Hey, Fuck you for saying "Bias Journalism".

Yeah it sucks that people can't seem to construct a well thought out arugment. Its always just "[Insert company here] clearly payed you to give this game a good/bad review" or "You just sucked at it".

" http://gizmodo.com/5687692/you-write-bias-journalism-and-i-read-derp    Pretty much everywhere it says a name or Gizmodo replace it with Giantbomb and Brad/Jeff/Ryan/Vinny. This article (which no one will read) pretty  much sums up everything that is wrong with people who comment on the internet.  "

The irony is that approximately half the comments on that article completely miss the point. 

I couldn't care less because gizmodo has lost all credibility with me a long time ago, along with almost every other tech/game site besides GB, Tested and Toms Hardware.

" @Jeffsekai said:

" http://gizmodo.com/5687692/you-write-bias-journalism-and-i-read-derp    Pretty much everywhere it says a name or Gizmodo replace it with Giantbomb and Brad/Jeff/Ryan/Vinny. This article (which no one will read) pretty  much sums up everything that is wrong with people who comment on the internet.  "

Does that include the droves of people like you and I who insist they're better than everyone else on the net? Or do smug people get an exemption? "

I saw this yesterday. While this guy might be "right", it doesn't mean he should have posted it. He's lowering himself to the level of the people who trolled him and pissed him off in the first place. Telling your reader base "fuck you" is childish and selfish. He needs to keep doing his job, report news, write reviews, and not be such a friggin' whiner. I for one am not visiting Gizmodo anymore.

" @ryanwho said:

" @Jeffsekai said:

" http://gizmodo.com/5687692/you-write-bias-journalism-and-i-read-derp    Pretty much everywhere it says a name or Gizmodo replace it with Giantbomb and Brad/Jeff/Ryan/Vinny. This article (which no one will read) pretty  much sums up everything that is wrong with people who comment on the internet.  "

Does that include the droves of people like you and I who insist they're better than everyone else on the net? Or do smug people get an exemption? "

Must include you too bro. "

I see where he's going, but the delivery is sort of... vitriolic.

" @ryanwho said:

" @Jeffsekai said:

" http://gizmodo.com/5687692/you-write-bias-journalism-and-i-read-derp    Pretty much everywhere it says a name or Gizmodo replace it with Giantbomb and Brad/Jeff/Ryan/Vinny. This article (which no one will read) pretty  much sums up everything that is wrong with people who comment on the internet.  "

Does that include the droves of people like you and I who insist they're better than everyone else on the net? Or do smug people get an exemption? "

Must include you too bro. "

That article is terrible. Claiming that people don't have a right to complain about poor journalism is dumb. There are some good points in the article, but overall it just comes across as him having a temper tantrum saying "fuck you for criticising me, I'll do what I want".

" @Jeffsekai said:

" @ryanwho said:

" @Jeffsekai said:

" http://gizmodo.com/5687692/you-write-bias-journalism-and-i-read-derp    Pretty much everywhere it says a name or Gizmodo replace it with Giantbomb and Brad/Jeff/Ryan/Vinny. This article (which no one will read) pretty  much sums up everything that is wrong with people who comment on the internet.  "

Does that include the droves of people like you and I who insist they're better than everyone else on the net? Or do smug people get an exemption? "

Must include you too bro. "

But not you? You must share your secret, how you're outwardly no different than any other smug cunt yet are impervious to petty article attacks like this that appear to attack "everyone". How does one rise above everyone? "

There's so much right and so much wrong with that article it's almost funny. Almost. Seriously, you're on the internet. People are going to yell at you. It's what people do. And yes, there's a conflict over having a website with open comments. Yes, you get to say what you want. But people who want to comment get to as well. And if the comments are open, you can't fully expect to control what they say. Unless, that is, you want to police comments. Which is obviously too much work, or it would be done more often.
 
There's no solution to this other than turning off comments. If you leave comments open, you're begging for that sort of relationship with the commenter. You can yell back at the commenters as this article does, but it's really just a waste of breath (as the comments on the article show). If you don't want to be challenged, the internet is not the place for you.

That author should have given himself time to cool down before writing that article. He obviously lets too many comments get under his skin.

I guess I fit into what the article was about, because that was some unprofessional journalism. 
 
I'm such a snarker.

Nice rage.
Was an entertaining read.
Good way to shit on your readership too.

lol @ Gawker in general, that was the most embarrassingly pathetic piece I've ever read.

Calling your readership names and telling them "fuck you" in pretty much every way conceivable is pretty unprofessional. That said, if that whole "man I got raped and these people tried to fuck with my personal life over it" story is true, that is pretty damn low of those commenters. On the other hand, why the hell would he share that kind of information with the Internet? 
 
Gawker is a weird place, I guess.

 I mean, you can be a spurting gash of venom as much as you want. But you can't do that and then expect to get any sort of respect back.

Third of all, fuck you.

I do have anger issues, you dumb, cruel,, entitled, tunneled vision shit eaters. My anger issues are with you, because you are so foul, so unable to use the internet as a thoroughfare for human compassion or—Christ—even just a civil conversation.

I understand his rage, and the type of comments he is talking about are annoying. You see it on Giant Bomb occasionally where someone doesn't agree with a review score and instead of offering their opinions on why they disagree, they accuse the writer of being biased, or unprofessional. However he actually has acted unprofessionally in writing this piece. Take this sentence:
"we are not robots. And unless you really are autistic instead of just playing one while standing alone in the corner at a party, neither are you."
That's actually pretty outrageous, I'm not one to get easily offended but labelling autistic people as 'robots' is a pretty stupid thing to do if you are a professional journalist. Basically I think this whole piece was written in the heat of the moment and an editor really should have vetoed it.

" I guess I fit into what the article was about, because that was some unprofessional journalism.  I'm such a snarker. "

if the dude wanted to bitch he shoulda done it in style: 
 
  

I guess as a site that relies only on advertisement Gizmodo doesn't need part of it's readership?  I mean, hell, the reason people think there's a bias that exists solely  because there's proof of collusion between some editorial sites and some video game makers.  That's one of the reasons Giant Bomb exists if none of you remember.
 
That being said, being able to write for a living should really pull the plug outta your ass.  You treat that job like fucking gold.   In a world where journalism is falling off the map, the ones who get paid to talk about the shit they love better be fucking grateful for the readership they have.  After all, even the assholes help pay for the food on their plates and the home over their heads.

" lol @ Gawker in general, that was the most embarrassingly pathetic piece I've ever read. "

Damn, that dude basically proven that he is biased against one company.  
 
 "Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Sony all make some excellent products. Well, maybe not Sony."     
 
Not saying I care, but if the guy is trying to make the point that he's not bias, then maybe he shouldn't posted that.

Hahahaha, hypocrisy thy name is ryanwho.

" That article is terrible. Claiming that people don't have a right to complain about poor journalism is dumb. There are some good points in the article, but overall it just comes across as him having a temper tantrum saying "fuck you for criticising me, I'll do what I want". "

Most commenters on the internet forget there's a real human being responsible for the article they are posting on.  
 
I'd bet the majority of asshole nerds you find here and around the internet are people who have been abused so much in their actual life that they've got to vent somewhere -- they have no friends, so there are forums and comment sections.

 "You fucking suck. (Bias.) Pass the nachos"    

" I guess as a site that relies only on advertisement Gizmodo doesn't need part of it's readership?  I mean, hell, the reason people think there's a bias that exists solely  because there's proof of collusion between some editorial sites and some video game makers.  That's one of the reasons Giant Bomb exists if none of you remember."

Interesting read, but the problem is you can't drag a good, insightful conversation out of inanity and idiocity - you can turn a good conversation into a shit one pretty easily though (and it happens in 100% of cases on the net).

This article makes some good points, such as pointing out commenters too often pull the unprofessional card, not agreeing with an article does not make it a poorly written article, journalists liking a certain company's products does not constitute bias, and readers have no right trying to meddle in journalists personal lives. The article also made a point which stood out to me even more than the ones I have mentioned and that's that people on the internet need to stop playing the "internet tough guy" game. When you deliver your opinion to someone you do it with an air of civility, that's basic common decency, however it's become socially acceptable in most online communities to make your points in an insulting and degrading way, and that is not how it should be.
 
On the other hand, there are some major flaws in this article which means it completely falls apart. Firstly, readers do have rights, and they do have the right to say journalists are being unprofessional should they have sufficient evidence to do so, upholding anything but this point of view is going against freedom of speech, a basic human right. Speaking of unprofessional this is the exact kind of article I think it's fair to call unprofessional. Not only does it seem like his emotions in general are getting in the way of his writing but he straight-out calls those unfairly criticising him and his peers "dumb, cruel,, entitled, tunneled vision shit eaters". The insults like these that he throws throughout the piece bring him down to the level of the exact people he's speaking out against and make him a hypocrite. In the argument between uncivil commenters and him he's made sure that neither side wins, and crushes an article which could have otherwise got some very important points out there.
 
As for how this relates to Giant Bomb I don't think it does all that much. Some of the commenters here do need to learn to back off from the staff's personal issues or try and remember that their laid-back attitude does not equate to unprofessionalism, but on the whole Giant Bomb still has by quite a way one of the better communities on the internet.

"How dare you question me?!  I work at the internet!  I had to know a guy to get this job!"

" @CptChiken:  Do you fuck your mother?  "

Man, some of the posters there must be real filth. "Hey bro, I herd you got raped so ur review sux".  
But seriously, calling out your readership is an unwise move, because it may serve to alienate your loyal readers and give undue attention and credit to trolls, which is what they want after all. It's a bad article, although I can sympathise with his general point.
If anything it should just highlight the importance of constructive criticism and reasoned debate rather than the usual bickering over review scores or cult of personality antics.

This commenter has it right: 

" I have no idea what prompted this screed so it is completely contextless for me. As such it reads to me like: I want to write strongly opinionated things but people shouldn't write strong criticisms of those opinions in response. Good luck with that. It is not a realistic expectation though. And normally I would be completely onboard with the whole 'Don't insult people that oppose your opinion' sentiment but have a hard time in this case since it is filled with insults aimed at people with opposing opinions. The biggest problem I have with it is that it is an article that asks for civility in a very uncivil manner. That uncivil tone really undermines the point so much it loses all effectiveness. 
There a some good points raised but they are obsured by excessive emotionalism and insults. I suspect there could this could have been a pretty good article if the author had let it sit for a couple days and then taken another pass at it after the emotions of whatever triggered it had subsided some. "

" "How dare you question me?!  I work at the internet!  I had to know a guy to get this job!" "

If he can't handle his opinion being seen as biased by the idiot public at large, he's in the wrong damn business.

" @haggis: True but there is a difference between good comments (ones that actually add to the conversation) and stupid comments (the "rahhh you suck!" ones). If your posting on someones site and being stupid, they have every right to get rid of your ass. "