So Boston Globe‘s Jesse Singal had a write-up about Gamergate. It’s a short account, but one that he obviously researched and is a good overview for those wanting to know WTF is happening who don’t care about games. (I mean, if you want meat and fat and all sorts of details, read Kyle Wagner’s epic piece at Deadspin.)
Anyway, someone in proGamergate reddit was not pleased, labelling their link as “Another poorly-researched hit-piece, from the Boston Globe”.
Singal, praise Cthulu, decided to comment on reddit itself and it’s incredible to behold.
Me: I don’t think this is really about corruption as much as it’s about discomfort with feminism. After all, a lot of the heat seems to be aimed at small female devs/commentators of a feminist bent.
GamerGaters on Twitter: Not true! So unfair! Go to KIA!
[Goes to KIA. Suspicions appear to be mostly confirmed.]
As someone who cares about ethics in media, I’m still waiting for what exactly Gamergate wants. So far, I’ve seen childish nonsense or completely debunked assertions.
Singal, a professional journalist remember, points out his initial and also overwhelming irritation – one that has had many of us frustrated with Gamergate.
“As a journalist trying to be fair-minded about this, you can’t fucking win. If I’m arguing with someone from the NRA or the NAACP or some other established group, I can point to actual quotes from the group’s leadership. With you guys, any bad thing that happens is, by definition, not the work of A True GamerGater. It’s one of the oldest logical fallacies in the book.”
Again and again, we point out what someone explicitly says in “the name of Gamergate”, then get told either that’s not Gamergate or “we reported them!” Good people in gamergate are spending their time yelling about True Gamergate instead of taking actual actions that benefit others.
But the meat of Singal’s post is this:
So what is GamerGate “really” about? I think this is the kinda question a philosopher of language would tear apart and scatter the remnants of to the wind, because it lacks any real referent. You guys refuse to appoint a leader or write up a platform or really do any of the things real-life, adult “movements” do. I’d argue that there isn’t really any such thing as GamerGate, because any given manifestation of it can be torn down as, again, No True GamerGate by anyone who disagrees with it. And who gets to decide what is and isn’t True GamerGate? You can’t say you want a decentralized, anonymous movement and then disown the ugly parts that inevitably pop up. Either everything is in, or everything is out.
This echoes what Chris Grant said in my previous post, that Gamergate’s view is dependent on whoever’s using the hashtag at the time. That’s not a movement, that’s a mass of confusion.
Stop pretending this is about stuff it isn’t. Acknowledge that you do not want SJWs in gaming, that you want games to just be about games. Again: I disagree, but at least then I (and other journalists! you do want coverage, don’t you?) could at least follow what the hell is going on. If your movement requires journalists to carefully parse 8chan chains to understand it, it gets an F- in the PR department.
I’m open about my politics. Denying politics is denying reality: Why can I admit my politics and perspective, and stand by them, but those who swear and hate my writing and want social agendas removed (lol wut?) can never do the same? It’s sad that instead of acknowledging their conservative positions, they hide them beneath claims of objectivity and neutrality – a fictional state of creative appraisal that simply cannot exist.
You know I’d be genuinely interested in a thoughtful conservative critique of GTA or The Last of Us; I’d love to read a review where the writer attempts a thoughtful view of why a sexy game character meant a higher score, rather than a lower one. But instead of diversifying – and thereby treating everyone as adults – we have this cowardly, childish perspective. Even game sites I otherwise respect have leapt into this boring idea of how reviews are meant to be, of how reviews are OK if they keep Property A out because it’s social and sexual, but Property B in because it’s graphics and sound – without ever justifying why social and sexual is not welcome, but graphics and sound are.
In his blistering response, it’s little wonder Singal speaks to many in Gamergate like children.
There is a genuine problem in gaming journalism where writers can get fired for giving a bad review. But to fix the genuine problem, gamers would actually have to do something and go up against the big developers instead of Zoe Quinn. They’d also have to go up against gaming websites that collude with developers instead of ones that published articles that hurt the feelings of gamers.
As things are, if the Occupy movement was anything like GamerGate, they’d be parked outside a little mom & pop bakery and driving one of the bakers out of her home because of “business ethics”.
The best part of it, so far, is that it’s so fucking obviously not at all about fixing those problems that Jeff Gerstmann, one of the few people to have actually lost his job due to giving a game a bad review, has denounced the movement as a not-even-thinly veiled mask for misogyny.
(I’m normally logged in as Shockna; I can’t seem to get my FTB username to work on this blog)
You guys refuse to appoint a leader or write up a platform or really do any of the things real-life, adult “movements” do.
Whereas feminism has a number of authoritative leaders and a clear platform rather than a huge mish-mash of ideas with supporters on all sides? No massive blow-ups internal to feminism over the role of safe-spaces, trans-inclusion, sex-positivity, male allies?
So your response is “No, you”?
And then contrast it with an idea that has a long history and various admitted complications? Which has actually achieved good things for many people?
OK, then.
You allow that feminism is relatively complex, hard to pin down, and lacking in clear-cut leadership, despite decades of organized activity. I allow that GamerGate is relatively complex, hard to pin down, and lacking in clear-cut leadership, despite existing for around two months now. Maybe it is unreasonable to expect that level of cohesion in these decentralized times when most anyone has a platform?
There are lots of feminist organizations with leaders, platforms, and conferences. Your point? It only makes anti-feminists look worse that they lump everyone in one group. Ignoring that there are obviously many feminist movements is blind to the point of dishonesty.
Feminism is an idea not a group. Journalistic ethics is an idea, when you form a specific group you are responsible for how you represent yourself and will be taken to task for not explicitly distancing yourself from your worst members. If NOW had forums filled with hatred, that organization would rightly be criticized.
This doesn’t change the fact that gamergate is not at all organized so we cannot examine the different factions. And as illustrated by the article, the horrible flaws are so mixed with any part that is useful so that every group and website is a mess. If there are different gamergate movements they simply need to get organized like adults.