Why don't we just make a different hashtag? (Gamergate)

#FixGamesJournalism

The problem with GamerGate is there are a bunch of loud cunts using it maliciously. All the people who don't wish any harm, mental or physical, on people in this industry but want change have no choice but to group with these assholes if they want any chance of being heard.

GamerGate is the biggest discussion in gaming right now. It makes complete sense that sane people would use it to discuss the parts of this "movement" that matters. The problem is that by doing this you are automatically grouped with all the people that are sending threats and stuff and for a good reason.

There is a really easy fix to this though. Why not just use a different hashtag? I mean, it's pretty simple, just use a hashtag NOT associated with all the vile filth, but push the actual important parts of the message. If it's made clear from the start that ANY ONE WHO USES THE HASHTAG MALICIOUSLY IS NOT A PART OF THE MOVEMENT AND SHOULD BE NOTED AS SUCH because let's face it, it will eventually be used for "evil" (Anyone with internet can use any hashtag they want to say whatever they want, that's just how it is), there shouldn't be a problem.

Bad people have latched onto the GamerGate name, so why don't the good people just use a different one and make it clear they are not aligned with the bad people? I know that it's shitty to "start over" since GamerGate has gained so much traction, but there is no other choice, really.

I stopped following the whole GamerGate thing recently since I'm done with being grouped in with those people, but I still do wish something would be done about the corruption in games journalism. More people than ever now want to see change in the industry. People genuinely care now. Why not take advantage of it in a positive way? I saw that Patrick said that there are problems in games journalism, but GamerGate ruined the discussion. Why not clean the slate and try to change the things that are actually problematic?

Maybe now isn't the right time, but it's at least worth thinking about and noting that GamerGate is NOT the only way to discuss this topic. You DO NOT need to support GamerGate to discuss games journalism, the more distance you have from it, the better off everyone will be. (EDIT: I wanted to bold this, because this is really important)

P.S. I don't give a fuck about Zoe Quinn, her game seemed interesting, she sort of sounds like an asshole but I really couldn't care less about her sex life. Don't make this about her.

P.S.S I know there was just a GG thread but it was locked before I could make a post about this, and also if other people are interested enough I think this warrants it's own thread.

pls dont turn this into a shitstorm

Well as good as your intentions are , I dont think this will gain traction because most people will soon tell you that there is not journalism corruption etc. that it is all make beleive etc. But yeah if not this # specificly , at least one that isnt loaded with negativity right of the gate could be more useful and as you state derail the conversation from the filth and make actual civil disscusion a possibility.

I think this is a wonderful idea. One thing to watch out for, don't make this about fighting people who hold differing social viewpoints.

One of the biggest reasons I oppose GG is their focus on removing what they call "SJWs" from the industry. This isn't helpful to anyone and is as far away from improving journalism as possible. If the root complaint can be boiled down to "this person wrote something I don't like because it says something I like is problematic", then it's not an issue.

Basically the movement needs to be built from the ground up. It shouldn't be hostile. It shouldn't accuse people of things based on flimsy evidence. It should focus on verifiable things, like the WB stuff with Shadow of Mordor. It shouldn't confuse a different opinion with corruption.

And posting anonymously should be discouraged at all points to show an honest attempt at transparency.

Why don't we just stop using Twitter, instead? As far as I can tell it hasn't done many people on this topic any favors.

People in games journalism will do whatever they possibly can ti make sure it comes back around to the female indie devs, so they can call it misogyny again. There is no hash tag that won't be immediately vilified.

@marokai: Twitter is incredibly important for letting as many people as possible see what you are talking about. More people are willing to read 140 characters than go on someone's blog to read a long post about why video game journalist being paid by video game companies is wrong. Twitter is incredibly valuable to movements like this, it would be unwise to completely ditch it.

Maybe don't use the c word? Especially when it's a heated topic like this. A lot of people don't appreciate it

But yeah, separating from the gamer gate name might be a good idea. I don't think you are gonna change anyone's mind at this point when you are associated with such harassment

I don't think Game Journalism needs to be fixed... honestly what is it to be fix!? How hard is it to understand this is a enthusiast press, no different to Art, Cinema, Photography or other expressive mediums?

Sure Kotaku, Polygon, Gamasutra and others have an editorial line, you can clearly understand (as long as you read the reviews) the editorial line of the reviewer, Even Giantbomb has its own editorial line... and that is fine. What do you FixGameJournalism want? Straight out objective product reviews, there is TotalBiscuit and for that sake most gaming outlets, I personally find that utterly boring, but whatever I'm not going bonkers against them. Point being there is a lot media outlets for videogames, with different approaches and different goals... wanting or demanding all of them to follow the same editorial line sounds like fascim.

I still can't get around my head about the GG crew... fine you hate social justice warriors, artsy games, critique, cool... You don't need to attack the people who does enjoy videogames that way, that is irrational pure intolerance.

Its been said countless times but again, you can have games like Gone Home and Call of Duty side be side, the medium has growth, diverse people is creating games with different motivations and different goals, pick the one that you identify with... you don't need to hate on everyone else... that is just.. bananas.

I think that's the only way you even could say anything in support of this issue at this point. While I don't necessarily agree with this viewpoint, I do feel sorry for those who don't get to discuss their thoughts rationally just because the louder people are more violently aggressive and hateful. Everyone should get a say--as long as that say isn't just hateful, ignorant yelling at the top of one's lungs.

I have an honest to goodness question, what part of games journalism do you find corrupt/in need of fixing? As uncool as it is, the stuff involving Shadow of Mordor was targeted at YouTube personalities, i.e. people who do not identify as games journalists. So what are these things that are in need of fixing? It would really help your case if you could nail that down.

@superkicker: agreed. But the movement should be centralized and moderated off of twitter. An open forum laying out the mission statement of the movement. With rules. Linking twitter accounts to forum accounts. The movement needs to be open and honest about who members are and what the movement is actually doing. Tweeting at people enmass isn't a good way to accomplish your goals. Writing about it and gaining support is. There's a fine line between just talking to someone on twitter and harassing them.

This isn't to say members can't discuss with people on twitter, but unlike GG the hash tag shouldn't target people. It shouldn't be used to spread unconfirmed evidence or flimsy rumors about people. That's irresponsible and dangerous.

I wasn't aware this was something that anyone in the GB community was even concerned with. I'm kind of glad to see it on one level, but I got so burned out on the thought of it even that I just can't care anymore myself.

It's not going to matter what you do though - as long as there's any kind of connection to GamerGate there's always going to be some one that will attribute the movement to misogyny and people they perceive to be scum, while protecting people that are very much the same. If anything, stop going to websites where you don't trust the writers. If anything, the hashtag should be #integrity. It's a bummer that developers and press are in bed together, but there's not much you can do (besides voting with your wallet) considering how small, cliquish, and inbred the industry is.

Why don't we just realize that twitter activism is noting more than a thinly veiled reason for people to vent their frustrations into an echochamber ?

You know who does appreciate it? @vinny.

You knowwwww...there's probably a very good reason why it was locked before. Perhaps you should re-evaluate why before reposting?

What's wrong with it?

DID HE/SHE GO TOO FAR?!

Games' journalism is not really journalism and never has been. Even my teenaged self was slightly skeptical of reviews in my monthly purchase of "Video Games and Computer Entertainment" right next to ads for those exact same video games, and I barely knew what a conflict of interest was then. Part of what I appreciate about Giant Bomb - the only video game site I can even stomach anymore - is that they're so transparent with their coverage. I found someone whose bias aligns with my own and listen to them. The best way to 'fix' games journalism is to stop calling it journalism.

Your part right in saying that, more correct would be everybody understood better.

What Jeff does is not Games journalism he is a Games Reviewer and he introduces himself like that, the closest most the GB crew gets to any form of journalism is an interview with someone, however they do not investigate anything but what a game is and what information ON the game.

Patrick on the other hand does not just report news he also researches and investigates. He is one of the better people to be called Games journalist and spreads into being an investigative games journalist VS the swaths of people who copy paste PR emails and press releases. Very few even comment on the news they report.

These two definitions by Wikipedia outlines what Journalism is and what a Journalist is. Patrick IS and Alex is the second closest yet he is not really here at GB. 90% of people in the industry of reporting on game do not fit these definitions with the rest barley.

Journalism is gathering, processing, and dissemination of news and information related to the news to an audience. The word applies to both the method of inquiring for news and the literary style which is used to disseminate it.^[1][2]

A journalist is a person who works with collecting, writing and distributing news and other current information. A journalist's work is referred to as journalism. A journalist can work with general issues, or specialized in certain issues. For example, a sports journalist covers news within the world of sports.

Well I mean there's criticism and there's journalism, and granted there's a much higher ethics bar for journalists than for critics. Criticism is an inherently subjective enterprise, after all. But on the other hand, there certainly need to be standards for criticism; anyone who makes a living as a professional critic who is caught being compensated -- financially or otherwise -- for a positive review or for slanted coverage should absolutely be discredited. And I understand the urge of some people to want to root that sort of thing out.

But the thing that gets me is, here we are in a world where bedroom YouTubers are openly and sometimes gleefully receiving compensation in exchange for favorable content on their channels, and yet in all the sturm and drang over GamerGate, I hear almost nobody discussing that. It's all Polygon this and Kotaku that, despite the fact that the accusations against those site ares flimsy at best, downright conspiratorial at worst. And yet there are dozens of people on YouTube who make a living covering video games (which by definition makes them professional video game critics) who have no compunction at all about taking all sorts of free swag from publishers in exchange for increased coverage. But somehow no one in this movement seems remotely interested in talking about that. If this thing were really about integrity, if it were really about putting a stop to corruption, that stuff would be topic one, and the sex life of indie developers would be topic seven thousand eight-hundred and twelve.

There have been several attempts to change the hashtag with the presumption that #gamergate's origin is malicious. #gamergate was started by Adam Baldwin after he had seen a video on the topic of concern. They have been unsuccessful because the GGers don't want to dilute the message by spreading to many different hashtags that all get little use and would likely fall apart. Even if it means carrying a negative image in the mainstream.

Also you may want to look into more neutral articles on gamergate than ones that call gamers "pissbabies" and "shitlords". I recommend Erik Kain from Forbes. He has actually come onto streams and argued with more prominent GG folks.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/10/09/gamergate-is-not-a-hate-group-its-a-consumer-movement/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/10/06/its-time-for-video-game-journalists-to-engage-with-gamergate/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/09/04/gamergate-a-closer-look-at-the-controversy-sweeping-video-games/

Here are a few more articles on The Escapist from game developers.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/features/12306-Female-Game-Developers-Make-Statements-on-GamerGate

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/features/12383-Game-Developer-GamerGate-Interviews-Shed-Light-on-Women-in-Games

The Escapist has done well in allowing discussion on the matter as long as it remains civil. It was also DDoS'd for it.

I'm doing my best here to be as polite as possible in the hopes I will not get in trouble for discussing such a scary topic. I feel like if only anger from one side is allowed then maybe the entire topic should be blocked from discussion on the sight so we can all go back to having fun with video games.

I am pretty excited to see more of Drew in the MGS world.

I'm probably not going to take any group seriously that appends the word "gate" to something else in an effort to flag it as corrupt. It comes off as totally wanting and desperate, and at this point is associated more with bullshit drummed up controversies than the legitimate corruption from Watergate.

I don't think there's a problem with "games journalism" overall, it's enthusiast press anyway. Find people you trust, ignore the rest. Regardless, get rid of the word "gate," otherwise I'm never going to take this "movement" seriously.

@original_hank: @fajitaboss: Like I said in an earlier post, journalist making a living by being getting a paycheck from the companies they are covering (i.e. relying video game ads as their number one source of site income) is a really, really good place too start.

Video games are huge, why does GiantBomb need to be "sponsored" by Devil May Cry? Why can't they just have ads from things only tangentially related to video games?

Another thing, which honestly GB (Patrick) is guilty of this recently but not to an offensive degree, is journalist choosing only to write about things that make them and their kin look good. I really wish I could hop on GB and read about everything going on in the games industry, but that's not what this site is for. That's understandable. The problem is that the sites that DO give me that type of coverage are corrupt. What I can't understand, is how many of the larger games journalist congregate online and decide what they should and shouldn't talk about via that one Google Group or whatever it was.

Alex can claim that all they do is joke around in there, but that's bullshit, if they want to joke around do it publicly OR don't tie your profession into it. There is no reason for that and even if there was only that one instance of someone claiming they should cover for ZQ, it looks incredibly shady.

I want to make it clear that I don't think these journalist are bad people (which is why GG and the savage attacks towards these people are unbelievable and why I feel the need to distance myself from that group) for doing things like that, I just think they are being stupid and they need to fix their priorities. When this stuff is brought to light sometimes they realize how dumb they are being and they change. I have seen lots of people, when talking about a KS they backed, immediately noting that they helped fund it. This change has only occurred recently because people spoke up on the fact that they felt people in games media should do so.

Also.

I still can't get around my head about the GG crew... fine you hate social justice warriors, artsy games, critique, cool... You don't need to attack the people who does enjoy videogames that way, that is irrational pure intolerance.

What I can't get my head around is why you are STILL bringing that up as if it has anything to do with this discussion. I very, very clearly stated that this is separate from GG and yet you immediately go on the defensive and start bringing all that shit up. I love artsy, unique, and cool games. Saying that holds no bearing here dude/dudet. Making claims like you just did which adds nothing to this thread and is honestly borderline off topic is what starts fights. Please don't do that.

Point taken, but that thread was locked because the discussion was getting out of hand. I'm really glad the discussion in this thread so far has been incredibly sensible.

Hi everyone. I was just browsing the other locked GamerGate thread and saw that some people were asking for more information about the movement, while others were still believing the narrative that GamerGate was created to target women in gaming. I just thought I would link to some articles about the whole thing to hopefully give people an idea of what GamerGate is actually about.

This is a good overview of GamerGate (although perhaps somewhat hyperbolic in parts), created to dispel misconceptions about why GamerGate exists.

And this is a huge list of articles relating the GamerGate from many different publications. I know its a lot to read but I hope those that are curious will find what they need.

I just wanted to share these so that perhaps there could be a more informed discussion on here without the mods having to immediately lock the thread. Thanks.

Sorry but that is some historical revision shit right there. Let's not forget that this whole movement started because people wanted to harass a female developer. The journalism stuff came after as a flimsy cover story for the abuse and even then the actual issues people seem to have with journalism is that they are friends with the people in the industry they cover (which is how folks get sources) and that people talk about issues like sexism and racism in video games. Also, weirdly, that people like indie games.

So no, we can't have a serious talk about journalism right now despite a different hashtag since this entire argument and climate has been built on a pile of shit. Sorry, anyone with serious legitimate gripes (and there's quite a few) is unfortunately going to have to wait until this horrible stuff dies down. Basically it would be seen and probably used as yet another smokescreen to cover the continued harassment campaigns that has already done horrific damage to an industry we all seem to love.

Here's what I would do, start a discussion else where. Don't mention gamergate, don't even mention specific people or current targets of that movement. Start conversations about ethics in gaming and avoid the topics being brought up in gamergate. Avoid lazy arguments that often include words like "bias" "corruption" and "agenda" After this shit blows over come out of the wood work and start a dialogue with journalists. have specific examples ready, make sure your examples aren't straight up photoshopped lies too. Patrick responds to PMs, if you're respectful I've had a handful of pleasant disagreements with him. Devs also enjoy conversation, Tim Schafer is super transparent on twitter. This is my best advice.

#wearelikesupernicegamersandwejustwouldliketohaveapleasentconversationaboutcertainaspectsoftheenthusiastpresswefindproblematichaveaniceday

Interesting, I assumed all discussion of this topic was still being censored from the site.

"GamerGate" is a thing that happened. Fourteen sites ran "Gamers are dead" articles the same day.

#GamerGate is a twitter search term used to discuss that happening and other games journalism issues (of which there are plenty, and no one seems to debate whether that's true, just whether it's OK to talk about it)

Neither of those things are people. Neither have agency.

There's no correlation between people who think it's something we should talk about that there's this elephant in the room of biased, conflict-laden games journalism going on, and harrassment. There just isn't. If I tweet racism under the #throwbackthursday hashtag on Twitter, that doesn't make people using the hashtag racist.

The argument doesn't make sense.

Furthermore, any change to another hashtag would just lead to people saying "Oh, these are those #GamerGate people", so it literally would make zero difference.

I'll be pleasantly surprised if this post doesn't get deleted, because it doesn't match the current narrative. Thanks for reading!

I'm sure everyone on the GamerGate hashtag would be just fine switching to your "#FixGamesJournalism" hashtag if any of them actually cared about fixing games journalism. The problem is that they don't.

Well yeah, there's that too.

That's a ridiculous argument, though. What's to stop people saying "That #FixGamesJournalism group is just GamerGate"?

There's nothing to be gained from it.

@sweeneytodd: from actively droppingdropping the more ridiculous beliefs of the movement and from no longer focusing on people who just hold different social views. And by never calling someone a "sjw" again. And by dropping the annonimity and becoming a legitimate consumer advocacy group instead of internet detectives.

What I find odd is that co-dependency between game publishers and games media is almost as old as games themselves. Media craves content. They also need ad dollars to survive. Content is controlled by PR. They need to advertise their game and get media coverage, but also want to control the message. Publishers view media as a PR tool. Media struggles with how to maintain their ethics while working in this vicious cycle, mostly choosing to keep separation between editorial and adverts. So I really don't understand why, in 2014, Gaters are feigning outrage over perceived ethics violations between games journalists (a misnomer) and games publishers, when this shit is nothing new. Furthermore, if they are so concerned about it, why has no one said a peep about this whole Shadow of Mordor branding deal business? Where's their outrage now?

I'd say game journalism is probably better about that and has been more transparent than it's ever been. Although yes, the old model and relationships still linger I guess it's simply trumped by "This writer is a feminist = corruption = bias = ugh..satan?"

Completely unfair judgment on a group of thousands of people. There are tons of people currently using the GG tag to discuss games journalism that genuinely care. They use the GG tag because it's an easy way to be heard and it's the only option out there.

This thread proposes changing that.

Exactly. The point is that GG has everyone riled up, many of those people want to fight the good fight. Why not take these people and separate them from the cesspool that is GG and start a separate movement that's goal isn't harassment?

There's a big difference between the press and the enthusiast press. Remember that video games are highly insular, or at least have been for some time. When advertisers are looking for a venue to peddle their product, they think of video games as being highly insular; that is to say, video game fans are interested in video games. That was how it used to be. Now the "gamer" identity has expanded to include soft drinks, chips, extreme sports, etc in marketing eyes. In real people terms, video gaming has become just as mainstream and widely diverse as any other sort of entertainment medium. I'm not trying to make a statement about people who identify themselves as gamers here, I'm talking as a person with experience in advertising.

If you're trying to advertise a movie, where should you sell it? The answer is simple: basically anywhere. Everyone watches movies, the medium has widespread appeal and is generally demographic agnostic. Specific movies might have a specific group they're targeting, but the medium as a whole sells to anyone.

Now imagine you're trying to sell airsoft guns. Not really a broad market appeal on that product - there's a pretty limited demographic that buys a lot of airsoft guns. You're probably going to advertise in magazines, websites, and podcasts related to airsoft guns predominantly, and maybe in areas devoted to real guns as well as maybe video games and general men's magazines.

For years, video games were in the same boat as airsoft guns. They were specialized products for a market which purchased a lot, but didn't consist of a wide variety of demographics. Ads ran only in publications which talked about video games, and that's where we see the situation where Giant Bomb has ads for Devil May Cry. In addition to this, and the guys have talked about this at length on recent podcasts, since the media around video games operates in an enthusiast capacity, they rely on the companies to provide information of their own free will. No one is able to force Square Enix to give up information about their development practices, and as a result the only info they're forthcoming with is stuff that makes Square Enix look good. There's a big difference between journalists and investigative journalists as well. There aren't many investigative journalists in gaming, but there are a few (Patrick being one) who do good work and manage to toe the line.

I guess what I'm saying is that a lot of people are extremely mad about corruption in games journalism without having a very good idea of what journalism, enthusiast press, and investigative journalism are and the differences between them. I'm not pointing fingers in this thread, but I think it's helpful to think about these things before asking for different standards. For example, early in gamergate people were comparing CNN's ethics code to Polygon's. That just doesn't hold water, as the two are so different they're literally different fields of work. I remember one guy interviewed a journalism ethics professor at his college, and asked leading questions about patreons without explaining there's no ROI to get desired answers about conflicts of interest. It just gets kind of silly at some point.

Game sites hosting game ads could be construed as a problem, but you'd have to point to some really specific ROI situations there. Does a videogame that advertises on a game site getting one good review drive sales of the product? Can that be linked to a specific ad on the site which gave a good review? If so - doesn't the review have more impact on sales than the fact that there's an ad next to the review? After all, the review is purchasing advice - you could argue that a review is literally creating ROI if there was investment. That's the thinking that led to the idea of publishers purchasing review scores. What if there are ads on the site and the game gets a bad review? Does that then create a situation where sites can only advertise games which they have reviewed poorly, after the game is released?

You could also look at pre-release hype. Coverage of games is creating hype for the game's sale, this is what drives views on sites for revenue as well as what gives the company a reason to run pre-release marketing. So should games sites stop covering pre-release, due to the fact that it could artificially inflate a game's sales? If so, what exactly does the games press do?

Im still unclear where this huge epidemic of lack of gaming journalistic integrity is. There's such a brouhaha about it that you think even without actively looking for it it would be completely in your face...

I'm locking this thread - we are up to 3/4 GG threads and this one has started on a bad foot with you calling people cunts and assholes.

If you want to voice an opinion on the internet then it's best not to do it guns blazin'