The reddit crusaders who are spinning the witch hunt as being about "journalistic integrity" when we're talking about game reviews of a niche title are what annoy me the most. Hundreds of comments, thousands of upvotes, that are more about bashing this woman than anything else, but with the high and mighty "Journalistic Integrity!!!" banner, which is transparent BS.
What's truly aggravating to me is that it's cropping up now in /r/undelete, which has always been more about watching what political and world news stories get suspiciously removed. It just doesn't belong there at all. It's not even in the same universe of importance.
I will admit I didn't look into the whole story, but the Internet hate and slut shaming is unacceptable.
A-fucking-men. Bang as many people as you like, that's not the issue. The issue is all her other behavior. Hell, even if the most absurd accusations of her screwing people for reviews, greenlight position, and anyone who defended her in the wake since were true, the issue would still never be the sex, the issue would be the people who basically provided cash for comment.
The reddit crusaders who are spinning the witch hunt as being about "journalistic integrity" when we're talking about game reviews of a niche title are what annoy me the most. Hundreds of comments, thousands of upvotes, that are more about bashing this woman than anything else, but with the high and mighty "Journalistic Integrity!!!" banner, which is transparent BS.
Aaaaarugh fuck those people with a wire brush. It's not about journalistic integrity you lying shitsacks, or else maybe you'd occasionally even mention the name of the Kotaku writer she slept with for positive reviews.
Except they can't, because he never reviewed or wrote about her fucking game. The people who have written about her game on Kotaku are Phil Owen, Ian Mahar, and Patricia Hernandez(who these assholes hate anyway). The only time Grayson wrote about her or her game was in relation to that indie dev reality TV show that all went to hell, and that was before Zoe or her Ex have said that she slept with him.
Or maybe they'd have been kicking up a stink when Polygon accused attacked an indie dev and accused them of being homophobic based on no evidence, in an article written by a friend of the injured party, with a tiny disclaimer down the bottom(which should have been in the lede without question) regarding that, and never printed a retraction when it turned out that it wasn't the dev's fault, and the dev in question did everything they could to rectify the situation.
Or maybe, they'd have spoken out when TotalBiscut, who is currently the darling of these people for his commentary on the issue, essentially said "Nah man, Cash for comment is okay".
Or maybe they'd have something to say about accountability(or lack thereof), their editing process(or lack thereof), the constant favors and nudge-nudge-wink-wink deals between the industry and outlets, lack of separation between Advertisement and Editorial. No, we just get an occasional "IGN scored this 11/10 lol lol lol" shit, none of them actually cared, until the enemy had boobs and was a member of the feminist community, and they could accuse her of using her "feminine wiles" (no joke, I've seen that exact accusation and I laughed till I realised they were utterly serious) to get good reviews for her game, and get it through greenlight, and back on to greenlight, depending on who you ask.
If that's how you get through the greenlight process, I want to know who fucked whom to get that yogscast game that didn't exist and persists in not existing in any form through the approval process. Or any of the other prize selections from the mountain of fucking garbage and re-releases that is steam greenlight.
That's exactly it. Journalistic integrity in the context of game reviews and press releases has been dead or dying for a decade, only now there's a way to tangentially attach the idea that a young woman somewhere had sex, which is grounds for thousands of words worth of angry neckbeard spittle. They haven't a leg to stand on even IF she was somehow conspiring with game reviewers, which is in serious question.
As to whether she's a very nice person, well, I dunno. Seems like a weird situation with the (ex-)boyfriend, but that's really got nothing to do with any of the rest of it. It's like the "Michael Brown may have stolen some cigars before he was executed gang style by the police" thing only WAY more petty and embarrassing.
Even if she did exchange sex for a good review (which literally nobody but the crazy internet mob is claiming), why are we only holding her responsible for this? Last I checked, it takes two (at least) to have sex. It's not like Nathan Greystone is some robot who simply does things; he had as much sex with her as she had with him.
Also, AFAIK, we've only heard from him, and yet people are already jumping on the "maybe she's a crazy abuser" line, which is just bothersome.
Well mostly sexism, partly because we now have a in depth look at a relationship she was in, and partly because of the infidelity and how she hurt the nerdy everyman with her promiscuity. People are condemning the others through twitter but not to the degree that they are Zoe. She's the star of the show I guess because the initial spark was a blog about her.
From my very brief exposure to games journos taught me to NEVER read anything from those sites. Although its fair to find sites that choose to defend these jerks as a test on who is sleeping with who.
Also, AFAIK, we've only heard from him, and yet people are already jumping on the "maybe she's a crazy abuser" line, which is just bothersome.
True, but the picture painted here is one that indicates quite a bit of abusive behavior. I'm not saying she's crazy - but frankly, if the presented story is true, and the chatlogs are undoctored, then it's a very strong case that she's the abusive party in an abusive relationship. Her reaction to the scandal only further makes the case, since it precisely fits the pattern of outed abusive partners - Don't address any raised issue, insist it's a private matter, the other person is actually the bad guy and did worse things, everyone's against her, speaking up was wrong and bad, the person who spoke up about the abuse is crazy and vindictive, just out to hurt people, try and control the dialog where possible.
And, full disclosure(and also, pointing out my own bias), these are the exact things that one of my exes came forward with to mutual friends, when I went to the police about her, after she fractured my skull with a coffee mug. And I lost a few friends to that "Woah woah woah, sure he's in hospital, but he's got a history of getting in fights, let's hear her side of the story" bullshit, to boot.
Yes, we've only heard from him(at least, regarding the relationship - there's been a few other people in the industry coming forward with accounts of Zoe being manipulative, vindictive, and for lack of a better phrase, generally fucking shitty), but let's face it - is she going to come out and say "Why yes, all these things that indicate I was an abusive partner are 100% true"? We need more evidence, but simply hearing her side of the story isn't going to help much.
I find it especially troubling that many parts of the internet are also straight-up consulting with her and giving her a measure of control over the dialog about her - Yes, she's only accused at this time, there's not enough evidence to 100% prove anything, but surely we recognize the problem with giving the accused abusive party control over the dialog about if they were really abusive, or if the other person is just crazy.
While it's troubling that people are jumping right to "She's definitely a crazy abuser" without the intermediary step of "She MIGHT be an abuser, things seem to indicate that but we don't know for sure", we also have to be careful of "Hey, potential abuse victim, you shouldn't speak out against your abuser, because it's a private matter, and you should just deal with it yourself, especially considering their gender/social standing/career."
From my very brief exposure to games journos taught me to NEVER read anything from those sites. Although its fair to find sites that choose to defend these jerks as a test on who is sleeping with who.
That's why I tend to trust either friends, or GiantBomb. I mean, Giantbomb even decided not to cover the hugely popular Bastion, because they decided they were too close to the developers. And the entire site was started because they despised the favors-and-favorable-reviews bullshit that's rife in the industry.
I used to trust Polygon, but not so much anymore - they've showed themselves to be as unethical as anyone else, they're just more circumspect about it most of the time.
Actually according to Reuder's handbook Giant bomb is on the same level as Kotaku, scoring a 0/100.
According to a post on 4chan, from an anon claiming to be a Reuters Journo. Who, for some reason, is involved in making editorial content decisions that impact the entire Reuters brand. And somehow denying content that in style mirrors exactly content that they already run - Ie, their movie reviews section, celebrity gossip, etc. They might not be lying, but it smells pretty funky, I'm thinking.
Still, assuming he's telling the truth - so? The assessment criteria for a traditional news site and a games site shouldn't be the same, because they're such different entities. If you scored Roger Ebert by the same criteria, he's score pretty damned low, too - because he's got a lot of connections to the industry, as well as being financially reliant upon it. Nor did he ever have a journalism degree - which, I'm pretty sure, isn't actually an assessment criteria that Reuters uses, considering the enormous prevalence of people without J-degrees in the industry.
You don't send Reuters into the middle east to get their review and honest opinion on the hottest new religious conflicts of the summer season. You don't send Kotaku or GiantBomb into Microsoft headquarters to produce dry, strictly factual reports of what's going on with the latest Halo project. Games Journalism, for the most part, isn't really Journalism most of the time, though they occasionally manage it. It's mostly reviews and opinion - there's ethics involved as professional publications, but holding them to the same standard as objective, fact-based reportage seems incredibly silly, and an incredibly weird thing for Reuters to do.
I'm guessing it's just a typo, and he means the Reuters Handbook. Which doesn't really condemn or exonerate Giantbomb or any other games site, because it's intended for dealing mostly with news coverage, not review coverage. It's like saying your toaster is a terrible car, according to your Haynes manual.
Oh I thought through the context it was something about the community and opinion pieces. Giant Bomb scalps a decent amount of information from Gamespot but there are also only 5 editors who also spend a decent amount of their time doing video content. A 0 seems a bit exaggerated though.
I think the issue is really pathetic on both sides. Zoe Quinn for being a horrible person by manipulating game journalists and victimizing herself to get support and sympathy despite her nature. However, I find it astonishing that all these publishers were tricked by one person's sex appeal and let it get so rampant to affect so many industry officials and companies. It really shows the significant amount of immaturity and corruption in the gaming journalism industry.
I'm just waiting for the headlines. "Gamers create harassment campaign to drive female game dev to suicide." This kind of internet hate disgusts me. I say the journalist needs the witch hunt for putting their integrity on the line.
Yeah that is the InternetAristocrat douche I was talking about earlier. People always seem to link to his videos when someone needs an explanation of whats going on. It makes me laugh because the people who post them are the people who are instigating the hatred. The video is such a joke because at a certain point he just strays away from his Rush Limbaugh type delivery to outright hate speech.
The only other video I've seen from him was an "explanation" on why Dina Abou Karam shouldn't be the community manager for Mighty No. 9. It was equally just as shitty.
I think the issue is really pathetic on both sides. Zoe Quinn for being a horrible person by manipulating game journalists and victimizing herself to get support and sympathy despite her nature. However, I find it astonishing that all these publishers were tricked by one person's sex appeal and let it get so rampant to affect so many industry officials and companies. It really shows the significant amount of immaturity and corruption in the gaming journalism industry.
There's no evidence she manipulated any journalist, and apparently the only person she slept with who provided her any coverage at all at any point was Nathan Grayson of Kotaku, who covered a story involving her before they ever slept together.
Don't get sucked in by the bullshit from the internet hate machine - the whole "Ethics in journalisim" thing is just a cover so that nobody has to admit what that particular rumor was about, now that the enemy has boobs that aren't hairy. It's just slut-shaming combined with the old sexist fantasy of women using their "feminine wiles" to get to the top.
I think the issue is really pathetic on both sides. Zoe Quinn for being a horrible person by manipulating game journalists and victimizing herself to get support and sympathy despite her nature. However, I find it astonishing that all these publishers were tricked by one person's sex appeal and let it get so rampant to affect so many industry officials and companies. It really shows the significant amount of immaturity and corruption in the gaming journalism industry.
There's no evidence she manipulated any journalist, and apparently the only person she slept with who provided her any coverage at all at any point was Nathan Grayson of Kotaku, who covered a story involving her before they ever slept together.
Don't get sucked in by the bullshit from the internet hate machine - the whole "Ethics in journalisim" thing is just a cover so that nobody has to admit what that particular rumor was about, now that the enemy has boobs that aren't hairy. It's just slut-shaming combined with the old sexist fantasy of women using their "feminine wiles" to get to the top.
I'll admit that I've heard a lot on both sides of the discussion, but it's all whispers through the grapevine. I retract what I said about Zoe because more evidence is pointing to gaming journalism stupidity. I would blame the industry more anyway if they were hypothetically being tricked because it's only one small independent developer.
I'll admit that I've heard a lot on both sides of the discussion, but it's all whispers through the grapevine. I retract what I said about Zoe because more evidence is pointing to gaming journalism stupidity. I would blame the industry more anyway if they were hypothetically being tricked because it's only one small independent developer.
Now that's accurate. The industry does have some huge ethical problems, but it just doesn't have much to do with Zoe Quinn.
What it has everything to do with the fact that it's a small industry compared to many others, where everyone - devs and reviewers alike - knows everyone, publishers are constantly lashing out money on events for reviewers and if they thought they could get away with it would blatantly give cash for comment, and practically nobody stops to consider the ethical implications of their behavior. There's a few people in the industry who actually give a shit about these things - the Giant bomb crew, Lauren Wainwright(who is most excellent), Luke Plunkett, the team at Progress Bar, etc - but the general attitude doesn't mirror that.
Comments
What's truly aggravating to me is that it's cropping up now in /r/undelete, which has always been more about watching what political and world news stories get suspiciously removed. It just doesn't belong there at all. It's not even in the same universe of importance.
Except they can't, because he never reviewed or wrote about her fucking game. The people who have written about her game on Kotaku are Phil Owen, Ian Mahar, and Patricia Hernandez(who these assholes hate anyway). The only time Grayson wrote about her or her game was in relation to that indie dev reality TV show that all went to hell, and that was before Zoe or her Ex have said that she slept with him.
Or maybe they'd have been kicking up a stink when Polygon accused attacked an indie dev and accused them of being homophobic based on no evidence, in an article written by a friend of the injured party, with a tiny disclaimer down the bottom(which should have been in the lede without question) regarding that, and never printed a retraction when it turned out that it wasn't the dev's fault, and the dev in question did everything they could to rectify the situation.
Or maybe, they'd have spoken out when TotalBiscut, who is currently the darling of these people for his commentary on the issue, essentially said "Nah man, Cash for comment is okay".
Or maybe they'd have something to say about accountability(or lack thereof), their editing process(or lack thereof), the constant favors and nudge-nudge-wink-wink deals between the industry and outlets, lack of separation between Advertisement and Editorial. No, we just get an occasional "IGN scored this 11/10 lol lol lol" shit, none of them actually cared, until the enemy had boobs and was a member of the feminist community, and they could accuse her of using her "feminine wiles" (no joke, I've seen that exact accusation and I laughed till I realised they were utterly serious) to get good reviews for her game, and get it through greenlight, and back on to greenlight, depending on who you ask.
If that's how you get through the greenlight process, I want to know who fucked whom to get that yogscast game that didn't exist and persists in not existing in any form through the approval process. Or any of the other prize selections from the mountain of fucking garbage and re-releases that is steam greenlight.
As to whether she's a very nice person, well, I dunno. Seems like a weird situation with the (ex-)boyfriend, but that's really got nothing to do with any of the rest of it. It's like the "Michael Brown may have stolen some cigars before he was executed gang style by the police" thing only WAY more petty and embarrassing.
Also, AFAIK, we've only heard from him, and yet people are already jumping on the "maybe she's a crazy abuser" line, which is just bothersome.
And, full disclosure(and also, pointing out my own bias), these are the exact things that one of my exes came forward with to mutual friends, when I went to the police about her, after she fractured my skull with a coffee mug. And I lost a few friends to that "Woah woah woah, sure he's in hospital, but he's got a history of getting in fights, let's hear her side of the story" bullshit, to boot.
Yes, we've only heard from him(at least, regarding the relationship - there's been a few other people in the industry coming forward with accounts of Zoe being manipulative, vindictive, and for lack of a better phrase, generally fucking shitty), but let's face it - is she going to come out and say "Why yes, all these things that indicate I was an abusive partner are 100% true"? We need more evidence, but simply hearing her side of the story isn't going to help much.
I find it especially troubling that many parts of the internet are also straight-up consulting with her and giving her a measure of control over the dialog about her - Yes, she's only accused at this time, there's not enough evidence to 100% prove anything, but surely we recognize the problem with giving the accused abusive party control over the dialog about if they were really abusive, or if the other person is just crazy.
While it's troubling that people are jumping right to "She's definitely a crazy abuser" without the intermediary step of "She MIGHT be an abuser, things seem to indicate that but we don't know for sure", we also have to be careful of "Hey, potential abuse victim, you shouldn't speak out against your abuser, because it's a private matter, and you should just deal with it yourself, especially considering their gender/social standing/career." That's why I tend to trust either friends, or GiantBomb. I mean, Giantbomb even decided not to cover the hugely popular Bastion, because they decided they were too close to the developers. And the entire site was started because they despised the favors-and-favorable-reviews bullshit that's rife in the industry.
I used to trust Polygon, but not so much anymore - they've showed themselves to be as unethical as anyone else, they're just more circumspect about it most of the time.
Still, assuming he's telling the truth - so? The assessment criteria for a traditional news site and a games site shouldn't be the same, because they're such different entities. If you scored Roger Ebert by the same criteria, he's score pretty damned low, too - because he's got a lot of connections to the industry, as well as being financially reliant upon it. Nor did he ever have a journalism degree - which, I'm pretty sure, isn't actually an assessment criteria that Reuters uses, considering the enormous prevalence of people without J-degrees in the industry.
You don't send Reuters into the middle east to get their review and honest opinion on the hottest new religious conflicts of the summer season. You don't send Kotaku or GiantBomb into Microsoft headquarters to produce dry, strictly factual reports of what's going on with the latest Halo project. Games Journalism, for the most part, isn't really Journalism most of the time, though they occasionally manage it. It's mostly reviews and opinion - there's ethics involved as professional publications, but holding them to the same standard as objective, fact-based reportage seems incredibly silly, and an incredibly weird thing for Reuters to do.
Also if Giant Bomb is 0 IGN, Polygon, and Gamespot must be in the negatives.
The occasional time I read something from Kotaku its usually a fuckin' joke.
Uh, news flash - you shouldn't have trusted it in the first place. It's known to have been a not-unbiased source of information for a long long time.
This is definitely an excuse for insecure neckbeards to engage in socially acceptable misogyny.
The only other video I've seen from him was an "explanation" on why Dina Abou Karam shouldn't be the community manager for Mighty No. 9. It was equally just as shitty.
Don't get sucked in by the bullshit from the internet hate machine - the whole "Ethics in journalisim" thing is just a cover so that nobody has to admit what that particular rumor was about, now that the enemy has boobs that aren't hairy. It's just slut-shaming combined with the old sexist fantasy of women using their "feminine wiles" to get to the top.
What it has everything to do with the fact that it's a small industry compared to many others, where everyone - devs and reviewers alike - knows everyone, publishers are constantly lashing out money on events for reviewers and if they thought they could get away with it would blatantly give cash for comment, and practically nobody stops to consider the ethical implications of their behavior. There's a few people in the industry who actually give a shit about these things - the Giant bomb crew, Lauren Wainwright(who is most excellent), Luke Plunkett, the team at Progress Bar, etc - but the general attitude doesn't mirror that.