This Post Is Not About GamerGate
from the it's-about-ethics-in-journalism dept
- Okay, let's get this out of the way first: as you'll quickly see, there is no way to write this post without someone accusing us of being hypocritical -- so we're going to just get it out of the way upfront and note that that's absolutely true, as the article we'll be linking to also admits that such hypocrisy is occasionally necessary in reporting. We hope that the reasons for why we're doing this post are clear in the text below, so going hogwild in the comments claiming hypocrisy won't be particularly productive. We know. We get it.
- This post really is not about GamerGate. It is really about ethics in journalism (I know, I know). We have no real interest in writing about the whole GamerGate thing at all, because almost none of it is interesting and almost all of it is incredibly, mind-bendingly stupid, no matter what position you're arguing. So, I'm really hoping -- while recognizing this hope will likely not be realized -- that the comments on this post won't actually be about GamerGate or any sort of debate about the merits of one side or the other, but rather about what this article is really about, which is the journalism coverage.
The dirty secret here is that, unlike a story about Ebola or Monica Lewinsky or basically anything else anyone writes about, writers and editors can be assured that their GamerGate coverage gets a disproportionate amount of traffic. As far as online journalism gambling goes, it's one of the safer bets you can make.But it's not just about GamerGate. It's about the way that online news has developed into this traffic-whoring stage, with lots of publications all rushing to cover "the thing that will bring traffic."
That's because GamerGate story readership isn't the general public: It's the people who are in the movement itself. For proof of this, look at the fact that the vast majority of GamerGate coverage have hundreds and even thousands of comments—almost all of them from people in the movement.
Apple announcing an iPhone is news, sure. But Apple announcing an iPhone and breathlessly writing 50 blog posts and a ~live blog~ and an instant analysis and hot takes is when reporting stops being reporting and starts becoming the journalistic equivalent of putting chips on every single number in roulette hoping Reddit or Facebook or someone else picks your story to win that day’s internet traffic lottery.And, you know, it's not just tech journalism either:
The side effect of this is that the world starts thinking that every time the House votes to repeal Obamacare or every time Congress holds a hearing about Benghazi or every time John Oliver TOTALLY EVISCERATES someone every time a fringe scientist says climate change isn’t real or every time a normal person or government agency joins Twitter or every time a celebrity gets plastic surgery or every time some internet nerds can rile up a Gawker writer on Twitter is capital-I Important.They're all attempts to "win the social media lottery" to have a story go "viral" and suddenly have a lot more traffic.
Frankly, this is stupid. And it's something (again, disclaimer above) we mostly try to avoid. There are a few of our regular critics who accuse us of being traffic whores ourselves (and I imagine a few of them may be rushing to comment as such on this article). They claim that we write what we write to get traffic. But here's a dirty little secret for you: if you want a lot of traffic, writing about intellectual property law, free speech, international trade agreements and regulatory capture isn't the best way to get it. We've never covered a big Apple event. While we'll occasionally attend an event, we tend to write about it a day or two later, after we've had a chance to let things sink in. And we try (though we don't always succeed) to provide a different take on things. We add our opinion (or, as the critics explain, we "spin" or report things in a "biased" way). We try to only write about stories that we actually think are interesting (and, even then we only get to about a third of the stories we actually think are interesting).
As a result of that, I hope that the people who read this site tend to be more loyal and actually more interested in what we have to say (and often more willing to join in the discussion and join the larger community). But, that's not how many media publications work today. It's all about the "metrics" -- the number of visitors, and with the social media firehose so big, the focus has been moving aggressively towards that viral lottery. That's not to say we don't keep tabs on our own traffic -- because of course we do. But we know that getting a big story on Reddit means a flood of people who visit for 30 seconds and move on. Our loyal readers are the ones who stick around, and hopefully it's because we're not providing one of fifty different stories about the same damn thing with the same "journalistic" take (i.e., without any color, without any opinion and without any heart). Our position may not be great for advertisers. I've had discussions with potential advertisers, explaining how we have a really loyal community, and most of them don't seem to care. They just want bigger numbers, even if those bigger numbers are meaningless, because the audience doesn't give a shit. I would think that having a loyal, interested and committed community would be a lot more interesting to advertisers, but so many play the same stupid numbers game, and that leads so many publications to do the same.
There are a few publications that have clearly recognized that the hamster wheel chase of rewriting the identical story over and over again while adding nothing new is not worth it. It's been great to see and I've been encouraged by some publications that have really focused on building a loyal audience through doing something different and providing more value. But, for many, it's all about a single metric: traffic. Then it starts to feel a lot less like journalism or something socially valuable. It just feels like... well... a game.
For years, we've talked about how few seem to recognize that real journalism is about the community, not about "the news." I'm hopeful that more people begin to recognize this. And for all the hypocrisy in this post (disclaimer 1), consider part of this hypocritical post to be an attempt to share why we do what we do -- and why we don't do certain other things that we'd consider to be just cynical clickwhoring.
If we want to have a discussion about "ethics in journalism" perhaps it should start with a discussion about all of this.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: advertising, clickbait, community, ethics, gamergate, hypocrisy, journalism, traffic
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Thoughtful > Reactionary
I don't usually comment, but this post resonated with me. The reason I am part of your loyal readership, Mike, is that you and the other Techdirt writers clearly put thought into your writing. I don't always agree with opinions expressed here, but those opinions are usually very well-reasoned and well-informed. Most news outlets mistake neutrality for objectivity, and still don't even get the neutrality right.Thank you, Techdirt! You are appreciated!
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sometimes that results in a "gotcha" where close review of the original reveals that it does not quite say what the article says it says - but most of the time it's spot on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's also amazing to me that Mike and the other TD writers can fit so much more useful and informative information or commentary in a few short paragraphs than the "in-depth" articles on other sites that are 5 times as long because they've got so much useless filler.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
FTFY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then why?
Is it about sexist attacks on developers too?
Apple announcing an iPhone is news, sure. But Apple announcing an iPhone and breathlessly writing 50 blog posts and a ~live blog...
Has Apple done that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stand aside. The professionals are hard at work.
At least they don't censor comments like other sites (The Verge, not here).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: ChurchHatesTucker on Oct 24th, 2014 @ 11:22am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Slimey but satisfying.
I bluntly told them what I thought of that.
They let the criticism stand (unlike The Verge) and my comment was heavily downvoted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Slimey but satisfying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I believe that is the first time Apple had done something like that to my knowledge. It was like a real-time moderated aggregator of the community reaction to the announcement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You can't really believe this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thoughtful > Reactionary
Thank you, Techdirt! You are appreciated!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You keep referring to hypocrisy in your article, but I will say that in the 4+ years I've been reading via RSS this site, this is the first time I've felt compelled to come and comment. Techdirt provides commentary more than pure reporting, and that has significant value to us, the readers. Techdirt also provides community so that exchanges of concepts and whatnot can bubble to the surface.
At the end of the day, you do the entire community a service - because most of us that feel passionate about IP, international trade agreements, privacy rights, etc. don't have the time to follow these things on our own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
E Pleb Nista
The same goes for speech and religion is which all three of these stand together, the holiest of holies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: E Pleb Nista
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike you just keep up the great work!
Thanks for your excellent reporting and keep it up!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why do I keep coming back? Mostly because it's just a better place to be. While I don't appreciate everything Techdirt has to offer (*coughhidingpostscough*), what I don't appreciate is easily forgivable for what it does offer.
The biggest reason I enjoy these articles is (generally) due to the lack of bias. I mean, to read something where a post is just presenting the facts is damn near unheard of anymore. Clickbait is rare and when I forward an article, it's to those I know are interested in the subject.
Plus, this community seems to tolerate me a bit easier than others, as I know I can come off as... well, I'll keep in clean and say "unfriendly". Sometimes, emotions just get the better of me in regard to certain subjects. I generally try to keep my use of "idiot" as clean as I get, but when someone really pisses me off, they get the crown "Asshole" (takes one to know one).
I know there are going to be positions Techdirt takes I won't agree with, such as the recent "censorship" YouTube took of the beheading videos, but they didn't stoop down to calling those running the company names that would make Fox News (the company that started it all) proud.
I grew up with journalists who didn't take crap from advertisers, knowing full well people wanted the truth as best their editors would allow them to give.
Today, all that's changed. Advertisers are calling the shots, and businesses are scrambling to scoop up all the pennies (literally) they're being thrown.
And this, Mike Masnick, is why I will never accept the "ads are content, content are ads" relationship. It's getting so bad, it's almost impossible to see the line drawn. Perhaps this is a good thing? Doubtful, especially when the argument comes down to ethics in journalism.
At any rate, I definitely appreciate what Techdirt does and here's to hoping for many years of having my blood pressure raise as articles are produced on the contagious stupidity that's plaguing this country.
PS: Shut up, Dodd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't know if it was about any of that, but it was something fishy about the media and Ukraine/Russia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(Now off to read the article).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lets just make this simple.
It is still socially acceptable to stigmatize females for sleeping around while give guys a pass, so in retaliation males will call females they don't like whores/sluts and what have you.
It is also socially acceptable for women to emasculate men for the very same stupid reasons, so they like to call men childish or immature dogs.
Its all the same, in the pursuit of self contrived retribution we all spew the nonsensical garbage that has occurred throughout this stupid situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lets just make this simple.
Even when it was, 'socially acceptable', it was not an equivalent to anyone accusing men or anyone else of being childish or immature.
It isn't all the same, it's not tit for tat equality of name calling or foolishness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
this is not click bait?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Make the important interesting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Make the important interesting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This Post Is Not About GamerGate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great writing
This is one of my favorite sites as a techie legal nerd and I'll be dammed if I can't recognize that a lot of what was mentioned in this post is exactly why I return time and time again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The ongoing conversation
That said.. I do find the article headlines here to be a bit sensationalist. I have come to the point where I avoid any headline with the word slams, amazing, demolishes, destroys (if not a building) and there have been a few here lately.
I have seen a variety and range of 'styles' from provoking to just outright vilifying and slandering (not in legal sense). During the last election it was pretty bad at times.
But those examples are only a small part of the trend and overall I do use this site and the comments to better understand alternate points of view and not just the drivel that comes out of most sites.
Keep up the good fight TechDirt!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thank you
Personally, I just care about the ethics in game journalism and the looming soft censorship that will come out of letting the "cultural critics" shame devs into not making games with "inappropriate content" or people buying them because "games make you sexist". I also have a problem with the identity assassination being perpetrated by the same people we accuse of being unethical (surprise, surprise) which goes over the top when it comes to Gamergate's sister hashtag, NotYourShield (created by a black man to tell the people using them as a shield that they have their own thoughts and agency and thus, were not to be their shield).
Yes, they're trying and no, I don't care that people make critique, as long as it isn't trying to sell me faulty conclusions based on non-existent data.
Jack Thompson didn't have *credible* data in regards to violence and these "cultural critics" don't have it in regards to sexism. The last time they were allowed to run amok in an industry, they pretty much killed all innovation in it (comic books, for those unaware, which started with Wertham).
On the harassment, I see no concrete evidence of GG harassing (as per the legal definition) but loads of anti-GG saying some very horrible things (members of the gaming press included, Leigh Alexander's words over the years have been nothing short of extremely racist to exceptionally insulting), to the point where there's a rather large tumblr dedicated to it (http://gamergateharassment.tumblr.com/).
Doesn't help that this is what normally happens in interactions with neutrals in this debate (https://archive.today/hnLFH "Pro Vs Anti GamerGate – Two Interviews").
http://puu.sh/couJd/741898b28b.png This is my parting shot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I knew there was a reason I had this site whitelisted on adblock.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The monetization hamster wheel
I can no longer even estimate the number of times I've seen the same content repackaged through a monetization platform, whether it's a cute video or a partisan polemic.
If even a tenth of the effort that is going into shaving nickels off of Internet traffic was instead going to new content creation, we'd be swimming in content, and the world would be a better place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spot the typo...
As for the article, I've seen a couple of others that attempted to do what you've done here, but the comments on them tended to get taken over by people looking for a platform to spew their opinion on GG.
Thanks everyone for keeping it clean (so far) :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Regardless of the viewpoints in it, it's a lot to slog through and in order to unwind it would take a bit of time on an article that's not really about it.
It's best to talk to people involved who can bring you up to speed if you have a Twitter account while also understanding that seeing through the bias of either side requires research and study.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://youtu.be/ipcWm4B3EU4
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It does get the whole "this guy gave this woman favorable coverage for sex" thing wrong, but it isn't too far from the mark.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The hashtag was originally coined by actor Adam Baldwin to refer to allegations (ultimately determined to be false) that gamer developer Zoe Quinn had slept with games journalist Nathan Grayson in return for positive coverage.
1) The hashtag was changed to move away from discussion about Zoe Quinn but she moved to the new one to claim that it was harassment. Before this, people were using Quinngate and Quinnspiracy.
2) It's now been found out that their relationship was far longer than Grayson let be known. Article
3) There's far more to the story than is being told in your argument. Other stories of abuse paint a very negative picture of Zoe to the point that people are misinformed about her background. Issues of bullying and doxxing are alleged and form a picture of someone who abuses people while having no one speak out against such issues.
4) The corruption uncovered is as follows:
A story about EA having a security hole that affected 40,000 customers was left untold. A whistleblower stepped forward
The GameJournoPros list was uncovered which lead to the vindication of a story by Alistair Pinsof where the list was talking about how he was fired and blacklisted by people in the industry.
There are other successes, but most of the narrative has shifted into observing Gawker and its behavior and hypocrisies which it projects on the audience.
There's a lot that happened in two months and perhaps one day the story can be told and chronicled. Sadly, that day is not today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And there was much more discovered that involved a lot of people! In any other sector they would have lost their jobs.
But instead they made money by trampling on small time devs & lying to their consumers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwY1xzR9FhU
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And a bit more:
Sarkeesian driven out of home by online abuse and death threats
Yet another woman in gaming has been driven from her home by death threats
"Anita Sarkeesian...who was scheduled to speak at Utah State University this morning, was forced to cancel her speech after the director of the university's Center for Women and Gender, among other people, received an email
threatening in gruesome detail a mass shooting if they didn't cancel Sarkeesian's appearance" (Apparently, this isn't the first time something like that has happened.)
More recently, Felicia Day speaks out against Gamergate, gets doxxed
And, one final note: #GamerGate is an attack on ethical journalism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is why I come here too!
I know some of what I read here is opinion
Just happens to be (in many cases) an opinion I share
I honestly wondered when you would not do a piece on GG, and I am happy with what you came up with.
Its not really a freedom of speech issue, you can plainly read the drivel from either side all over social media, so not your thing there.
The death threats are interesting...but
until someone actually does shoot up someplace it would be giving attention where none is due. So smart decision staying out of the hate cycle which it has become. (altho the part where gamerSgate is getting threats is actually pretty funny.)
Thanks for the ever engaging commentary on the world of copyright IP and the other issues favored here. Its always an interesting read.
And thanks for not selling out what are at times unpopular opinions for a better rating in the numbers game of the internet. There are too few outlets of this type of journalism available to the average reader.
Thanks Mike
P.S.Here's an insight on the whole GG thing, (Its all Google's Fault! Just ask OOTB)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Should Have Included A Link
You should have included just one pointer to the best article you have seen on Gamergate.
That way, if anyone was drawn here by that link-bait aspect, you could promptly send them to where they need to go.
Like me. I don't have a fn clue what you're not talking about. So I gotta go Google it now. I'll have to read a couple of shitty link-bait articles before I find out why I should not care about Gamergate. And I'm serious about the above. Ugh. Off I go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Should Have Included A Link
I do enjoy this reading things by this particular author and she manages to be fairly neutral in her analysis of GG.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Should Have Included A Link
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Should Have Included A Link
Me either. The only exposure I've had to this GamerGate thing is the bit of conversation that occurred in the Insiders Chat Box the other day.
Although, unlike you, I really don't care enough about it to waste my time trying to find out why I should care about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Should Have Included A Link
The problem is that *any* link is trashed by someone as being ridiculous/unfair, and is taken as a sign of bias towards one of the various views around Gamergate. The whole thing is ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Should Have Included A Link
That way you are adding to the GG conversation instead of a being a dead end for it.
Personally I would like to know where I can find good opposing viewpoints on the subject.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Should Have Included A Link
Try going to /r/kotakuinaction (pro-GG) and asking questions while posing as anti-GG.
Then do the opposite, going to /r/gamerghazi (anti-GG) posing as a pro-GG.
I saw 4 people who did, all went from being on the fence to being pro-GG.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Should Have Included A Link
Ars Technica has covered gamergate since it was still just 4chan trying to ruin a woman's life for existing, so there's your "anti" view.
I think if you want to be really honest, for the truth of pro-GG, go to 8chan.org's /gg/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Should Have Included A Link
Simply put, the machine turning the gears in this debate is purely lubricated with click-bate.
I mean it's well apparent that those driving the debate are not the victims nor the perpetrators, but the media outlets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Should Have Included A Link
/r/gamerghazi is anti-GG.
/r/kotakuinaction is pro-GG.
Yes, it is that cut and dry, no matter how you wish to spin it. Both make fun of the other side's lunacy. There's still a huge difference in speech when you go to each of them while posing as belonging to the opposite side. Saying it isn't so only makes me certain you don't actually pay attention to what the dialogue is on both subreddits.
Feel free to go to 8chan. Go there and post a thread advocating doxxing or death threats and see yourself get shouted down with enough force to split atoms. Try to advocate bullying and get told to take yourself somewhere else.
In case you missed the developments, there is an acknowledged 3rd side (maybe even more) trying to play both pro and anti GG against each other, namely the SA Goons. They've been causing no small amount of havok and both sides are taking hits.
If you want to be really honest, go see the rhetoric on the subreddits. It IS the best example of how both sides have their discourse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Like someone else said.
If you troll enough people hard enough, they will respond.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Should Have Included A Link
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Should Have Included A Link
http://bit.ly/1yvnbSE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Should Have Included A Link
It's a neutral observational viewpoint which I personally think little can deny. Simply put, this article brings to light what kind of issues drive some media outlets to churn out clickbate articles...
In other words, I don't think you're going to find an opposing view point since there's nothing to oppose. Unless you have some undying blind faith in everything that read no matter how many times it's regurgitated: *cough* Kotaku *cough*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Should Have Included A Link
This article (judging from the 50 or so comments so far) has done something quite remarkable actually; there is no army of zealots denouncing Techdirt for not supporting/condemning GamerGate yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Should Have Included A Link
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Should Have Included A Link
This applies to everything, not just GG. If you're only reading reporting from a small number of sources, or sources that all have a similar slant, then you aren't being properly informed about the issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Should Have Included A Link
I believe you should be able to get a lot of news from a lot of sources and come to your own conclusions. Sadly, it seems that other people pick a side and stick to it regardless of how slanted the reporting can be, one way or another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You guys run one of the best news sites on the internet- far less BS here then most anywhere else.
-Daily anon reader.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A few comments to make on the journalism
There are a few publications that have clearly recognized that the hamster wheel chase of rewriting the identical story over and over again while adding nothing new is not worth it. It's been great to see and I've been encouraged by some publications that have really focused on building a loyal audience through doing something different and providing more value.
If you haven't done so already, put out some posts to highlight the progress made by either set of publications.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I find the point you've raised about it being over journalism the most interesting as it sort of follows my opinion on news in general, both physical as well as virtual places. Corporations have cut to the bone eliminating reporters doing the one thing they did well in the interest of profits. The drop in quality of reporting has resulted in my not going to most sites and certainly avoiding more MSM sources as just trash not worth wasting eyeball time over.
There's a reason why politicians, police, and authority figures are getting away with the corruption and it is because it isn't being called to task by the news. This is a sad observation over the conditions of meaningful news in today's society. It's getting to where it is hard to tell the difference between Russia, China, and the rest of the first world players. Change the name but the actions are getting closer and closer to the same things.
Journalism is the defense against such happenings and it is and has been failing us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Who wants to control the news, and why? I'd argue that this is a microcosm of events that Techdirt looks at in the macro. We've seen this same corruption in the mainstream media to the point that no one reports much on Google and their complete disregards for the bargaining abilities of workers.
It's not that the police or politicians are turning this into a police state. They put their finger in the air and go where the sentiments take them.
Think about the needs of a community over the needs of someone outside of it. Essentially, on many levels, that's what the fight is about. This lack of understanding is in the media reporting world from Fox to MSNBC to the point that they go to corporate sponsors over something a bit more neutral like BBC.
I'd also say that billionaires buying out news sources helps make this more apparent. If you're owned by someone that doesn't want reporting of fracking, what do you think would be your response if you found out?
Overall, this is a mess that took years to create and may take years to fix. Controlling the narrative in such a way can fail spectacularly once it no longer holds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thank You...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well played
Too many times I've searched for more information on a particular story, and all the results contain the same quotes, and are basically slightly re-written/syndicated/blatantly plagiarized versions of one poorly written article. But when Techdirt writes on a subject, I know I've found gold.
Thanks to Mike, Tim, Tim, and others. Keep up the good work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Want to confess? I'm curious what stories you were tempted into writing knowing that'd get you a flood of views? And did it work?
Ego te absolvo,
-krish
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's mass insanity...
Not one publication questions why these 'alleged' victims didn't simply block these 'alleged' perps' on Twitter and instead chose to embrace the media attention. While the proponents, such as Kotaku, have not only continuously carried on the rhetoric (that all gamers/devs are misogynistic assholes because of a few bad apples) but have continued to post ads posing as news articles directly beside this controversial matter.
The hypocrisy is so far beyond the very definition of the word, that I think a new one is needed to describe those who are habitual hypocrites...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It will be.
It will be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm very much pro-gamergate int he scheme of things, and I think you're right. There are lot of outlets that use it as an excuse for clickbait, namely Gawker. Even the movement itself is mired in some ridiculous in-fighting, but I think ethics in journalism need to be a virtue all outlets aspire to.
I also agree and respect the fact that Techdirt does not cover stupid, dramatic subjects just for clicks.
Anyway, just wanted to show my appreciation for your work even if you are a stone cold hard ass.
By the way, I'm surprised you guys haven;t condemned Gawker for this crap, clickbait tends to be there MO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Media
I follow you because you cover a lot of interesting subjects, a few I don't care for and some I disagree with, but there's always plenty of researched commentary and it's something I enjoy reading.
And this whole thing has really disillusioned me to the media in general. It's one thing to hear how awful it has become, how everything is being ran with click-baiting in mind, how the media just runs news parroting viewpoints they hear from other medias and with no one (or almost) doing their own research... and not cherrypick and only mention what fits your ideology and ignore everything else.
But it's truly quite another to live it. What an eye-opener this has been for me.
A lot of media organizations I respected have truly disappointed me with the one-sided commentary. Like, I don't care if you don't agree with me on everything but there are sides to most stories and if you ignore that, you cannot do journalism right.
I've learned a lesson of a lifetime here. Gawker has truly and completely horrified me. I cannot believe I used to view them the "tabloid" calls as unfair since some were pretty nice to read (At Ars Technica anyway). And I so get it now. Who the fuck insults its own advertisers to score political points?
And to me, this also goes back to the problem of the 24/7 news networks that are manufacturing controversies, blowing everything out of proportion. Like, seriously, it floored me to see Fox News properly cover Ebola without doing a collective freak-out. If we want to fix that, this 'you can lie in the news without consequences " laws have to go. They have to go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ANd maybe do a article after it's over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In other words...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Historical Perspective
Conflict and breathless coverage of non-issues have long dominated the headlines. The real problem with today's media coverage is that there is no room or time for anything but headlines. Stories that would have run on the inside pages of a newspaper are now ignored because they aren't worthy of the homepage and there is no where else to put them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A Historical Perspective
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A Historical Perspective
In those days, the news was just a relatively inexpensive way to log time that counted toward the public service requirement. It didn't, and was never intended to, make money. When you think of the "golden age" of TV news -- Howard Cronkite, etc., those are the days that you're thinking of.
Then two things happened. A big, but relatively minor, thing was that the requirement for public service was eased dramatically. The other thing, and this is the biggie, was that CNN came around.
Until CNN, nobody really thought you could make money doing TV news. CNN showed how, and their method was adopted by every broadcast TV news outfit, and the cable news companies that came later. Their method resulted in a lot of nasty things -- for instance, the news now had to be entertainment, because ratings were suddenly important.
The other big thing was that news could no longer broadcast things that would make them lose advertisers, and the opinions of shareholders were suddenly critical. So, TV news can no longer report a great number of things honestly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A Historical Perspective
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's Gamergate?
I hadn't heard of this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's Gamergate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
imbalance VS balance ??
In another kind of truth, whether I am reading Shakespeare, TEchDirt, or an article on the entropics of redundancies in old data, I am interpreting, parsing, ignoring, mis-apprehending, mis-understanding, and, very occasionally arriving somewhere near the field the author intended to communicate to me, their reader/interpreter.
Briefly, I appreciate bias. And I appreciate sentient bias most of all, because it is easier to navigate the field being structured by the author in relation to my own prejudices.
Most articles that I read in TEchDirt fall into the above category, and that is why I read this blog. It does not pretend to do other than gather diverse, considered opinions. Naturally, there is political bias in the selection of authors. It is perhaps difficult to host someone you consider to be a total dickhead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where's the gate?
Even though Cracked published this article in 2010, it still applies: why does the media put "-gate" at the end of every scandal? 5 Things The Media Loves Pretending Are News (see page 1, point #4)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow
I had almost forgotten what that looks like...
I think this was pinned in KiA if you think were so bad!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]