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.
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/
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/
