User:Rhoark/sandbox/PerreaultParadigm
The Gamergate controversy developed in three ways. The first of these is that it started a conversation about journalism ethics.[2] A blog run by Jenni Goodchild collected allegations from anonymous contributors. These included: lack of transparency in game journalists' personal and professional connections, using game media as a platform to advance social justice, conspiring with the Digital Games Research Association, and collusion between different publications to shape an agenda.[3] The charge of collusion seemed to gain support from the near-simultaneous publication from several outlets arguing for the end of gamer identity.[4] The idea of a conspiracy within academia were largely dismissed, but discussion of the other allegations continues within Gamergate.[5] The second line of development was a sustained pattern of misogynist harassment related to gaming being historically male-dominated.[6] This gender bias itself exists in part due to attitudes present in early games journalism, persisting through the 1990's.[7] The third strand of the controversy consisted of conservative pundits who objected to progressive politicization of video games.[8]
Journalists tended to adopt two tacks in reasserting legitimacy in the face of the controversy. The first of these was to distance themselves from the gaming audience while emphasizing parallels between their own work and classic mainstream journalism. The second way was to cast themselves as source of paternal guidance for gamers.[9] The paternal stance served as a natural extension to game journalism's traditional role of providing guidance on buying and playing games. Journalists adopting this style framed the controversy around the motivations of people engaging in harassment. They dismissed ethical allegations out of hand because of the existence of that harassment.[10] Others responded readily to the charges, but redirected discussion towards harassment in order to condemn it.[11] Journalists felt it was urgent to respond to harassment because they were situated in the community where it was happening, yet at same time they paradoxically had to adopt a disciplinarian tone distanced from that same community.[12] While journalists saw this as an expansion of their relationship with the audience, some gamers saw it as being rejected as an audience.[13] The choice to cover motives for harassment reflected journalists' view that players are a subject for coverage just as much as the games themselves are.[14] Those conducting harassment believe that criticism of the games they enjoy will lead to these types of games becoming unavailable in the future.[15] Some journalists refused to acknowledge the ethics angle of the controversy at all, believing that to do so would legitimize the harassment.[16] Some felt a need to distance themselves from the audience in order to preserve the legitimacy of their craft.[17] For others, it was more a matter of withholding coverage as a means of punishing the transgressors.[18] The situation was a dilemma of how to appropriately balance coverage of the ethics discussion with condemnation of harassment. In most articles, the ethics angle was addressed in some fashion.[19]
Some game journalists acknowledged that reviewers did sometimes engage in criticized practices, such as accepting gifts from game publishers. These instances were cast as remnants of a paradigm that game journalism in the main was already moving beyond.[20] Game journalists regarded their present work as essentially the same kind of activity as traditional journalism. In this way, they defended the integrity of their craft by placing questionable practices, when they occur, as by definition outside the sphere of actual journalism.[21] Game journalists articulated their role as the promulgation of truth, sometimes contra the desires of both game publishers and audiences.[22] More than simply reporting facts, however, game journalists saw it as their responsibility to mediate discussions about social issues and counter harmful practices in their audience.[23] Most journalists who were interviewed attributed Gamergate's attacks on the media to resistance against journalists promoting diversity and inclusiveness, and they responded to the pressure by redoubling their commitment to these values.[24] Game journalists further defended the legitimacy of their field by noting it shared the same ethical standards as mainstream journalism, as in following the SPJ code of ethics, avoiding conflicts of interest in connection with industry, and being transparent about personal connections.[25] Criticism of game journalism was compared to perennial criticisms of liberal bias in mainstream journalism, with critics cast as reactionary or peddling conspiracy theories.[26] The intent was to discredit criticism through analogy to other discredited arguments and enlist the rhetorical support of mainstream journalists.[27]
Some elements of Gamergate criticism were typical of journalism criticism in general, addressing transparency in relationships and independence from the industry it covers. Other demands were less typical, such as to forgo a social-justice orientation in favor of offering consumer advice.[28] Journalists responded both in a paternal fashion and as traditional journalists. In the paternal role they spoke in a disciplinary voice and dismissed ethical charges out of hand, justified by many of those claims being unsubstantiated.[29] Game journalists tried to understand the connection between the ethical charges and harassment of women and to explain this to a larger audience. There was no rational explanation, but they attempted to understand and explain it since the harassment came from within their audience.[30] At other times, journalists in the paternalistic mode saw harassment as delegitimizing ethical claims or that harassers do not deserve a voice.[31] Game journalists sought to maintain the legitimacy of their craft by linking it with traditional journalistic practices and organizations, such as the Society of Professional Journalists.[32] They acknowledged that problems existed in game journalism in the past. In reaction to Gamergate criticisms, games journalists explicitly broke with the former paradigm of the enthusiast-press.[33]
- ^ Perreault, Gregory P.; Vos, Tim P. (September 30, 2016). "The GamerGate controversy and journalistic paradigm maintenance". Journalism. doi:10.1177/1464884916670932.
{{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|1=(help) - ^ Perreault, Gregory P.; Vos, Tim P. (September 30, 2016). "The GamerGate controversy and journalistic paradigm maintenance". Journalism. doi:10.1177/1464884916670932.
The controversy developed in three ways. First, it created a discussion about journalism ethics.
{{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|1=(help) - ^ Perreault, Gregory P.; Vos, Tim P. (September 30, 2016). "The GamerGate controversy and journalistic paradigm maintenance". Journalism. doi:10.1177/1464884916670932.
Jenni Goodchild's blog about GamerGate collected the charges from anonymous posters: that gaming journalists were not transparent about their personal and professional connections to game developers, that gaming journalists were pushing a social justice agenda (Goodchild, 2014a), that academics involved in the Digital Games Research Association were conspiring with journalists to shift the agenda (Chess and Shaw, 2015; Goodchild, 2014a), and that gaming journalists on a private mailing list were colluding to shape game coverage (Goodchild, 2014a).
{{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|1=(help) - ^ Perreault, Gregory P.; Vos, Tim P. (September 30, 2016). "The GamerGate controversy and journalistic paradigm maintenance". Journalism. doi:10.1177/1464884916670932.
The charges of collusion seemed to have some support among critics when, from 28 to 30 August 2014, numerous news organizations, including Kotaku, Wired, The Guardian, and Polygon, published articles arguing 'gamers are dead' (Massanari, 2015).
{{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|1=(help) - ^ Perreault, Gregory P.; Vos, Tim P. (September 30, 2016). "The GamerGate controversy and journalistic paradigm maintenance". Journalism. doi:10.1177/1464884916670932.
The charges of an academic conspiracy and institutional collusion were dismissed in large part, although discussion of the other charges continues in GamerGate circles.
{{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|1=(help) - ^ Perreault, Gregory P.; Vos, Tim P. (September 30, 2016). "The GamerGate controversy and journalistic paradigm maintenance". Journalism. doi:10.1177/1464884916670932.
Second, female game developers and critics suffered through a sustained campaign of misogynistic attacks (Golding, 2014) largely stemming from its origins in a malecentric gaming culture.
{{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|1=(help) - ^ Perreault, Gregory P.; Vos, Tim P. (September 30, 2016). "The GamerGate controversy and journalistic paradigm maintenance". Journalism. doi:10.1177/1464884916670932.
This culture was developed in no small part through early gaming journalism itself (Cote, 2015). Nintendo Power in the 1990s did not 'treat women as equal members of the gaming community' (Cote, 2015: 16–17).
{{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|1=(help) - ^ Perreault, Gregory P.; Vos, Tim P. (September 30, 2016). "The GamerGate controversy and journalistic paradigm maintenance". Journalism. doi:10.1177/1464884916670932.
Third, in part through the attention of conservative pundits, critics questioned the authority of game journalists to critique sexist and violent depictions in video games. Why, the critics asked, couldn't the journalists just focus on games for what they were – a type of technical pastime – and avoid 'political correctness' altogether?
{{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|1=(help) - ^ Perreault, Gregory P.; Vos, Tim P. (September 30, 2016). "The GamerGate controversy and journalistic paradigm maintenance". Journalism. doi:10.1177/1464884916670932.
In the face of the controversy, journalists articulated two distinct roles – that of a paternal figure and that of a traditional journalist. Meanwhile, journalists engaged in paradigm repair by distancing themselves from the hostile activities of some of their readers and by linking their work to classic journalistic entities. These strategies largely map onto the two roles identified.
{{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|1=(help) - ^ Perreault, Gregory P.; Vos, Tim P. (September 30, 2016). "The GamerGate controversy and journalistic paradigm maintenance". Journalism. doi:10.1177/1464884916670932.
This paternal role is predicated on giving advice – a natural extension of gaming journalists' history of serving as a sort of purchas-ing guide – but not an extension welcomed by a portion of their audience. They articu-lated this role through indicating how they envision their audience. This role was used for paradigm repair by discursively framing arguments about the motivations for the harassment of women and, in some cases, by disregarding the ethical allegations aimed at the journalists, such as lack of transparency about close ties to the gaming industry. Simply put, they dismissed the legitimacy of the GamerGate ethical allegations because of the widespread harassment that accompanied the charges.
{{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|1=(help) - ^ Perreault, Gregory P.; Vos, Tim P. (September 30, 2016). "The GamerGate controversy and journalistic paradigm maintenance". Journalism. doi:10.1177/1464884916670932.
Gaming journalists responded to the ethical questions regarding their work with willingness and eagerness, yet they quickly pushed attention to the gamers' harassment of women in order to condemn it.
{{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|1=(help) - ^ Perreault, Gregory P.; Vos, Tim P. (September 30, 2016). "The GamerGate controversy and journalistic paradigm maintenance". Journalism. doi:10.1177/1464884916670932.
Throughout the discourse, journalists were eager to respond to the harassment, per-haps because they are also 'gamers'. However, journalists put discursive distance between themselves and their audience by asserting and practicing a paternal role – a role where they acted as disciplinarian and moral voice.
{{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|1=(help) - ^ Perreault, Gregory P.; Vos, Tim P. (September 30, 2016). "The GamerGate controversy and journalistic paradigm maintenance". Journalism. doi:10.1177/1464884916670932.
This supports the idea that gaming journalists felt compelled to guide their audience, not just to be adver-sarial to it. So, while the gamers who only wanted the traditional buyers' guide claimed journalists were rejecting them as an audience (Cote, 2015; Goodchild, 2014b), journal-ists saw an expanded, paternal relationship and role.
{{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|1=(help) - ^ Perreault, Gregory P.; Vos, Tim P. (September 30, 2016). "The GamerGate controversy and journalistic paradigm maintenance". Journalism. doi:10.1177/1464884916670932.
In a sense, journalists modeled their professional obligation by attempting to distill the motivations of those involved in the harassment. This falls in line with Totilo's (2014c) argument that gaming journalism should be about the people playing games – not just previewing new releases. The dis-cursive strategy employed here is one of explanation.
{{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|1=(help) - ^ Perreault, Gregory P.; Vos, Tim P. (September 30, 2016). "The GamerGate controversy and journalistic paradigm maintenance". Journalism. doi:10.1177/1464884916670932.
As a result, those conducting the harassment feel that the kinds of games they love will be taken from them if they are subjected to certain kinds of intense criticism (Stuart, 2014).
{{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|1=(help) - ^ Perreault, Gregory P.; Vos, Tim P. (September 30, 2016). "The GamerGate controversy and journalistic paradigm maintenance". Journalism. doi:10.1177/1464884916670932.
Some journalists were unwilling to acknowledge the ethics aspect of GamerGate, arguing that giving credence to ethics complaints ultimately legitimized the harassment (Participant I, Participant J).
{{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|1=(help) - ^ Perreault, Gregory P.; Vos, Tim P. (September 30, 2016). "The GamerGate controversy and journalistic paradigm maintenance". Journalism. doi:10.1177/1464884916670932.
Journalists expressed that the harassment threatened to delegitimize their craft, not because of problems with their journalism, but out of disgust with the audience (Totilo, 2014d).
{{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|1=(help) - ^ Perreault, Gregory P.; Vos, Tim P. (September 30, 2016). "The GamerGate controversy and journalistic paradigm maintenance". Journalism. doi:10.1177/1464884916670932.
This approach amounts to a sort of punishment of those involved in the harassment by not granting them coverage. In this case, the discursive strategy employed was one of creating distance from gaming bullies by declining to respond to the ethics allegations.
{{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|1=(help) - ^ Perreault, Gregory P.; Vos, Tim P. (September 30, 2016). "The GamerGate controversy and journalistic paradigm maintenance". Journalism. doi:10.1177/1464884916670932.
Most journalists did say they struggled with how to address the ethical allegations while also making sure to express disgust with the harassment of female game developers and critics. The journalists interviewed in this study, and indeed, the majority of articles did address the ethical allegations raised regarding their role and their connection with the gaming industry.
{{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|1=(help) - ^ Perreault, Gregory P.; Vos, Tim P. (September 30, 2016). "The GamerGate controversy and journalistic paradigm maintenance". Journalism. doi:10.1177/1464884916670932.
Some of the discourse acknowledged that bad gaming journalists were no doubt guilty of some of the things for which they were criticized, such as taking gifts from the gaming industry. But these 'bad apples' were portrayed as holdovers from a past era, before a professional turn in gaming journalism in the last decade.
{{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|1=(help) - ^ Perreault, Gregory P.; Vos, Tim P. (September 30, 2016). "The GamerGate controversy and journalistic paradigm maintenance". Journalism. doi:10.1177/1464884916670932.
The gaming journalists studied here defended good gaming journalism as no different from 'traditional journalism', to use the label of one participant (Participant G). Gaming journalists served the same kinds of roles and delivered the same kinds of social benefits as traditional journalism. This discourse served as its own kind of paradigm repair. It marked the controversial gaming journalism as unworthy of the label of journalism and posited common cause with the role performed by good journalists everywhere.
{{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|1=(help) - ^ Perreault, Gregory P.; Vos, Tim P. (September 30, 2016). "The GamerGate controversy and journalistic paradigm maintenance". Journalism. doi:10.1177/1464884916670932.
One of the chief discursive strategies noted that the role played by good gaming journalism was the role played by all good journalism. The role of a journalist is to tell the truth, and gaming journalists proudly claimed this was the role they performed, often in the face of game industry resistance and audience indifference.
{{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|1=(help) - ^ Perreault, Gregory P.; Vos, Tim P. (September 30, 2016). "The GamerGate controversy and journalistic paradigm maintenance". Journalism. doi:10.1177/1464884916670932.
But, above all, gaming journalists discursively constructed their role as being facilitators for the exchange of socially relevant discussion and debate: gaming journalists were 'improving the conversation culturally about what it means to play video games' (Participant A) and 'engage with gamers' about social issues (Kain, 2014b). Thus, gaming journalists were critics – not just reviewers, but adversaries of practices harmful to the public good (Totilo, 2014d), and facilitators of a 'safe space for our readers, writers and contributors' (Grant, 2014).
{{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|1=(help) - ^ Perreault, Gregory P.; Vos, Tim P. (September 30, 2016). "The GamerGate controversy and journalistic paradigm maintenance". Journalism. doi:10.1177/1464884916670932.
Indeed, nearly all of the game journalists said journalists were targeted in GamerGate because they advocated for diversity and inclusiveness in the gaming industry. They nearly all pledged to redouble those efforts in the face of criticism and harassment. Thus, the gaming journalists emphatically defended their journalism in normative terms – they were critics of sexist and violent depictions in games and promoters of a diverse public sphere and civil dialogue.
{{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|1=(help) - ^ Perreault, Gregory P.; Vos, Tim P. (September 30, 2016). "The GamerGate controversy and journalistic paradigm maintenance". Journalism. doi:10.1177/1464884916670932.
Another discursive strategy noted that good gaming journalists followed the same standards and guidelines practiced by all journalists. For example, they followed the Society of Professional Journalists' 'code of ethics' (Grant, 2014); they avoided conflicts of interest and the game industry had no effect on 'our editorial decision-making process' (McNamara, 2014); they were 'straightforward' with readers (Participant P), 'upfront' about professional relationships (McNamara, 2014), and practitioners of 'transparency' (Grant, 2014).
{{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|1=(help) - ^ Perreault, Gregory P.; Vos, Tim P. (September 30, 2016). "The GamerGate controversy and journalistic paradigm maintenance". Journalism. doi:10.1177/1464884916670932.
The gaming journalists' argued that criticism of their craft was in line with criticism of all journalism. Sometimes that criticism was warranted; although criticism about being too dependent on industry sources was 'an issue in journalism everywhere' (Grant, 2014). As one journalist puts it, 'these problems are faced in other areas of journalism as well', including 'politics' (Kain, 2014a). Simply put, criticism of 'the press' was as old as the press itself (Gera, 2014). And gamer critics, the argument went, used the same trite criticisms used against all journalists – for instance, they are too 'liberal' (Gera, 2014) or 'biased' (Kain, 2014a). What's more the critics were largely of the same cloth as those finding fault with other sound journalism – they were 'Tea-Party-ish' groups (Participant J) and 'reactionary moral campaigners' (Stuart, 2014) who spun 'conspiracy theories' (Totilo, 2014b).
{{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|1=(help) - ^ Perreault, Gregory P.; Vos, Tim P. (September 30, 2016). "The GamerGate controversy and journalistic paradigm maintenance". Journalism. doi:10.1177/1464884916670932.
Old forms of press criticism had been dismissed, and so, the argument went, should the criticism of gaming journalism. Implicit in this discursive strategy was also a call to all professional journalists, who had no doubt been unfairly criticized in the past, to come to the defense of gaming journalists.
{{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|1=(help) - ^ Perreault, Gregory P.; Vos, Tim P. (September 30, 2016). "The GamerGate controversy and journalistic paradigm maintenance". Journalism. doi:10.1177/1464884916670932.
And yet, the GamerGate criticism was more of a mixed bag: some elements of public criticism were more typical – calls for journalists to maintain professional independence from industry officials, academics, and other journalists and for transparency in relationships that did exist; but other elements of public criticism were less typical – calls for journalists to jettison their paternal role in critiquing gamer culture and a social justice orientation in order to focus as a buyers' guide
{{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|1=(help) - ^ Perreault, Gregory P.; Vos, Tim P. (September 30, 2016). "The GamerGate controversy and journalistic paradigm maintenance". Journalism. doi:10.1177/1464884916670932.
Journalists responded by articulating their role in two ways: as a paternal figure and as a traditional journalist. Journalists adopted a paternal figure role by providing a moral, disciplinary voice to their audience – gamers – a niche group of which gaming journalists are largely members. In adopting this role, journalists repaired their paradigm discursively in two ways: by trying to explain the actions of a minority in their community to a larger audience and by dismissing the ethical charges altogether – an action justified by the fact that many of the claims were baseless (Totilo, 2014a).
{{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|1=(help) - ^ Perreault, Gregory P.; Vos, Tim P. (September 30, 2016). "The GamerGate controversy and journalistic paradigm maintenance". Journalism. doi:10.1177/1464884916670932.
In trying to explain the action of harassment to their larger audience, gaming journalists were trying to understand the connection between the ethical charges regarding their work and the harassment of women in gaming and gaming criticism. There was no rational explanation for the harassment done to women; yet gaming journalists attempted to understand and convey that understanding since gamers, the community the journalists cover, perpetrated the harassment.
{{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|1=(help) - ^ Perreault, Gregory P.; Vos, Tim P. (September 30, 2016). "The GamerGate controversy and journalistic paradigm maintenance". Journalism. doi:10.1177/1464884916670932.
Yet in other cases, this paternalistic role encouraged journalists to largely dismiss the charges outright, in that they viewed the harassment as delegitimizing the ethical charges made against them. This is a moral, disciplinary judgment, which argues that those conducting the harassment do not deserve to be granted a voice.
{{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|1=(help) - ^ Perreault, Gregory P.; Vos, Tim P. (September 30, 2016). "The GamerGate controversy and journalistic paradigm maintenance". Journalism. doi:10.1177/1464884916670932.
Journalists also adopted the role of the traditional journalist, linking themselves with established journalistic entities and practices. Journalists engaged in paradigm repair through this role, both in interviews and in published articles, by discursively linking their work to professional journalistic organizations, such as the Society for Professional Journalists, and by noting their similarities with traditional journalism – gaming journalists performed similar roles, followed similar guidelines of professionalism, faced the same set of marginalized critics, and provided real news about a culturally and economically important industry
{{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|1=(help) - ^ Perreault, Gregory P.; Vos, Tim P. (September 30, 2016). "The GamerGate controversy and journalistic paradigm maintenance". Journalism. doi:10.1177/1464884916670932.
The journalists acknowledged that gaming journalism had suffered from inadequacies in the past; these had been the unwritten assumptions of the old paradigm (Bennett et al., 1985; Carlson, 2012) that they were now ready to explicitly address. Thus, in face of the GamerGate criticism, the journalists decisively broke with the old paradigm of an enthusiast-press and claimed their place within the paradigm of traditional, public-minded journalism
{{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|1=(help)