First, no, not that famous one that kickstarted this entire #GamerGate fiasco months ago.
Recently,
Zoe Quinn posted a lengthy op-ed piece to her blog talking about ethics in games journalism. It's actually a wonderful example of how the writers of today dodge about between fact and agenda. Let's analyze it.
First, she starts off with giving herself a baseline accreditation in games journalism due to the fact that she, an enthusiast writer, wrote things. Now, later on, she will talk about how enthusiasts getting into the industry is the problem. But let's stop here for a moment. Since she called herself an enthusiast, and doesn't list a degree of journalism on her
LinkedIn, and is a games developer now, one can assume she doesn't hold a degree in journalism.
Now what does this mean? It means her default status as an "expert" on this subject is refutable. Just because one does a thing doesn't mean one does a thing well or to standard. Now, I have worked for a newspaper in the editing room reformatting articles for our use. I also had to edit articles in that process. But that doesn't make me any more an expert than her. So, as you read through the rest of that analysis, keep that in mind. Neither of us are experts on journalism. Neither of us hold a degree on the subject.
She then moves on to state that diverse styles of writing and views are good for proper coverage. I do not deny having both critics and straight reporters in the industry is a good thing. That's never been debatable in all this. It's more what powers those opinions that becomes an issue.
The next three paragraphs are the standard padding for an article like this. It sets baselines for things that are easy to research, but it makes the writer appear more knowledgeable on the subject than they really are. It includes industry buzzwords, again to make her appear in the know. For example, she talks about
gonzo journalism. She then turns to the subject of the "worrying side" of enthusiast press.
It's quite funny, but most of what she talks about in this paragraph is exactly the issue #GamerGate has with the industry. Poorly written, poorly researched articles that have little interest outside the circle of friends it was written for. This pretty much covers all the articles written on Depression Quest. Most gamers have zero interest in the web-based choose your own adventure she created. However, it made headlines because of the fact that she was friends with a number of the journalists covering it.
She then minimizes the damage done by this. The reason for this is to try to say that the status quo is fine. What harm is there for covering games that you are a fan of, and in a biased way. In fact, to this point in the article, she's defended that it's necessary to have an industry where straight reporting is just one facet of games journalism. She's spent more time talking about opinion-based coverage. It's a subtle tactic, meant for you to accept the baseline she's laid out as her argument.
Next, she enters into the polarization phase of her agenda. Her opening salvo: A comparison of GamerGate to "Nerd McCarthism against perceived outsiders." This turns this from a story to an opinion piece. So what's the difference between the two?
A
straight news story (example linked) typically will put out balanced information regarding any given news item. They will give facts and figures, numbers and showcase interviews expressing opinion. However, the reporter will do their best to show no preference to either side. They showcase the facts, and it is up to the consumer of that media to formulate an opinion.
An opinion piece is one that expresses the writers own view of a situation.
Think of Andy Rooney on 60 minutes. If you take a moment and watch that, you can see what opinion looks like. You take facts, construct a narrative, and then use those facts as talking points. You can see what Mr. Rooney thinks of bottle water right away.
Using such loaded terminology such as
McCarthyism paints the movement in an immediate negative light even without her later dismissal. But is she using that word right? Short answer: No, and she agrees with that later on. Take a moment and look at the opening paragraph of that wiki article. It speaks of baseless claims, yet we know that to be untrue.
She then continues her diatribe about #GamerGate, using language to belittle and marginalized the concerns of the movement. This is also straight text book for most of these agenda pieces. Since she has set herself up as an authority via participation, these pronouncements are supposed to be taken as fact rather than opinion. Note she never says "I feel" or "my view of". Typically, verbiage like that denotes an opinion piece from straight journalism. If you review the work critically, you know this entire paragraph is hyperbole and opinion.
And here starts the sourcing of material. This is used to bolster the factual feel of this piece, trying to steer it from her opinion of a situation back to a more factual interpretation of events. She first sources a supposed pro-#GamerGate source, a publicly editable page on Know Your Meme. This will prove rather insightful later once she starts talking about sourcing articles.
Then, she lays out additional agenda, putting words out like toxic, hypocrisy and doublespeak. the she sources Katherine Cross. Now, who is Katherine Cross?
She is a student at CUNY. She is completing a doctorate in Feminine Studies. So, she definitely has a bias towards the anti-#GamerGate stance, as their stance is that this is about harassment of women in the industry. Her comments, therefore, are nothing more than agenda, but from another source.
She then goes on to spout more opinion, like that #GamerGate supports Jack Thompson. Correction to that, most of #GamerGate thought it laughable that even he thought Anita was a hypocrite. Her "proof" this time is a
Storify link to a known anti-#GamerGate member. In there, there is no endorsement of the man. implicit or otherwise. More or less, most reactions are in agreement that when Jack Thompson calls you out on something he himself is guilty of, maybe you've gone too far.
We then bounce back to an actual pro-#GamerGate site, the wiki created during this. A quick snapshot of who is considered ethical, but it's focus is on TechRaptor. It's also the only visited link on the image. That will be important in a moment.
She then goes on to site the fact that The Escapist has "violated its new policy" immediately by giving the other side of GamerGate. Much like the treatment of David Pakman, this is not surprising. Because they gave a forum to the other side, that is seen as an ethical violation. However, the piece was done as an interview piece, simply soliciting opinions of game developers. It was not sold as anything else. That is not an ethical violation. In an interview, you ask one or more question, and whatever the participant says, you report. That is all that occurred.
And, hilariously enough, if you review the article in question, they removed several opinions which she took objection to due to complaints. So, in essence, this showcases the censorship #GamerGate speaks of. Because of someone's complaints, not all voices are allowed to be heard.
The evidence, largely, is in the opinion of the person and what they constitute as harassment. This is a moving goal post. Harassment used to mean angry, mean-spirited comments directed at someone. Now the term has been changed to mean anything I don't like having done within my vicinity. This includes retweeting, asking questions, commenting on Twitter about anyone one identifies with, using certain hashtags, discussing certain projects... The list has become endless.
But I digress. We now move into the next phase of the agenda push: One equals all. This has been typical of both sides, though I think mostly from #GamerGate it is meant in a mocking fashion. I, for one, have used it as such, stating that "All anti-#GamerGate supports" x or y. I know they are a group of individuals. I know they each have their own opinions and may not agree. The point I try to make is that they do not afford us the same luxury.
She does this by showing a single tweet by a single individual. This is not representative of everyone, nor can it be made as such. Are there problematic people? Of course. As I said above, I do not ascribe the behaviors of some to all of either side. I point that out in any talk I have with the other side prior to the blockbot being a thing.
If we are to quotemine, there have been several instances of anti-GG supporters stating gamers should be gassed, placed in internment camps, doxxed, SWATted, raped, and everything else that she claims her side has had happen to her. I don't doubt the validity in that either, but that is not about #GamerGate. That is the current state of the Internet, where if you ever expose your personal, real self and ever cross anyone's path that doesn't like you, they will go to great lengths to "punish" you.
Given the anonymity of the Internet, this is very easy to do with relative impunity. However, removing said anonymity also means doing so for potential victims. There are no easy answers, here. Sadly, until punishment for crimes committed in this fashion is suitably swift and uniformly harsh, it will not end.
She then uses The Ralph Retort (a site I've had so many issues with, the creator has me blocked on Twitter) as the example of new media we want. I will grant that he does the occasional good, but much like Gawker, it is a tabloid news blog. And just like Gawker and its subsidiaries, not every single article is a biased trash piece. However, I'd rather neither have a space to exist at the end of this, for various reasons. Does that make it the opinion of everyone?
No.
That's the biggest sell in these agenda pieces though. She wants you to believe that any one opinion is the opinion of all. She wants you to turn off your brain, and just believe the statements made by one or even a small minority are the same as the majority. That's why agenda pieces are structured as they are. They have a buy-in at the start, then start selling the agenda, providing just enough "proof" and "facts" as required in order to complete the sales pitch.
She then brings fear into the mix, talking about how developers (
IE her) have to worry about someone bringing weapons to an event. However, the image posted is beyond blurry, and it's hard to even tell who the picture is off, or its context with an anon chan board post placed next to it. This is yet another agenda sell tactic. the principle here being to evoke a strong emotional response within the reader. She wants outrage so that you blind yourself to any other details she's leaving out or glossing over.
She then moves to now drawing a line in the sand. She says that any site that produces articles focused on anti-#GamerGate individuals or situations are just propaganda machines. Again, this is a charge #GamerGate has successfully shown to be the case for Gawker, Polygon, and a number of other personalities and sites. There is a clear message. One that will become clearer by the end of this piece.
She tries to reverse this fight, stating that it is we, not her and her friends, fellow writers and developers that are corrupting the ethics of this site. She states that is our intent. Her first proof? A satirical headline and article from ClickHole, a spin-off of the Onion. The reason it is satire seems to elude her, but we will digress.
Next comes the big finale, the reason this piece even exists. Remember how only TechRaptor was clicked on in that first image? It's because recent articles have begun showing the less-than-honest side of anti-#GamerGate supporters. And, more specifically, Zoe Quinn's dealings directly.
You can now understand the shift, the more aggressive undertone of the piece at this point. She's tried to establish that she is credible. She's attempted to dehumanize the opposition. And now, she tries to show that their end goal is her destruction. This is a call to arms. She sees someone speaking against her, and she doesn't like it. This is not ethics, it's a cry to attack and censor a site for reporting a story she doesn't like.
Her language at the start of the piece (saying that "Techraptor started making kissy faces with GamerGate" should be proof enough that we've moved on from any form of discussion. She showcases that their traffic increased, which is not even relevant to the discussion. Their traffic increased because people took their business elsewhere after Gawker et all turned on gamers as a whole.
Her first attack in this is to start off by showing a pair of editorial pieces written by Andrew Otton. The pieces list out many of the issues anyone familiar with #GamerGate know about her. There are several facts listed, many irrefutable, some slightly questionable, and a couple strong opinions drawn from that. But what she likely takes offense to is the idea of professional victimhood.
Now, what this does is try to paint an editorial as an ethical issue. It is not. If you review the guidelines available anywhere online, ethical restraints are for straight news stories. A different standard covers reviews, but in the next few postings on this blog, we'll get to that. But an editorial can be biased as hell. That's why it's labeled, clearly, as editorial content. You are hearing the opinion of the writer. Again, refer to Andy Rooney and the bottle water video from earlier.
She then shows a screenshot of their Ask.fm account, again for the sake of mocking. She also talks about how they are just enthusiast press. Now, again, remember that Zoe herself is enthusiast press. She has no degree in journalism, only dabbled in writing news articles, but here tries to sell this same site as being no better than she actually is. Yet, here she is passing judgement over them.
After this, it's time to attack their ethics page. Her attempt now is to show that they do not state that they will be unbiased. It, in fact, does say that. If a conflict of interest arises, meaning that the content has been biased, a disclosure or outright removal will be done. Source:
TechRaptor Ethics Policy, section on Policy on Conflict of Interest. She then posts the
Society of Professional Journalists ethics code, a page I do recommend reading, especially for Quinn. As she attempted to assassinate the entire site based on two editorials, this point is relevant:
- Label advocacy and commentary.
In essence, by placing those items she takes offense at as editorials, she in fact has an issue with Andrew Otton, not TechRaptor. The opinions expressed in an opinion piece are that of the author and not necessarily those of the site publishing the piece. As someone who has guest written for many sites, this should be a fact well known to Quinn.
She attacks Georgina Young, an outspoken #GamerGate supporter, next. She pulls up her article on the IGDA, then uses the "one represents all" fallacy again, this time showing three that represent all who were labeled as harassers. This is obviously hyperbole, as many people wound up on that list, and three do not, again, represent all.
We then switch back to fact mode, out of opinion mode, where she rightly calls out an error made by Young. Here is the only valid point when it comes to concerns about new media. In this day and age of the 24/7 news cycle, reporters often rush their story in to work the lead when it's still hot. Every minute they lose is another minute that eyes are going to another page, generating revenue from them. And that means your piece must be far better than someone else's to pull them away, if you can at all.
Young may have rushed the article, but whether she did or not, she got the facts wrong, and it took a few edits to correct all the factual mistakes. Quinn doesn't stop there. She keeps striking at Young, next by assailing her review of Depression Quest. Again, Young gets some facts wrong, and she again points these out. One telling bit is that Quinn does state that this was a review of something close to her heart.
It is then you should realize that all of this boils down to a developer who was very much emotionally attached to her work and to her public persona that she could not abide what she saw as an attack. This is why TechRaptor, and not any other site, is featured here. This is a full-blown assault on Young, Otton and TechRaptor.
The pummeling of Young continues, calling into question more of her articles, and the tone in which they are written. She then makes a very large tactical error, however. She reverts to attacking the site over an editorial piece labeled as satire, and trying to provide the quote out of its context.
Prior to this, she had been linking to articles within the text of her post. The reason she now uses a screenshot is to elicit a reaction from the reader. By removing the post from its context as satire, it seems like a serious breech of ethics, when in reality it now both an opinion piece and satire.
That is a great tactic of those who sell an agenda. Drive the narrative home any way possible, even if that means removing all context from an item. It's not about truth, it's about emotional impact. And that was her knock out punch. These people are a hate machine, that picture implies. Look at how they talk.
After that, the piece loses steam. It shows TechRaptor getting donations, nothing someone who gets them herself should be unfamiliar with. It tosses out a couple more news article trying to blacken individuals, and therefore make them representative of the problem. It tries to use people breaking the blockbot (quickly becoming used by actual gaming organizations as a blacklist) as a reason to hate GamerGate. In essence, it's a mix of agenda and facts, with spin about those facts.
Finally, it shifts back to being a supposed fact-based piece, raising valid concerns over YouTubers taking money from studios, and about how better PR is required. It throws a few last jabs at #GamerGate, and ends with the oh so quotable, bolded "Because this isn't about GamerGate - It's about ethics in games writing."
Now, a few other points of house-keeping. To make mock of the usage of Archive.Today by #GamerGate, every link leads to an Archive.Today of that page. It's a subtle jab, I give her that, but a jab none the less. Of course, the purpose of Archive.Today links is to preserve an item as it was seen. Too often, part of the way these spin doctors work is to say or do something to create a reaction, then either delete or edit it to remove culpability. A great example of this is fellow writer Leigh Alexander who defrauded a company by
leaking her own book.
Another is the fact that she used games
writing versus games
journalism. This is a way to try to use this piece to not be about journalism in the future. It allows her to quotemine herself and state that this was always about writing stories, not articles.
In the end, this propaganda piece will not convince the skeptical and be gospel to the believers. However, it isn't about ethics, it's about agenda.
Next time, let's
actually talk ethics.
