just reform into another company in a day the moment a lawsuit goes through[/QUOTE] ok but the thing is that people actually buy into that shit and that's a bad thing
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48471688]bayonetta has a 90 on metacritic there's a million other media sources that have less bias, use those. if i see a tabloid with a title talking about how the ghost of robin williams is having sex with angelina jolie, i ignore it, i don't buy it and then yell about it and try to bring about the downfall of the tabloid, especially when that tabloid can just reform into another company in a day the moment a lawsuit goes through[/QUOTE] Bayonetta was also lambasted by some games writers as being oppresive trash peddled by men. I don't read that shit but other people do and other people take that shit at face value. Cool, lets live in your world, where we embrace that misinformation and never seek to fix it because "Lol who cares games journalisms a joke"
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48471702]Bayonetta was also lambasted by some games writers as being oppresive trash peddled by men. I don't read that shit but other people do and other people take that shit at face value. Cool, lets live in your world, where we embrace that misinformation and never seek to fix it because "Lol who cares games journalisms a joke"[/QUOTE] i don't really see where the issue is in this - it has a perfectly fair score websites that people are lambasting for being biased (e.g. Giant Bomb, etc) gave it a 100% fair review with zero mention of tits or how oppressive it is. literally the only negative review from a major review source that mentions the sexuality of the game is the AV Club and they gave it a 67 i support gamergate's ideals but i think the "everybody is sexist and rating games worse because they have boobs" is such an overblown and blatantly false topic. if someone wants to write an editorial on it, okay, who cares, i disagree with editorials all the time, but they're opinion pieces. if someone writes a game review where they bring that into account, okay, who cares - reviews are opinion pieces on the game. i think the entire "gamers are dead" collusion fiasco was incredibly scummy and i'm happy to see people doing stuff to end that type of journalistic collusion, but complaining that [i]opinion pieces[/i] are biased is just misdirected anger
gawker can review however they want, but you're defending the people who potentially outed someone as gay, released a sex tape against someone's will, and released the home address and names of thousands of people in the name of profit. they're not only hypocrites without a shred of integrity, they have proven they are willing to ruin people's lives for ad dollars and clicks. just not using their site wouldn't be a protest, it would be a statement that you don't fancy the content. actually protesting their site needs to be disruptive, so going after ad dollars is mostly the only route
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;48471723]gawker can review however they want, but you're defending the people who potentially outed someone as gay, released a sex tape against someone's will, and released the home address and names of thousands of people in the name of profit. they're not only hypocrites without a shred of integrity, they have proven they are willing to ruin people's lives for ad dollars and clicks. just not using their site wouldn't be a protest, it would be a statement that you don't fancy the content. actually protesting their site needs to be disruptive, so going after ad dollars is mostly the only route[/QUOTE] i hate gawker and i'm not defending them it's just futile, they're an internet tabloid if you sue a tabloid that says "CHRIS BROWN having SEX with RYAN GOSLING?" you'll lose and they'll just reform the company to recoup legal expanses and they'll be fine it's honestly pointless, tabloids will be able to just reform and recoup losses infinitely, that's how their business works - paper-thin profit margins and a company profile so thin that they can literally disintegrate and recreate a new company the moment they're sued.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48471730]i hate gawker and i'm not defending them it's just futile, they're an internet tabloid if you sue a tabloid that says "CHRIS BROWN having SEX with RYAN GOSLING?" you'll lose and they'll just reform the company to recoup legal expanses and they'll be fine it's honestly pointless, tabloids will be able to just reform and recoup losses infinitely, that's how their business works - paper-thin profit margins and a company profile so thin that they can literally disintegrate and recreate a new company the moment they're sued.[/QUOTE] but gawker is more fucked and has less more money and reputation than ever, and it'll be hard to recover- if they even do, that is.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.