Just look at the last 5 pages of this thread (or check out #gg on twitter). The amount of discussion about journalistic integrity or relationships between publishers and journalists is almost non-existent.

#gg is a great movement if you want to fight SJW-ism and feminism in games or games journalism or games writing or games critiquing. Not so great if you don't care about that but like free, accountable and (where appropriate) hard hitting games writing and critiquing.

True. But IMO journalism ethics is still a core value. Again, my op, but I don't see a problem with there being more to the phenomenon (which when you think about it is more accurate description than movement) that we call gamergate than a single issue. It's an amorphous creature and may change it's stripes and so on from time to time, IMO.

To me, it's fair game to examine the root issues behind the way the "Game journalists" acted as well.

I don't have a problem with it as well, but if gg ist (currently, at least) about anti-SJW and anti-feminism and games writers' ethics. Its easy for there to be a distraction away from ethics in games writing (which most consumers seem to agree on to a certain degree) when #gg'ers and anti#gg'ers argue about SJWism and feminism and nothing gets done about ethics.

It started with the demand for ethics in gaming journalism and the criticism of existing networks of gaming "journalists" where agendas are arranged. The answer of those game journalists to that "accusations" were articles claiming gamers are anti-feminists, misogynistic, white, heterosexual, prone to violence and racist against minorities and and and... The answer from GG to that was f***k you and your lies. Which shifted GG and gamers in a verbally defensive position. Task accomplished I would say, a new target was invented the initial topic was pushed out of the media discussion. Sarkeesian was just a welcome victim a to be presented as an example for some the of claims made.

tbc

Mr Know it all enjoys throwing what he believes are pearls to what he believes are swine, but actual dialogue does not give him the same kind of buzz...

Anyway, he means a mix of growing in audience and in thematic maturity. His corner metaphor I assume refers to what he considers a reducing diversity of themes in gaming, which imo is rather in his imagination...

Gamergate (or pro-gaming people) are only about those movements in the context that gaming and gamers were strongly criticized by them. If gaming was under attack from other groups (as has been in the past) then gamergate would be percieved as anti-who and/or whatever attacked them. Its what gave rise to the whole thing. This also has the effect of attracting people who are strongly opposed to say the current agenda of neofeminism.

There's certainly plenty being written about the state of ethics in gaming journalism and I don't have statistics right now but with all the gamergate blacklists of gaming journos etc etc one might imagine they must be effected by it.

They are not contradictory... the ones (ideological activism) are the root causes of the lack of other (professional ethics)... which you can disagree, but your refusal to accept as logical explains a lot of your animus...

Edit: And a disclaimer, professional ethics do not preclude investigative, embedded, critical journalism - it just needs to be objective and neutral as much as possible. We want journalism, not advertisement, nor propaganda. The difference being the advertisement in media is much more open, whereas the propaganda is subversive and often unconscious, which by itself is another ethical issue (transparency, disclosure).

GG isn't an organization, its not really even a movement. As has been pointed out by myself and several other posters on this thread, GG is more a phenomenon than anything else. A hydra, an amorphous beast!

And the the other side are enjoyng toasts and champagne and large banquets in the VIP room because they are the establishment. They have the ears (and purse strings!) of government and corporations - like I said, corporate sponsership+pseudo-socialism=fascism.

Not sure one can equate "gamergate" with "pro-gaming people". I am a gamer. I am also an SJW and a feminist. Gamergate certainly doesn't represent me and is not pro me.

As to the effect gamergate has had a journalists, I thought this article was quite interesting (although it doesn't deal with individual writers, it does deal with their websites):

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ampp3d/gamergate-website-rankings-winners-losers-5235157

I didn't say they were contradictory. But its incorrect to say "ideological activism" is the root cause of unethical journalistic practices. Ideological activism has nothing to do with lack of professional ethics. One can be an ideological activist and also an ethical journalist. Look at John Pilger, certainly not neutral, certainly an activist, and also a great journalist. You can report on a massacre in Dili, accuse the government of wrong doing, advocate other people and governments to do something about it, take a completely non objective and non neutral stance and still be ethical. Heck, look at Tom Wolfe, Robert Fisk, Margaret Fuller, even Hunter S Thompson.

You want games writers who present facts objectively and neutrally. That's fine, good luck finding that. I want games writers who write interesting articles, who give opinions, who review games informed by their own backgrounds and beliefs, who say what they want without being influenced by game developers or distributors. That's about personal taste, not ethics.

Yeah. I guess gamergate supporters are all pro-gaming but not all gamers are pro-gamergate. It's a label etc we're all stuck with for now.

The UK Mirror. Their info is probably fairly selective to fit in with the current msm narrative. But even to give 'em the benefit of the doubt, that article isn't optimistic for gamers. The only thing to take away from it for pro-gaming GG is the idea of "death by a thousand cuts" ie: grass roots action of little people bringing down the big;shots.

That's because the SJW leaders are the kind of corrupt people manipulating, forcing agendas onto others for making heaps of cash that it's about anyway. Yes, it's still about corruption in a "social" and financial way both at the same time when it comes to fem freq and the like, they just use the feminist card to make even more money out of critics while shutting them up wherever they can. Those are not feminists but just capitalistic hipsters, most of the opposition is more true to feminism than most people would imagine, because gender and other unimportant differences simply have no meaning there as is shown so nice by #notyourshield and others.

I guess I'm not even sure what you mean by being "pro-gaming". I assume they like some games and dislike other games. I can't imagine someone being described as "pro-movies" or "pro-tv".