Update: After good feedback from people I modified the first paragraph to reflect that yes, ethics and COI were discussed at great lengths, the perpetrators being “SJW” or not.

I live in a very comfortable environment, have a great job, a fantastic life, have what you would call a “higher education” and am surrounded by people just like me. We are all progressive and liberal, because it’s the right thing to do, the only way to be.

We have been discussing with interest the U.S election (we don’t live in the U.S). During the Summer, at a professional/socializing dinner, I shocked most of my colleagues/friends by saying that “Yes, Trump could win; the way the media is portraying him is shortsighted and people should learn from Brexit”.

Some people laughed, some people seriously questioned if I didn’t drink a bit too much (I actually did for full disclosure), everyone was very surprised that a “rationalist”, a “reasonable person” could think such a thing. “Look at what he did! Look at what he said!” they opposed.

What happened that evening was that for the first and only time, likely under chemical influence, my “online persona” (the one you readers know) and my “real persona” (the “respected doctor) met and the former took over the latter.

As most of you know, I have been following #GamerGate with a strong interest (“the only thing I wanted was to play video games”) and I believe that this is why I said what I said.

So what could be the link between following an online phenomenon related to video games and appearing as a weird prescient when it came to the U.S election?

1. Gamergate: it’s not just about ethics in game journalism, but also about journalistic bias in game journalism.

It took me quite some time to know why I became quickly uncomfortable with the idea that Gamergate was just focused on ethics. Sure enough, game journalists didn’t specifically shine when it came to disclosing their conflicts of interest, real or perceived. As explained elsewhere, the field being relatively immature, it wasn’t surprising, and to be honest, not that interesting.

The “targets” of the movement were falling under a same category, the “Social Justice Warriors”. If some weren’t the best when it came to ethics and disclosure, it was the commonality of their political bias that was striking. They were all “progressives”, “feminists” and embracing a new wave of online activism, new and unusual when it came to gaming. When game journalists were usually seen as friendly to the field, here they were highly critical of it if it didn’t fill some clear prerequisites. Games had to be appropriate and non problematic. They would see their scores lowered if political/social elements were against the system of beliefs of the reviewers. This similar bias was quite repetitive and was the fuel to the GamerGate movement, which was in some way perceiving itself as a resistance to that new direction. It was really organized against the bias, and more so the possible collusion behind the bias.

But this was only part of the equation.

2. Reporting #GamerGate: it’s about “demonizing” a demographic

To be completely honest, reviewers, now critics, focusing on politics in games, wasn’t a big deal for me, as I strongly believe that critics can criticize arts in whichever way they want.

However, the reaction and reporting on this newly formed movement, first by the gaming press, then by the “mainstream media” was more of a red flag that something was clearly wrong. On social media and many websites, discussing the issue at play was not allowed, people being banned from forum, blocked en mass. Asking any question, as genuine would it be, was met with a high degree of animosity or strong condescension. You either accepted the general manichean narrative or you were part of the evil force. There was no gradation, no scale. Reporting would always focus on the action of a few, used to depict all. The journalists would never accept introspection, even the suggestion of it. This “truth”, repeated over and over, painting an absolutely horrifying pictures of these gamers, modern versions of the monsters haunting our lores, was accepted as fact even within reputable journalistic “institutions”. A heterogeneous group of gamers, from varied political inclinations, was described as right wing misogynists and anti-diversity racists. Fear mongering was the leading force behind this “reporting”.

I tried to engage people on that topic, explaining that it was likely more complex than that, that it was worth examining the point of view of those in the group, that they claim to not be what you say they are. Some other journalists tried to do the same. Enough said that this wasn’t a popular point of view.

Even when prominent voices in the field were asking journalists to slow down and reconsider, they would be met with mass rejection and often following ad hominem articles.

3. This phenomenon wasn’t specific to GamerGate at all

Anyone being exposed to these interactions and trying to stay as “objective” as possible had to be puzzled. How come journalists didn’t want to engage, dialogue, communicate, a.k.a investigate? A natural following question was: is there evidence of other occurrences where the press would report based on opinions only, without prior definite investigations?

A quick and non comprehensive online search would prove that this is in fact a frequent phenomenon. From reporting on scientists leading to social shaming, to accusations of sexism of prior Nobel Prize winner, or articles about comics writers, movies, etc… you could find countless evidences of journalists reporting on their perception of the truth, without reaching out to the people they were reporting about, while painting them in the darkest of light. Social media was often involved too, both as source, validation and vehicle of the rumours, allowing suggestions to be “facts”, then unquestionable “truth”. Reporting on race and gender was markedly tainted by this same “black & white” approach. Any events, any legal ruling falling outside of the dominant narrative prescribed by the progressive journalists would be met the same way, with denial, using sociology as tool to explain why they were right no matter what.

4. 2016 Election: paroxysm of “GamerGate” reporting

Polarizing to say the least. And for very good reasons mind you. The 2016 U.S election was the peak of what I would summarize as “partisan reporting”. Many, if not most, of the mainstream journalists were strongly supporting Hillary Clinton, arguably the most qualified candidate to be president. During the democratic primary, her main opponent was Bernie Sanders, who you could describe as very progressive/socialist. His themes were interestingly resonating with the Social Justice agenda of journalists. But they wanted Hillary Clinton, her gender being key to her winning. So what did they do?

They create the Bernie Bros, rabid supporters of Sanders, clearly misogynist in their criticism of Clinton. They were GamerGate 1 of the election. Their points didn’t matter, what matters was what journalists were telling you about their intent, about their truth. Social media was once again an ideal vehicle of these smear campaigns. Truth is, I was following quite a few of them on social media, reading their articles. Their points were quite reasonable as Clinton’s legacy was far from perfect, criticism was justified. But the narrative was strong and the opinion was altered by these numerous opinions articles.

Then Trump became the Republican nominee. We could talk at great lengths about Trump and what he said and did during his campaign. What interests me more is the way his potential supporters were described. They were the Trumpkins, they were awful, misogynist like the Bernie Bros, but also racist. They were GamerGate 2 of the election. Once again, the journalists were using the very tactics described above. Opinion pieces after opinion pieces after opinion pieces were written. No interrogation, no interview, no “trying to understand”. Opinions were presented as facts, and facts conflated as truth. The same story all over again.

This similarity in reporting really made me question the vision presented by the journalists. After all they were wrong before in their sub-selective way of approaching complex problems, so why not this time?

I posted these tweets in December and March, markedly earlier than the day of the actual Election.

This line of thinking would never have occurred to me if I didn’t follow GamerGate, interacted with its supporters, saw the way they were characterized. I would have likely jumped on the “everything and everyone against Hillary Clinton is BAD” bandwagon, like many liberals living in protected bubbles. I would have blindly believed the polls, even while knowing very well that a 98% probability of winning such a complex event can be based on nothing else but wishful thinking. Instead, I was wondering if many of those supporting Trump were in fact decent people who felt abandoned by the system, stressed out by a sluggish economy. Was I sure of it? No, because nobody really reported their voices, their opinions, we just knew what the journalists wanted us to think of them. The thing I was sure of? It was likely complex, they weren’t likely all of the same. Were there racists, sexists within them? Sure, just like you would find such people within any group large enough. Because of this unreported complexity, and the unsupported certainty displayed by the journalists, combined with the rocky aspect of the campaign (FBI, WikiLeaks, prominence of false information all around), I was less and less certain that Hillary would win. A Trump victory was possible.

And Trump won.

Am I happy he did? Certainly not because I like stability and status quo and Trump is none of it.

But I can thank GamerGate, the overall experience, for allowing me to question my certainty more than ever. I learned to be careful when approaching news media, it convinced me of the importance of critical thinking is the era of overflowing information, to not “listen and believe” but “trust and verify”, and that NOTHING is manichean, that every system, every individual is complex and can’t be reduced to a convenient descriptor, even if it would make life easier, even if it would make us feel superior. The truth doesn’t care about us, the truth doesn’t care about anyone, it’s there outside, challenging to catch and recognize. We have to respect it, to praise it. It’s ultimately it that can save us from ourselves and our own demons.

Let’s hope that those we trusted to share that trust with us will learn once and for all from their past mistakes. Journalists have a key role to play in the years to come, ball is in their hands to make sure they do what’s best for everyone, not just for themselves!