Why does GamerGate exist? #SPJEthicsChat

Q: How'd GamerGate happen?



A: Because journalists feared the backlash that Whedon faced today back in August 2014, were close to Zoe Quinn (enough that some considered sending a collective gift, according to the leaked GameJournoPros emails), and lacked the backbone to either investigate or ignore and let the community discuss among themselves (not ban discussion).



There was no evidence of GamerGate being commonly united by hate. The numerous contradictions in this line of thought -- such as containing people of all ethnicities and genders (i.e. "the hated") and there being little display of bigotry from legitimate members -- were never explored. Journalists weren't fair to both parties and were personal, accusing individuals of bigotry in a public space with baseless allegations. If a journalist asked "If this is a movement against women, then where are these women?" and could only think of Quinn and Sarkeesian, then that cannot be defined as a hate group but a mob demanding, for better or worse, critical investigation of two public figures.



Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian are public figures who were heavily criticized, fairly or unfairly, for things they've said and done as public figures. Some of these claims are baseless and sexist; some are not, such as Anita blocking comments and Zoe allegedly harassing a depression forum or ddosing TFYC. Once again, I am stating the claims. Some of these have been discussed and debunked over the months, but went uninvestigated at the time (August 2014)



It is the job of these journalists to acknowledge the unrest and attempt to bring clarity by critically investigating these public figures. In the process, verifying what is true and what is false. Or, in the very least, call it un-newsworthy, ignore it, and let discussion happen in the forums as long as it doesn't break any established site rules.



What happened instead and what gave birth to GamerGate is that in an unprecedented decision: Game sites collectively banned user discussion of these public figures and ran articles that didn't investigate the grievances, rightfully or not, the public voiced. These journalists created a PR campaign instead of investigation, whether out of sympathy or something else.



Like other controversies online, it often comes down to censorship. If I was an editor, heck yes I would have investigated Quinn and Sarkeesian. I would do so fully doubting the validity of the claims made against them, but I'd do that because that's what would bring clarity on a situation which is what a journalist does for the public. With that clarity comes peace and understanding of a situation, dissolving the conspiracy. The amount of people voicing concerns was not of a size that a journalist could ignore. If I found no wrongdoing, I'd report it back in an editorial that addresses how these individual claims were formed or are based on propaganda and misunderstanding. I wouldn't whitewash. I would be honest with my audience because that is what I am paid to do. It would not be an easy topic and there would not be an easy angle to approach it, but that's journalism. When people have the facts and clarity, the situation would likely dissolve or in the very least not gain more traction.



Instead, the conspiracy grew fiercer because discussion could only occur on anonymous boards like 8chan and the only critical investigation was conducted by amateur bloggers. The mix of established sexism in the industry and troll culture escalated the abuse and attention these public figures got, while pooling over to anyone remotely involved in the discussion. Journalists had greatly created confusion and chaos out of their selfish decisions; many journalists were harassed and personally attacked themselves.



Is it sexist to investigate criticism of female public figures based on supplied evidence/sources? Is it any more sexist to treat female public figures as being above critical investigation due to gender? Would it be sexist to not discuss Zoe/Anita in any context and leave forums open for users discuss it themselves, within the rules and allowed language of the site (no site has a rule against discussing female public figures, I believe)?



In any situation, it is not the job of journalists to follow whatever is currently thought of as sexist or not because that goal post is moving every day in these heated political times in gaming culture. The goal is to provide clarity, be fair, and give voice to readers -- not manipulate comment systems, use Twitter to bully readers, or promote industry blacklists. In the past when male developers were accused of terrible things and the community demanded critical investigation, game sites abided by journalist code, verifying/debunking, and letting the community discuss in the process, regardless of whether this increased/decreased the harassment against this public figure. People were upset but these journalists only followed the code of ethics and their sites' own rules on forum moderation.



Whether you are Zoe Quinn, Joss Whedon, or a no name blogger, you are a public figure when you are online. Things can get dirty and dangerous, but that's the world we live in. There is always an option to not be a public figure. Hopefully, we can create a safe online space where being public doesn't mean risking safety, privacy, and even emotional health in the face of mob abuse. But it is not the duty of a journalist to decide who the public is capable of discussing or who shouldn't be criticized -- whether based on gender, personal association, or anything else. If the public voices unrest and provides sources/information to investigate, a journalist should look into it while being fair and without being intrusive.



If these game journalists followed ALL of these SPJ Codes of Ethics would GamerGate be here?



1. “Weigh the consequences of publishing or broadcasting personal information.”

2. “Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness.”

3. “Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing.”

4. “Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity, even if others do.”

5. “Encourage a civil dialogue with the public about journalistic practices, coverage and news content.”

Reply · Report Post