And again, they both have a vested interest in Jason's version of the story being viewed as the correct one. Fact checking means nothing when it comes from a place that's been caught outright lying/sensationalizing as many times as Kotaku, and even if it did mean something, a single firsthand account is nowhere near enough to ascertain what actually was said. Even The Newsroom—a fictional show—has shown that stories require two separate accounts that line up before they're comfortable running them, and the entire second season ended up being about how that wasn't enough. When fictional news has higher standards than a website, it's probably best to not trust anything that site has to say. Just saying.

Not that I trust Pinsof's account of things, either, but that doesn't mean that Kotaku is doing anything resembling journalism here.

Everyone always has vested interests. That is the nature of existence.

Well, I think interviewing people is a major part of journalism/reporting.

What do you think journalism is?

Determining facts from reputable sources, or barring that, multiple sources that all claim the same thing without the possibility of them having been influenced by each other, and then reporting those facts in as unbiased a manner as possible.

Not regurgitating firsthand accounts from people who have a reason to lie and using that to further one's agenda. This is the same thing Kotaku and others have done for months—find one or two things to harp on that may or may not be based in reality, then use that to poison the well and color the audience's perception of whatever group the "reporter" doesn't like. If you really think that's journalism, then I suppose it's a sign of just how far modern journalism has fallen.

I guess I should clarify that I don't think these guys are journalists (and I think a lot of them don't consider themselves to be journalists either), I think they are writers/reporters. They're not exactly John Pilgers.

I think that to say that a journalism is not interviewing someone and reporting on that interview is an unusual stance to take though.

You're idea of journalism is interesting, but I suspect very little would get reported... Some rhetorical questions:

When is a source considered reputable?

How does a source become reputable?

Does a source have to develop a positive reputation before one can report its information?

What if, by the nature of the subject matter, there is only one source?

How can one realistically say there is no possibility that one source has influenced another?

They're all too willing to refer to themselves as "games journalists" until someone questions their practices, at which point they magically become nothing-but-bloggers. Funny how that works.

If a source lying would in itself be newsworthy, then it's a trusted source. For example, regular people like in that Kotaku article wouldn't be worth a followup should they be proven to have lied about what they said. Contrast that with, say, a hypothetical governmental study. One can consider that a trusted source despite the government not being trustworthy because fabricating it would be a story all its own and no doubt cause a blowback worse than anything the unaltered study said would have.

English has fun words like "alleged" for situations like that where allegations exist but the truth of the matter hasn't yet been determined.

It's not exactly rocket science, here. If one source has been going around in the media and saying one thing and suddenly another person shows up saying something similar, you have to assume that the second person was influenced by the first person. Same if they know each other or work in an industry where they could have possibly met (edit for clarity: at least to the point where they could have colluded, or the story running ends up being beneficial to each; this is more of a case-by-case judgment call). If they're two strangers who run in completely different circles, however, and both say the same thing despite the story not being out there yet, then it's reasonable to assume that they haven't influenced each other.

htown1980 this allegation about believing someone based upon their sex is insulting and sloppy thinking. Also the situation does not limit itself to a binary choice of either believe the woman or the man. We can also choose to disbelieve both of them. After the kotaku article I did a little digging. I looked for a website for Faraway. I found this site www.playfaraway.com. It says the game is coming soon and I was unable to find the game on the Apple Store. So how does an IOS game that hasn't been finished after more than two years win Best of Show? Does this prove anything? No, it doesn't. It is enough evidence for me to not dismiss Pinsoff's allegation about the award show. Unfortunately we will never know the truth unless an additional source of information comes forward, which will likely never happen.
If you are going to quote someone you should add enough of the quote to provide the context. I'm assuming you are referring to this part of the article.

"I've always been open to this being a misunderstanding and only wanted an investigation into the matter. But, why all this focus on joke awards and building this "we're just goofing around" narrative? Is that relevant or just editorial framing? The question is if the award show was rigged to award a friend."

When I read the paragraph my understanding is that Pinsoff is open to a reasonable explanation for what happened, because he doesn't know with certainty what actually happened. He has a certain set of facts that point to a conclusion, but does not have the all important smoking gun.

"The misunderstanding, which I previously stated on Twitter, was that McGrath explicitly told me in 2012 that he was still working on the game until Fez' IGF Trailer. We were discussing Fez so I understood he was talking about "his/the game" as Fez. When in actuality, he was talking about the game that he worked on with Fish that operated as the foundation for Fez. So, it suddenly made sense that Fish didn't steal any code or anything because Fish was making his own copy of McGrath's game. I don't blame McGrath for the lack of clarification and I don't see how I could have known he was talking about a separate game. It was a misunderstanding that I cleared up once I talked to McGrath."
"No, no, that was never even talked about," McGrath said. "I don't know where that came from. Maybe I said that in the original interview I did with Allistair? I highly doubt I would do that though… No, that never happened. "

Even in this Kotaku interview, he sees uncertain about this as he was with me last night. He seemed pretty certain about it 3 years ago, though. I think it could be that he felt stressed during that original interview due to the IGTM situation and maybe exaggerated a little or remembered things differently."


Not strictly news related, but TotalBiscuit had a good post on KIA. I found it a good read and thought others might as well.

http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2v77ux/important_words_from_and_an_anonymous_biscuit/

Fucking hell! Check this : http://www.reaxxion.com/5153/the-anti-defamation-league-plans-to-indoctrinate-students-with-anti-gaming-propaganda

"The major problem with most feminists, after all, is that they do not have many children."

Thank god you guys are devoting your lives to saving gaming journalism!!!

When one specifies the gender of the person one disagrees with, one opens oneself up to that kind of insinuation. If its not important, why mention it? I believe it was not a conscious thing on the part of the writer, but it still gives an insight.

I don't know that you can. Either she said it or she didn't. If you disbelieve both, aren't you saying that she both said or and didn't say it?

Nice digging. You found something that is completely irrelevant to whether the game should have won Best of Show in 2012. :)

Exactly. He has gone from saying this was outright corruption to something that (quoting myself) "may have just been a "misunderstanding"". He's clearly backing down from his claims, as he should.

"Microaggressions can appear to be a compliment but contain a “metacommunication” or hidden insult to the target groups to which it is delivered. They are often outside the level of conscious awareness of the perpetrator, which means they can be unintentional. These messages may be sent verbally (“you speak good English”)"

.......Looks like a lot of fun to live in American society........................

Indeed. These idiots seem to at a point where they want to regulate people's unconscious thoughts. I can imagine these ''inclusivist'' people will probably do surgeries to change their skin colour or accent so they can ''be closer to the people they love''. Like hippies from 80s saying they have a ''rainbow family''.
I mean, when you reach a point where you treat people of different genders or races or sexual orientations differently to eachother, as in treating them from those groups (we can't even call them groups anymore) as if they are naturally weak or underprivileged and need protection; is that not the point where you reach true inequality? But who am I to know, I may be part of the problem; being straight, some race and male and I may be biased because I'm a son of the patriarchy.

i'm going to post the same thing i posted on a vid about #notyourshield

"[i]uhm here's the thing
who was the initial target of gamergate? game journalists

who were the main source of info for the public surrounding gamergate? game journalists

Do I even have to point out the conflict of interests here?
This is like in a trial the jury would be the defendants cousins, his kids and his drinking buddies[/i]"



Aside, have a few riddles

Riddle me this

Feminists claim gamers are not just white males, but also girls, trans and blacks are a large portion. Feminists also claim ALL gamers oppose diversity. What is the logical connection between these elements?

Also, riddle me this

Feminists claim gamers do not want any girls in their hobby, yet hordes ofl gamers constantly post they want a gaming gf.
How is this possible?

If the individual feminist derogatorily applies the term "gamer" to the target group aimed at and created by the traditional video game industry, she or he could maybe claim "all gamers oppose diversity" (although it would be hyperbole), because "girls", trans and black people are not part of said target group.

But I do find the second sentence of the "riddle" to be an exemplary strawman, a position that will be extremely hard to find in that extremely artificially constructed "all inclusive" sense – even in individual feminist positions at the very fringes of any gamergate opposing group.

If, on the other hand, the individual feminist defines the term "gamer" to just mean "person who likes to play games", she or he would not claim that all gamers oppose diversity, not least of all because she or he will often apply the term to her- or himself.


Again, the "riddle" draws on contradictory definitions of the term "gamer".

Apart from that, "a gaming girlfriend" is exactly one person "allowed" to be a mere game consumer; desiring a mate to share a hobby with is absolutely not the same thing as accepting the opposite sex as a valid target group for the industry throughout all game genres and narratives. These are almost totally different ideas.

A male video game enthusiast may find and partner with a female video game enthusiast and still their stances on issues of diversity and target groups may be entirely different. Heck, the male player could even see deep problems with the portrayal of women in games and his female partner, having drunk the Kool-Aid from day one although it was meant for somebody else, maybe doesn't give a flying shit any more.

Quite easily "possible" in a diverse society such as ours.

@SJWs
If you believe everyone is equal then stop trying to tell everyone they're weak and need protecting from you. The fashion in which you SJWs preach equality but discriminate among everyone is hypocrisy. Calling a rape survivor on the pro #GG side a woman who is siding with the perpetrators while showering your worship on so called ''academic'' bigots who use the word rape so much times they seem to enjoy it is absurd. ''Rape culture'' is something you invented. Its is the culture which uses the word as a safety fuse to bail you out when you don't have any logical arguments to give. That and its sibling ''harassment''. If you can't talk logically and straight (I'm sorry did that word offend you?) about what your arguments are but instead hide behind words like rape and harassment, then your a group of hypocritical bigots who are themselves weak and claim they are protecting the weak.