What is Adam Baldwin thinking?

[Firbozz]

At the end of the day, articles are written with intent. Their intent is to deliver a message. Can this been interpreted as "manipulating the readers"? Probably, if that's how you choose to frame it. But at the end of the day, any media outlet will have bias. What I see is a group of feminist sites, which would like to present a common front against a group that has declared them an enemy, and are deciding what's in the best interests of their cause.
Is it propaganda? Depends on how far you stretch, but frankly I think calling this organization of a common front propaganda may be a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Furthermore, the articles in question are from almost a month ago, back when the internet was out for Quinn's blood (I mean they still are, but at this point to a lesser(?) extent). These e-mails were being sent back and forth at a time when large sites were trying to shut down breeding grounds for witch hunts, and avoid directing people towards said witch hunts.

[JackSlack]

If media organizations are meeting in secret in order to discuss ways to further a narrative that they like then there is only one word for what they are producing. Propaganda, pure and simple. Maybe this is "just video games" but that doesn't excuse these attempts to manipulate their readers.

Oh hey! I thought we'd lost you.

If that is what's happening, I agree. That said, what's been released so far doesn't prove that, and it's worth noting that there's been more discussion about what the list is now that puts it in something of a different light. I still do think there'd be better ways to do this, and I think such a group does open them up to claims of improper conduct, but so far it's a yellow flag, not a red one.

[korvys]

phlip is dead on. There is nothing wrong with people, even journalists, being familiar with other people within there profession. There would be something wrong if they were using that familiarity to squash a story, or something, but this isn't that, and familiarity by itself is not a problem.

To border on (if not dive entirely into) reductio-ad-absurdum: This would be same as claiming that because two people have cellphones, they could call each other and conspire. Unless you have actual evidence that they DID, you've got nothing at all.

[jacetheSJW]

If media organizations are meeting in secret in order to discuss ways to further a narrative that they like then there is only one word for what they are producing. Propaganda, pure and simple. Maybe this is "just video games" but that doesn't excuse these attempts to manipulate their readers.

Oh hey! I thought we'd lost you.

If that is what's happening, I agree. That said, what's been released so far doesn't prove that, and it's worth noting that there's been more discussion about what the list is now that puts it in something of a different light. I still do think there'd be better ways to do this, and I think such a group does open them up to claims of improper conduct, but so far it's a yellow flag, not a red one.

I was going to come back to answer some of your questions, but I realized James was right about nobody changing their mind on anything and my desire to troll you was only a small part of what got me to make an account here.

To address some of the things that you guys have said I'm going to link you to two youtube videos. The first documents the links that various gaming journalism outlets have to an organization called Silverstring Media, and Silverstring Media's relationship to an ideological far left think tank that studies digital gaming. The second discusses how these new revelations relate to those connections.

I don't know if I would call this all a "conspiracy" but these people are colluding in order to push a highly ideological point of view using coached propaganda. Remember all those journalism are dead articles coming out at the same time? The absolute refusal to address Gamer Gate fairly the way Le Monde did? Hmmm, seems a bit fishy, doesn't it? If you guys are okay with them doing this then I guess we don't have much to talk about because I am definitely NOT cool with it.

https://www.youtube.com/user/SargonofAkkad100/videos

the original video is "a conspiracy in gaming" and the second is "the conspiracy in gaming confirmed"

[jacetheSJW]

phlip is dead on. There is nothing wrong with people, even journalists, being familiar with other people within there profession. There would be something wrong if they were using that familiarity to squash a story, or something, but this isn't that, and familiarity by itself is not a problem.

To border on (if not dive entirely into) reductio-ad-absurdum: This would be same as claiming that because two people have cellphones, they could call each other and conspire. Unless you have actual evidence that they DID, you've got nothing at all.

And how do you know that they don't discuss which games they want to cover and not cover in their group? How do you know they don't discuss other controversies that could impact coverage of a game and have a big impact its sales?

And I'm sorry, but being familiar with each other doesn't require you to collude with each other in order to construct a narrative that fits your view of reality.

[phlip]

And how do you know that they don't discuss which games they want to cover and not cover in their group? How do you know they don't discuss other controversies that could impact coverage of a game and have a big impact its sales?

Because if they did, the Breitbart article would have quoted those emails, instead of the banal crap they did quote instead.

[Duckay]

"There's no proof that they don't" is not a compelling argument that they do.

[phlip]

Exactly.

[JackSlack]

And how do you know that they don't discuss which games they want to cover and not cover in their group? How do you know they don't discuss other controversies that could impact coverage of a game and have a big impact its sales?

And I'm sorry, but being familiar with each other doesn't require you to collude with each other in order to construct a narrative that fits your view of reality.

If they cite those emails, then I'll revise my opinion. A yellow flag does mean caution, after all.

But the actual content of the emails revealed so far is a lot less damning than, say, the Zoe Quinn logs.

[jacetheSJW]

And how do you know that they don't discuss which games they want to cover and not cover in their group? How do you know they don't discuss other controversies that could impact coverage of a game and have a big impact its sales?

Because if they did, the Breitbart article would have quoted those emails, instead of the banal crap they did quote instead.

You're assuming that they automatically have access to all such emails. The problem with the existence of such a group is that you just cannot trust the journalists not to engage in the sort of biased coverage I am talking about. That is why real journalists lost their jobs when it was revealed that Ezra Klein was running such a list a few years ago. It's just not okay.

[jacetheSJW]

And how do you know that they don't discuss which games they want to cover and not cover in their group? How do you know they don't discuss other controversies that could impact coverage of a game and have a big impact its sales?

And I'm sorry, but being familiar with each other doesn't require you to collude with each other in order to construct a narrative that fits your view of reality.

If they cite those emails, then I'll revise my opinion. A yellow flag does mean caution, after all.

But the actual content of the emails revealed so far is a lot less damning than, say, the Zoe Quinn logs.

I don't understand how the "Zoe quinn logs" are damning.

1. 4chan is not an organization with a "goal." It's a message board and is more like Twitter than a private email list.

2. Anyone can post there or on IRC, which is why groups like Something Awful's FYAD and forum were trolling it actively. People love to troll such things when they are big on 4chan.

3. Anyone here could talk in 4chan IRC literally right now

[korvys]

An odd analogy, JackSlack, as that's exactly what I'd use a yellow flag for.

Once again, the existence of a mailing list of people in the same industry is about as damming as... a not very damming thing. I couldn't think of a good analogy there.

[Firbozz]

I think that there are valid issues to be brought up regarding ethics in games journalism. However, I think the armies are pointed the wrong way. The real power in games journalism doesn't lie with the tiny indies, it lies with the large AAA companies that games sites are obligated to please.
At the end of the day, #GamerGate will never be discussed seriously by the games media, as long as it continues to be tied to a hashtag associated with the harassment of devs and journos alike. If you don't like games sites being progressive and feminist? Tough titty, go elsewhere. Do you genuinely care about issues of ethics in games journalism? Do yourself a favour and distance yourself from the anonymous horde.

[Duckay]

I think the correct comparison here is one Phlip touched on earlier: would a similar mailing list in any other industry (with no evidence of any misuse) be cause for concern?

[AdmiralMemo]

If media organizations are meeting in secret in order to discuss ways to further a narrative that they like then there is only one word for what they are producing. Propaganda, pure and simple. Maybe this is "just video games" but that doesn't excuse these attempts to manipulate their readers.

Oh hey! I thought we'd lost you.

If that is what's happening, I agree. That said, what's been released so far doesn't prove that, and it's worth noting that there's been more discussion about what the list is now that puts it in something of a different light. I still do think there'd be better ways to do this, and I think such a group does open them up to claims of improper conduct, but so far it's a yellow flag, not a red one.

I agree with Jack here. All I've seen is snippets of a collaborative email group discussing topics, and all of those snippets happen to have the same or similar views.

But at the end of the day, each journalist will decide to either write or not write a story, or write the story in a certain way or a different way. It's up to them, and if no one is ostracizing them if/when they have a dissenting view, then everything's on the up and up, as far as I'm concerned.

You've got to admit that people with similar interests and viewpoints tend to cluster together, so you will end up with similar-minded journalists talking to each other. It may seem sketchy sometimes, but it's not collusion until there is a single, pointed directive that everyone agrees upon.

[jacetheSJW]

I think the correct comparison here is one Phlip touched on earlier: would a similar mailing list in any other industry (with no evidence of any misuse) be cause for concern?

What qualifies as misuse? As I said, the mere existence of such a list is unethical given how it can be abused and how easy it is to cross such lines.

That said, I do think that what was shown is quit damning. Especially the bit about using as an excuse to artificially inflate the popularity of Quinn's game.

[Matt]

LOL at using Breitbart to accuse literally anyone of spinning a narrative to fit an agenda.

-m

[jacetheSJW]

I think that there are valid issues to be brought up regarding ethics in games journalism. However, I think the armies are pointed the wrong way. The real power in games journalism doesn't lie with the tiny indies, it lies with the large AAA companies that games sites are obligated to please.
At the end of the day, #GamerGate will never be discussed seriously by the games media, as long as it continues to be tied to a hashtag associated with the harassment of devs and journos alike. If you don't like games sites being progressive and feminist? Tough titty, go elsewhere. Do you genuinely care about issues of ethics in games journalism? Do yourself a favour and distance yourself from the anonymous horde.

The only way to defeat the social justice warriors that are influenced by people like SilverString is to keep #GamerGate. The signal has already been boosted and people are ready to fight against them. If the American gaming press won't cover such issues fairly we will continue our campaign against them.

[JustAName]

So there's this thing. It's called Occam's Razor.

But to give this topic far more attention than it deserves... Have you ever worked in a staff position that made decisions jointly? Or even just had a group project in school? People don't just agree like that. It would take hours of painstaking back-and-forthing every week, and frankly, I don't think the varied personalities that are supposed to be part of this "conspiracy" have the time or energy to devote to something like that, given their current workloads. Or the predispositions. And in situations like that, tensions can run high, and people fight and leave all the time. I'm pretty sure we'd have heard about this "conspiracy" from actual participants if it had been going on.

This is poorly phrased. Basically, ain't nobody got time for that.

[jacetheSJW]

LOL at using Breitbart to accuse literally anyone of spinning a narrative to fit an agenda.

-m

That's like a conservative refusing to address something because it was posted on Think Progress. At some point you have to stop engaging in such fallacious reasoning.

[Matt]

No, not really.

Because I'm not addressing the argument they're making.

I'm addressing the fact that you've hitched your wagon to a propaganda machine, and you expect anyone to seriously believe you give even half a fuck about biased journalism.

-m

[jacetheSJW]

So there's this thing. It's called Occam's Razor.

But to give this topic far more attention than it deserves... Have you ever worked in a staff position that made decisions jointly? Or even just had a group project in school? People don't just agree like that. It would take hours of painstaking back-and-forthing every week, and frankly, I don't think the varied personalities that are supposed to be part of this "conspiracy" have the time or energy to devote to something like that, given their current workloads. Or the predispositions. And in situations like that, tensions can run high, and people fight and leave all the time. I'm pretty sure we'd have heard about this "conspiracy" from actual participants if it had been going on.

This is poorly phrased. Basically, ain't nobody got time for that.

That's the great thing! We did hear about it! I posted a link to a youtube video with evidence in the information section earlier in this thread.

[jacetheSJW]

No, not really.

Because I'm not addressing the argument they're making.

I'm addressing the fact that you've hitched your wagon to a propaganda machine, and you expect anyone to seriously believe you give even half a fuck about biased journalism.

-m

The enemy of my enemy is my friend, and the SJW clique that runs the gaming press now needs to go down.

[Matt]

Haha, sure.

-m

[JackSlack]

The only way to defeat the social justice warriors that are influenced by people like SilverString is to keep #GamerGate. The signal has already been boosted and people are ready to fight against them. If the American gaming press won't cover such issues fairly we will continue our campaign against them.

I think that's ultimately the biggest difference between a lot of us though. Yes, we both think there's issues in gaming journalism that need to be addressed. But if the focus is on 'SJWs' and the like, we're not going to reach a concord, as we think that's an utter non-issue.

(And certainly, in previous issues that have been major problems, like Jeff Gerstmann and Dorito-gate, they weren't.)

The enemy of my enemy is my friend, and the SJW clique that runs the gaming press now needs to go down.

And now we're firmly into conspiracy tone. Aw, man.