you can fairly and accurately report only one side... you do not need to buy into the side, you can stay as 'neutral' as possible, but if you are a good journalist you can. and most do, actually. Everyone is biased, it is just how we are. You are biased, which is why you like certain things and not others, and I am biased. Journalist are also based.

No, HE is! I've never once said that I AGREE with a single word the mad, hypersensitive bastard is saying, I'm just defending his right to say it and it be a legitimate opinion even if it differs even from MY hippy-ass!

I just explained exactly why you can't fairly and accurately discuss an issue with only one side...
Yes, they are biased. So what? Does that mean they should just give up and not try to see through these biases? That is the whole point of objectivity in this situation. That reporters have the responsibility to try to see past their biases in order to provide a fair and balanced view of any topic they are reporting on.
And I'm saying as a journalist, he does not have the right to intentionally distort the truth. He is supposed to be serving the public. That is why he is in that position. He can say it, but not as a journalist...

you can likewise be extremely biased when 'reporting' both sides of s story by giving the others side a spin. Which is something both GG and A-GG does all the time. They give context, and 'report' both sides, but I would not call either rather ethical nor balanced. Do you?

And yes, reporters have to try see past bias, and the best does (unfortunate they are not reporting on GG.... for either side...). But pretending that journalist are un-biased and objective just because they say so, is self-delusional.

I believe he is being faithful to his own, subjective truth and that is the most you can ask of any reviewer...

Well I think claiming this somehow justifies journalists saying whatever they wish is also self-delusional. Touche!

And for the record, I never claimed journalists are unbiased and objective, you are the one strawmanning that I claim this. In fact, it should be clear I have many complaints about the actions of many so-called journalists. I do claim that they should be striving toward that goal.

About the only thing we both agree upon is the crappy reporting on all sides of Gamergate. Very few articles even seem to try to be objective about the issues...
And I think you are being delusional. I think he is actively being controversial and sensationalist in order to garner clicks. But certainly he fails to even attempt to see past his bias, if he were indeed attempting to be objective. A goal which all journalists are expected to strive toward, but so many seem poorly educated in the matter...

I'll go from the bottom, and go to bed after...

Nope, that's you begging the question. :) I can just as easily say those were the bad journalists, and we'll keep going in circles... :)

I didn't say subjectivity is being driven by emotions or incompatible with logic... I was going on the stereotype you put on the table of objectivity being like a grey goo of boring. As to legal judgements: taking consideration of differences in context and facts, that's objectivity... at least per my definition and I'd say any ethical body of journalism as well... it's not objectivity that removes that, it's inflexibility as you rightly pointed out.

Ah, so my superiority is proven beyond doubt! Click link ;)

I'd say humans need common grounds in much more areas than science, and objectivity is an excellent tool for that... maybe that's just me though ;)

I don't see where you're bringing in subjectivity in relation to DNA testing. What I had in mind were situations where the results come out different, yet there is one actual truth, which maybe will even be impossible to determine based on current techniques... then again, if you actually posted something on the specifics and it's more of a Rorschach style DNA "testing" that would be subjective yes. Still, I don't see the relevance of that example to counter anything I said...

Then, if I could provide you a perfect anything (review of Hatred, or not) I would. You know very well that's setting up a purity test that can't be met. It's like asking me to show you how big infinity is... and since there is no unique perfectly objective review for me to give you, several examples could work, proving my point that objective reviews don't mean boring and samey, but then you'd always be able to say they're not perfectly objective... so duh... sorry, but I'm not falling for that trap. Have a link instead about journalistic lack of objectivity :) Have fun, I'm off to sleep anyway.

PS: Why don't you find a review, and I'll give you my opinion on its objectivity level? I don't mind that... as you can see I'm more than willing to write walls of text anyway...

We've been here before... so maybe it is imposing or inhibiting, or whatever other word you want to use that carries negative connotations. But it is that in a good way: ergo it is ethical. That's our disagreement right there, regardless of the words you use to repeat your point changing... What's the problem with inhibiting journalism to be objective if that is beneficial? I'm not saying that means boring, but if it did, would that be so bad a price to pay? Science is also creative and you see the point of objectivity in finding the "common ground" there. Can't you see the point of "finding the common ground" in the review of something? Even if that something is a Picasso? Not to mention in actual reporting about the news, which is what pure journalism actually is, rather than reviews...

And come on, stipulating an agenda for language is just... quite a conspiracy theory actually. Or if you actually want to say the concepts behind the words are what was created due to an agenda: invented rather than discovered, created from nothing rather than revealed from something, then you surely give more importance to human genius then I do. Which is an interesting difference in our worldviews, if you confirm that indeed I stumbled onto something true.

Hmmm... semantic disagreements kind of.

We have an inherent ability to form attachments based on chemical reactions which we then frame in a concept called love, to represent some common aspects of those attachments shared with people in our family, or people we feel attraction to, or sometimes more idealized relationships. Not so simple when you think about it.

We have an inherent ability to move and act upon the world which we then frame into a concept called freedom, to represent aspects of being loose in the world guided by nothing other than our will. As you yourself noticed, this one is also quite a complicated one when you start thinking about degrees of freedom and personal preferences towards risk, etc...

Justice is already a much more complex one. Being how it relates to equality (seeing others, recognizing patterns), but also to consequence (sense of time, sense of agency) and the trickiest one in that it relates to morals (sense of pain, sense of empathy, sense of ownership).

Do you see what I'm doing? I'm going down to the biological basis to show you it's all constructs based on some underlying realities. Now subjectivity indeed has a strong linkage to introspection and the fact we can't read minds. But objectivity at least in a limited sense * is likewise just a development of our recognition that the world does not revolve around us. If you want to say some humans never actually develop such ability, well... I agree, but I'm not going to say thats superior nor inferior to other abstractions based on biological or societal realities about being a human.

The thing is, a lot of people never accept they are mortal. I understand that, I understand it very well. I don't like even writing about it. Thinking of not existing. Accepting that my ego is finite, that reality carries on, until even it maybe doesn't. Is it boring to accept that? Well, it can be. Or it can be more the reason to live to the fullest. Objectivity doesn't limit a journalist, it enables him to reach farther in ways that are hard, but likely more rewarding. Afterall if he went into journalism, he probably wanted to do more than just tell others what he thinks about stuff. Or is it really just egoism? :)

* By limited sense I mean mostly divorced from professiona journalistic ethics. Journalistic objectivity is related to this (see previous folks focused on the truth of something) but is actually a more nuanced concept, since it is imo much more about justice than about truth. The assumption behind it is that a fair process will reveal the truth better than an unfair one. The parallels or intersections to legal judgement are very clear...

Edit: typos galore and fixed a link

To any GamerGater's who support this upcoming movie:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAkWjT6Oops

Did they confirm when this documentary will release?

Reaxxion...more strawmanning. You seem to refuse to describe the specifics of any article that is brought up, instead you yell, Roach and MRA. If you want to actually discuss objectivity, I will say that many of the Reaxxion articles I've read are far more objective than from other sources. You seem very ready to link to MarySue or the Verge.

But without the context of specific articles to discuss. And without discussing the actual points contained in those articles, this line of thought is fruitless.

The truth is you are continuing to troll this topic, just as you are doing now. You are not serious in discussing any of this...

As to Gies claim...so what? What is wrong with Geralt being provided a dialog option that seems sympathetic? Maybe he is just playing along for now, and exposing him for a fraud later? I think you are just being argumentative here. You've once again admitted you've not played the game and frankly I haven't either. But notice if this was so upsetting, why didn't Gies explain the context? What exactly did Geralt say in that dialog option? He claims this is somehow offensive but yet he refuses to discuss specifics.

Gies claims in reference to this "the message I saw it conveying was abhorrent". What message is that? I'm just guessing but he appears to be claiming the game is condoning or encouraging violence to women. How does allowing a dialog option do this? He goes on, "the inclusion of so much violence explicitly directed against women"...
Really? From my understanding there is violence against a lot of people. So if violence toward women is not more prevalent than violence toward men, is he wrong? Is he being unobjective? I'd think so. How about you?

Take this quote...
"When they're not being murdered, women in The Witcher 3 are comically sexualized. Nudity is everywhere — think Game of Thrones on HBO"

Doesn't that make it seem the entire game is killing women or using them for sex? Please, when you play the game tell me how true you think this is....

This so-called journalist is intentionally leading people to an exaggerated, thus false, conclusion about the game. I really don't see how you can defend this review as sincere.

Did I post this one before?
Sorry if I did
Seems relevant if not:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/9860-Final-Fantasy-XIII-A-Completely-Objective-Review

Are you dense? How many fucking times are you going to repeat the same stupid bullshit over and over again? Quit fucking trolling. We've already discussed that video and Jim Sterling and how he's begging the question for pages. No one here is claiming honest opinion cannot be part of an objective review. As long as that honest opinion is relevant to the quality of the game and not some social justice soap boxing...

I notice how you never seem to discuss any specifics that ever get brought up. When you are shown to be wrong, you just change the topic, often going back in circles to old disproven arguments. What a troll...

All I read is him mentioning what the wife went through and not mentioning what the husband went through.

And I read that piece of of vomited out crap and here's a delectable paragraph :

''Other moments are truly worthy of eye-rolling — as when one male character criticizes a woman for going into battle with her shirt hanging open, which is really the snake eating its own tail of video game sexism in a game where a significant portion of its speaking female characters are similarly and impractically exposed. Even Ciri, a daughter figure for Geralt and someone revealed to be incredibly powerful in her own right, walks around with her shirt unbuttoned in the middle, with a pretty clear view of a bra underneath — even when her attire changes to feature a fur-lined collar in colder climates.''

The guy slams a soldier who shamed a woman for wearing a revealing shirt into battle, then hypocritically slams the game by saying Ciri is wearing too much revealing attire. Kotaku/10 -YellowTabloid who didn't sleep with the Kotaku editor.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2015/05/31/why-feminist-frequency-is-dead-wrong-about-the-witcher-3/

First, I think this is a pretty good summary of the problem with Anita and The Witcher 3, although there is certainly a lot more that could be detailed. I don't believe Anita realizes that she cannot use her amateurish critiques with this game the same way she does with others. As has already been stated multiple times, TW3 is a very complex and nuanced game. Many things have a reason for being the way they are.

It will be interesting to see just how much she keeps pressing against the game and showing just how much she doesn't care to actually research what she criticizes.

The crappy thing about this review is what we don't see. Where is the talk of all the strong women in the game that are also wearing some pretty amazing clothes (imo). For those who haven't played, here are some character portraits. None of this should be a spoiler, as it's just some artwork that exactly represent how these women appear in game.

Triss
Yennefer
Cerys
Queen Bran
Priscilla

It's a shame people want to constantly overlook these characters to fulfill an agenda. The ladies are well dressed, tough, confident, and play a very important role in Geralt's journey. Yet, reading that Polygon review, you would never know any of these girls existed. To them, the game is "oppressively misogynistic" and little else, all because of a few examples they nitpicked from an incredibly diverse cast.

Do you have a windows into Arthur Gies mind or something? Why are you so sure that his honest opinions are not being expressed? Stop trying to be the thought police!
What? No he's saying it's hypocritical of the game that the soldier shames that one character when they're all dressed like that - that level of female skin exposure seems to be the norm for that society so to have a soldier blast the female character for a level of dress that seems to conform to social norms for that society seems bizarre and laughable - that's my reading of his take on it anyway!