Objectivity in news sites in the light of GamerGate

In GamerGate through its progress, a thought was developed that news sites should be objective. this article aim to show that the objectivity which members of GamerGate strive for in the media, transformed into idealized to the point of meaningless form which is not achievable and would only hinder the usage of media as a consumer

The origin of the issue start with the idea of objectivity. in the discussion the word objective, which wasn't necessary the role of the news site to begin with as news article inherently contain analyze  in manner that show clear cut separation but yet linked to facts which are indeed objective.

In writing, the objectivity is more of a scale, in most cases the writer would write based of facts something that is true, but you will always have his own input in it(as a subject write it), whatever he want to insert or not. in the interpretive kind, which is practiced in journalism as form of recording events(in some sense pretty close to historiography today), just the mere "x happened" or "x gonna be released" is not enough as there is always context to the release. yes, there is the factual sources as evidently, it is based on real event, which in fact happen or gonna happen in the case of news, but the core of the writing need to give context or interpretation on what does it mean with connection to other events just as much, and in the case of news site its can contain possible interpretation on the future.

Otherwise, as the alternative GamerGate's advocates want, its would even more obfuscate the subjective realm of the writer, and indeed the current way of conduct operate as its operate in order to combat it, in many cases such kind of writing include at first the clear cut events being reported as well clear separated part on what the interpretation of the writer, which include how does such news arrive today by connection to other events or phenomena, and as news mainly report on the present to near future its include views on where does it lead.

Example of it can be seen in the most questionable sites such as Kotaku and Polygon, which had a lot of backlash in recent months. in their news articles never really claimed otherwise nor did any other site, they always had section with the facts which is the overview or in other words the objective part, as well the interpretation for such events, in most cases separated with mark like "its could be seen", "as I see it" and other derivatives that declare "this part is not factual but the analysis" in the end.

The fact the sites reports have subjective elements its not far from the role of the media to interpret and in fact I would say that its derive to indistinguishable from its  primary role, to report about the present and the possibilities in the near future from this present as they are the one knowledgeable and have time to research as well develop a view to judge by. with the analogy to history, its close to the way historian develop a way to research, hence way to look on the phenomena he researching.

such view of objectivity also leaked in even more flawed manner to review, which members of GamerGate advocated to striving for 100% objective review, in other words, overview, when in fact such notion isn't even the basis and intention of  review to begin with.

ultimately the review will strive to give a image to the consumer on how the game work as a unity, view that inherently subjective by its role and how its operated by. its OK to disagree with review as in Bayonetta 2 or more recently with the backlash against Hatred. but to silence the writer would mean the death of the review and transforming it to a mere overview which would still contain the writer opinion only in far more hidden manner.

To exemplify what I mean by it, review meant to be more on the subjective analytic side of the objectivity scale, in it the main content its not the mere facts, if we compare it to math "1+1=2", but what does the fact means and what they create, hence if I add  unit of "sheep" with another unit of "sheep" I will have two different  unit of the kind "sheep" which will create a herd. similarly to the analogue  the review aim to analyze why the gameplay working or not working; what is the visual appeal or the lack of in the game, not just fidelity but under such category there is also the consistency of the theme, its connection to interactivity and more connection that inherently subjective.

Furthermore on the obfuscation of transforming the review to just an overview, not only contain within it just objective facts as evidently different people will focus in it on different things. and in itself without explanation and the analysis would be meaningless as a guide to the consumer, as just saying "the graphics look outdated" or even "the graphical elements can confuse in x,y,z instances" its not enough as the inherent subjective element that stand in its core is not explained and in fact even more dangerously in such style of objective report remain hidden as if its not there.


Honestly, I don't see the appeal of objective review, When I buy a game I don't see how an overview can help me decide, as its lack any context or explanation. behind such ideas I would argue that lie exactly what GamerGate as a platform that advocate to openness  can be seen as form of censorship for opinion some group of gamers don't like(like in the case of Bayoneta 2 review). pretty similar to the straw-man "SJW" which try to kill any voice that don't agree to its worldview . furthermore its hide the core problem, which not discussed as much here but I may elaborate in the future, that the news used as a long hand of advertisement, and therefore can be less critical and help to gamers as consumer. something that can be seen since the early video game reviews newspaper which were nothing more then a toy advertisement block. the recent case of Kotaku not invited, exemplify it to me even more that such view didn't change under this foundation, nor did I see indication of less bribery in the form of press kit, rewards for bias reports(like in Shadow of Mordor if I remember correctly) and review guides, which give foundation to far bigger problems then just a "SJW" review/

Game as art

 The subject of games as art, art as media with deeper meaning, is a long heated debate. The debate have multiply facades, staring with the terminology itself and with the question “What is a game?”, question that till these day perplexing many due to the different world and ways to communicate that each game present within itself.

Although terminology can be hard, it is almost a non-issue.  Answering this question might help to progress the discussion, but its clearly apparent that one clear definition can't be achieved, due to the inherent nature of the subject. It seems much as open to change, both by the perception of the player, and by the creators.who unlike other mediums have far more open space in the design of the message.

The second issue people struggle with is the way the message being conveyed. unlike other art forms, the message portrayed in the game is far more subtle and less focused. even if it tries to be more apparent, its interactive nature makes the language  of the message harder to recognize by known tools form previous media, such as cinema, as they're inherently different.

This interactivity and direct player involvement so inherent to the game as media that none of the other media forms can help explaining the message themselves, and when looking for it, there need to be look within the game itself and after it, see how does outsiders media help it.

Furthermore just like in paintings, music and other media we consume, not every piece try to have a meaningful message. Its might have some message, but definitely not something as deep or even engaging. People, who claim that every game has meaning often get a rightful response that certain titles lack this deeper meaning being talked about in the overall premise.

That of course not saying there is no message. Its might be insignificant one or pointless, but every game does have some story to it, and some goals that drive the players. The difference tends to happen because the interactive nature, which change for example the story from closed story, with begging, conflict and ending to open and forming story. This can be seen even in the simple games such as “Pong” or “Tetris”, which often come as an example. The story within them is the progress of the players, and through it, the game invoke many emotions in order to push the player just a little further.

I do see where people against this look are coming from, especially through the mangled use of “art” in such a pointless manner from many critique, which use the term just to attack it on the cultural level but without giving clear indication on the deeper questions that need to be ask, within such definition.

What I can't see is the attempt to reduce games to a meaningless activity. Yes, not every game have definite meaning, and even if its have some meaning, its can turn to be more on the relative to the person. But in all cases people don't play games just to play games, we have a drive to play through them, its can be from the story and character interaction or even to the challenge, and the personal improvement in the mechanics compare to one self or the community. And statements such as “Game is only entertaining\ for fun” or the general reduction of the merit are just as fallacious and missing the point game.

In the end, the discussion around the issue its not inherently bad even if some use it, and its certainly can expand the look we have on games and the ways we can evaluate them. A more moderate look can certainly help to make a more fruitful investigation and less to pollute the initial look from non-interactive media.