Region 7 Spring Regional Conference March 30-31 at Iowa State

From reporting for mobile devices, to crowd sourcing on Twitter, to writing for magazines in the digital age and finding your way as a freelancer, this year’s Region 7 Spring Regional Conference has something for everyone.

The conference kicks off with a welcome reception from 7 to 9 p.m. at the Olde Main Brewing Co. and Restaurant in the heart of downtown Ames, Iowa.

Saturday is packed full of sessions that will help inspire and energize student reporters, early- and mid-career journalists and seasoned veterans. The workshops, Mark of Excellence Awards ceremony and keynote luncheon will all conveniently take place at Iowa State’s Memorial Union, where a block of hotel rooms has also been reserved, with room rates starting at $80. Call 515- 296-6848 to book your room and mention SPJ to get the conference discount.

Register for the conference here.

Follow the Twitter hashtag #SPJRegion7 for updates.

The sessions and speakers include:
Keynote Speaker “Covering Politics in Iowa, the Presidential Battleground,” with Kathie Obradovich, political columnist for the Des Moines Register: In a presidential election year, Obradovich has a front row seat to all the drama of the Iowa caucuses, campaign trail and candidates. Hear how this Iowa State alum helps lead the Register’s award-winning political coverage and how her job as a political journalist has evolved in the age of Twitter.

Reporting for (and with) Mobile Devices,” with Jenn Jarvis, Internet director, KWWL Channel 7 in Waterloo, Iowa: Tablet and eReader ownership doubled just over Christmas, new Pew research shows. How does this change the way we do our jobs as journalists and storytellers?

 

“Using Social Media to Find Sources, Break News and Attract Attention,” with Dave Sheets, sports editor, St. Louis Post-Dispatch: Learn how to use Twitter, Facebook and other social media to spot trends, establish sources, share stories and build your brand.

 

“Basics of Multimedia Storytelling,” with Mary Cox, newsroom coach: Want to boost your storytelling skills using multimedia? Cox, an Iowa State alum, will show you how to write web-optimized headlines and provocative abstracts, shoot better videos, gather strong sound and look and sound better on camera.

“Creating a Data and Document-Driven Newsroom,” with Joel Campbell, assistant professor in the Department of Communications at Brigham Young University and former reporter and editor at the (Salt Lake City) Deseret News: This session teaches journalists how to effectively integrate public data and documents into their reporting. Walk away with dozens of ideas for document-based stories, an understanding of state and federal freedom of information laws, and strategies for acquiring records, overcoming illegal denials and lowering outrageous copy fees. The session is useful for beginners and FOI veterans.

“Ethics in the Real World,” with Elizabeth Donald, reporter, Belleville News-Democrat in Belleville, Ill.: Donald, a newspaper reporter for 15 years, knows first-hand that personal ethics statements should not be crafted on the spot during a difficult assignment. It’s something we should all consider ahead of time to decide what we will do, what we don’t do and what we will hold our noses and do.

“Learn from Oprah’s Boss,” with Eileen Solomon, journalism professor at Webster University in St. Louis: Name a job in journalism and Solomon’s had it. The Emmy-award-winning producer spent 12 years in television and radio news in St. Louis, Miami, Tucson and Baltimore, where she was Oprah’s boss. Solomon knows how to produce the producers.

“Magazines in the Digital Age,” with Lori Blachford, journalism professor, Drake University: Who says magazines are dead? Blachford, who’s worked for The Des Moines Register, Better Homes and Gardens Special Interest Publications and Country Home, knows hows magazines are evolving and adapting to the world of online publications, tablets and smartphones.

“Taking the Plunge into Freelancing,” with David Sheets, president, St. Louis Pro Chapter, Society of Professional Journalists: As more journalists switch from staff positions at big media outlets to solo work, what do they need to do to get started, stand out among the increased competition and keep work steadily coming in?

Conference Schedule at a Glance

8:30 a.m.: Registration & Check In
8:30 a.m.: Breakfast/Regional Meeting
9-10:15 a.m.: Sessions
10:30-11:45 a.m.: Sessions
Noon-1:30 p.m.: Mark of Excellence Awards Luncheon, Keynote
1:45-3 p.m.: Sessions
3:15-4:30 p.m.: Sessions

4:45-5:15 p.m.: How Can We Revive the Iowa Pro Chapter?

This conference is made possible with support from our sponsors, which include the Iowa Newspaper Foundation and the Leo Mores Chapter of SPJ at Iowa State.

Tags: ,

  • Pingback: The Heartland Beat » Blog Archive » Tell us what you want to see at the regional conference()

  • Ewok Patrol

    That’s an easy enough game to replace. It’s on steam in HD for $19.99 right now, so way cheaper during a sale. Bonus: There’s no disc to lose.

    Edit: Just to be clear, I think it’s Windows only. If you game on a Mac, you’re going to run into some problems.

  • Silhouette

    Yeah, and the Steam re-release got a new expansion recently, I think.

  • Vetarnias

    Thanks for your reply.

    I’m aware that AirPlay and the Kunkels are different projects. But it’s difficult not to think of the Kunkels as “Koretzky’s baby”, when you didn’t seem to have much of an interest in video games reporting until (per the recent CJR article) GamerGate invited itself into an SPJ Twitter effort. In other words, there is a direct link between GG and the Kunkels, and it passes through you. Without you, there would be no Kunkels, and without GamerGate’s intervention, you’d be doing something else at present. (This perhaps accounts for the accusation of opportunism which you discuss above.)

    That is what these first Kunkels Awards will have to do: wash off the taint of GamerGate, a movement about “ethics in video games journalism” that sees itself as absolutely under no obligation to behave ethically. I remember that moment at AirPlay: “Gawker destroys lives!” Nothing new there; but what of Breitbart, may I ask? (Milo Y. has practically become GG’s public face at this point… would you call “ethical” a writer who makes use of Patreon hacked data to write a non-story about a rich guy legally donating money to a couple of favorite GamerGate targets?)

    From what I could see, though, both Gaters and opponents to GamerGate (I’m not saying “Anti-GG” because, contrary to what GG and even what you said at the time of AirPlay, there is no structured Anti-GG movement) are eagerly trying to use your awards to make their culture-war point. That GG was doing that was obvious; but when you mentioned in an earlier post that an article you rejected was written by Brianna Wu, I realized that opponents were also doing it, though not as openly. They couldn’t care less that Wu’s piece was especially worthy of an award (beyond being good enough to stand a chance): they submitted it *because* it was written by Brianna Wu, one of GG’s favorite targets this past year.

    Perhaps this accounts for there not being an award for opinion pieces: You (or maybe the SPJ) didn’t want the Kunkels to turn into the Hugo Awards of journalism. Understandable.

    If the Kunkels can foster more serious reporting on the gaming industry by the gaming press, all the better, though I think the mainstream generalist press is in a better position to do serious reporting because (1) it’s much less beholden to the gaming industry for revenue in comparison to the gaming press, which can’t exist without it; (2) it’s capable of taking a critical distance to see what really matters and what to look for, which is uncertain for the gaming press (a less polite way of putting it is that the mainstream press isn’t staffed by fanboys); and (3) it’s for the most part shielded from the desires and dictates of its own readers, readers who, in the case of the gaming press, have shown time and again (and of which GG is the exemplar) that they are prepared to side with the industry against game journalists. I’m not really expecting the Kunkels to vindicate the worth of the gaming press — quite the opposite — but at least they might encourage more games reporting from the mainstream media, if only because a Kunkel will be another frame on the newsroom wall. (I mean, newspapers can’t go on courting a boomer readership forever, can they? The NY Times had a bridge column until earlier this year, for chrissakes.)

    In other words, the Kunkels probably won’t raise the prestige of the gaming
    press, rather than confirm how inadequate the gaming press really is —
    which in the end just plays in the hands of GG, regardless of the
    nature of this inadequacy, and regardless of whether this inadequacy is
    directly or indirectly encouraged by GG itself. And about the gaming press, I don’t think there’s any solution when its own readers are often the problem.

    I’ve mentioned Jeff Gerstmann getting fired from GameSpot for giving low scores to games advertised on the site. That was in 2007, and it’s a clear indication of the ethical pitfalls of the gaming press. But a year before that, *readers themselves* were asking that Gerstmann be fired for giving a low score to one particular game (“The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess”). The low score in question was 8.8/10. This anecdote, I think, encapsulates all that is wrong with both the gaming press and GamerGate.

    Even without opinion categories, I’m predicting that the Kunkel results will be met with the wailing of aggrieved fanboys. And by wailing, I mean, of course, death threats.

    If I may add: That you are not a Gamer, far from casting aspersions on the worth of the Kunkels, reinforces their legitimacy in my view. The problem with too much gaming writing is precisely that it is still the purview of the fanboy. The same fanboy mentality which is at the core of GamerGate, and which dictates that only Gamers (which doesn’t even mean “people who play video games”, but something much narrower) can have valid opinions on the subject. That the Kunkel voting process is kept at arms’ length from the whole Gamer milieu is perhaps the wisest part of this endeavor.

    I think, in the end, that the Kunkels will have to add a Criticism category eventually. What’s still missing from the field of video games is a canon of games writing — by which I don’t mean the dry academic-paper variety which fails to indicate in any way why games *matter* in the first place — and I was hoping the Kunkels might play a significant part in this. But I understand it’s perhaps not the kind of thing the SPJ is meant to deal with. Still, it might be a start.

  • Vetarnias

    “Don’t let them speak, I won’t like what I hear.”

    This has never been my purpose. There’s also a strong point to be made that this is exactly what GG attempted to do, indirectly, by:

    -Targeting advertisers to pull out of outlets GG found “objectionable” (not just the gaming press but the NY Times, Guardian, etc., pretty much everyone except a select group of Gater-approved sites);

    -Systematically linking to archived pages of articles at those publications to deprive them of their circulation and the advertising that comes with it, and mocking those outlets (like VICE) when they call you out about it;

    -The entire motivation behind the DeepFreeze.it blacklist, a smorgasbord of accusations ranging from a few genuine ethical concerns, to being a member of GameJournoPros (it’s a forum of journalists, not the Illuminati), to using a Twitter blockbot (I don’t like the idea behind those, but really…). You’re boycotting NPR for “negative GamerGate coverage” — you’re not even nitpicking the veracity of the various charges made against GG (though you’re quite fond of doing that too!), you just go “it said bad things about us, boycott”.

    The exasperation with GG is that whatever happens, whenever someone associated with GG does something stupid or downright illegal, you always blame someone from outside the movement, the mythical third-party troll. But when the evidence gets overwhelming, your trump card is always that you’re just a hashtag, that you don’t check at the door. I’ve even seen a case where GG dismissed stuff that *even current* Gaters said because they didn’t say it using the GG hashtag. You exist except when you don’t; hell, you might even be both at once: Schrödinger’s Ethics Movement. (But meanwhile, oh, you invent a structured Anti-GG organization that you lump all of your opposition into, just so that you can ask anyone opposing your movement why they defend so-and-so who might-or-might-not have been a pedophile, even if it’s the first time they hear about her.)

    The last straw I think was that Sikh writer whose picture a Gater photoshopped to turn into a Paris terrorist, and the rest of GG went about scrubbing evidence of that prankster’s involvement in their movement (because meddling with a terrorism investigation meant GG wasn’t in the junior league anymore, as far as law enforcement was concerned, and it has no patience for your actuallies and your just-a-hashtags). Worse, I’ve even seen some Gaters chastising the media who had used the photo in question to show how their ethics were deficient.

    I’m sorry, but no, you don’t get to claim the moral high ground for calling the media out on something you created, which doesn’t even qualify as a prank because of the context, and of all the harmful consequences of it, to the Sikh writer in question as well as to the people investigating the Paris attacks.

    It’s like a serial killer going: “Actually, it’s about the incompetence of the Homicide Squad.” You don’t get points. You don’t get plaudits. You get blame and universal scorn, which you entirely deserve.

    Let’s not forget how this little “ethics” movement of yours got started: Not Gerstmann’s firing. Not the Doritos affair. No, your ethics movement got started *over the sex life of an independent game designer*, and was orchestrated by denizens of 4chan who became too toxic even for that place. Everything for salacious lulz.

    You still talk of ethics as some grand idea, while you see yourself as under no obligation to behave ethically. And now you complain why people don’t believe you, even if you have a point. That’s what I meant: GG destroys everything it touches.

    Ethics are too important to be left to GamerGate.

  • ArsVampyre

    And here again with known propaganda.

    I’m sure you’re fond of the rhetoric “Free speech doesn’t mean free from consequences of that speech”. This is the double-edged sword of that. No one is required to give you ad revenue; no one is required not to inform your sponsors that you’re attacking their customers and driving them away. These are consumer actions, the same as say, threatening a boycott over a joke hidden in a game that in your ignorance you label transphobia.

    Deepfreeze.it is about informing readers of potential issues. If the statements are so false, why no libel suits? Since the statements display the evidence of what happened and leave the reader to make their own judgement, how is that bad? Because these are people you support despite whatever they’ve done? Maybe they were just being post-teenage edgelords?

    Lets go on to blaming Gamergate for the photoshop; despite the article, this has been proven and accepted as being by a troll. Some in GamerGate laughed at his perdicament; the man you’re talking about spent over a year helping to call us ‘worse than ISIS’, and now one bad photoshop by someone not related to GamerGate, and we’re responsible again. We have a term for this now it happens so often; “Game dropping” It’s when a journalist looking for additional views to gain more ad revenue preys on your pre-conceived and ignorant bias and uses GamerGate in a totally unrelated article in order to get your attention, and frankly, to get ours. And it works. Worse, you believe it without question or without investigation, and then ignore it when it’s proven false (Just like this was).

    All of these things you claim we do aren’t based in fact. They’re stories made up to cover ethical lapses in journalism, but the journalists making the ethical lapses, and because they support your political cause, you’ll accept them without investigation.

    The truth doesn’t matter to you, only which side you’re on. It doesn’t matter if Sarah Butts is or is not a pedophile who distributes Child Pornography, it only matters that she makes the claim that we do because a website that hosts a discussion forum we use may or may not have also distributed young girls in bikinis, even though the entire thing is anonymous and the two boards aren’t related, and it may as well have been Sarah Butts or Foldable Human who put the alleged CP there anyway, and it was removed as soon as it was reported.

    Facts don’t get in the way of your narrative. There’s no convincing you, because you’re an ideologue. I’m not writing this for you, I’m writing this for neutral parties who will look at what you wrote and take it for face value, without ever investigating, and come to the same ignorant conclusion.

    WAM’s (Women in Action in Media) study proved GamerGate isn’t about harassment (.066% is as good as 0 over tens of thousands). This had been shown before, it’d be shown again. Anita’s week of harassment and threat messages had two messages with the GamerGate hashtag, and the worse of them was ‘Shut the fuck up, Cunt’. Not exactly threatening, and by an account that had only ever used the hashtag for that single tweet (i.e. a troll account). The evidence is astoundingly in GamerGate’s favor when they say it’s about ethics and not about harassment or women, but ironically, you continue to use this alleged and never proven harassment and threats as your shield from examining issues like if it’s ethical for a writer to have a long-term romantic and sexual relationship with the subject of their writing without even disclosing it to the public reading, or if it’s ethical for numerous publications to publish accusations leading to the harassment of emotionally vulnerable and potentially suicidal people on the internet without any investigation or evidence, in order to push the ‘message’, in the same way that some feminists say it’s ok to prosecute and convict innocent people to push the message against ‘rape culture’. Is it ethical to continue using undisclosed affiliate links, despite FCC regulations, like Kotaku was caught doing JUST THIS WEEK? Is it ethical for publications to hide, for over a year, hackers breaking into a database containing thousands of gamers contact information and credit card info because a writer at the publication is married to the PR person of the company that was broken into? Because that’s what happened in Australia regarding EA and a gaming magazine there. These things have real consequences for real people, and they get ignored because they favor the ‘right’ people.

    GamerGate doesn’t care about Quinn. The only thing involving her is the link to Grayson, because he repeatedly wrote about her while being first her close friend (enough to be included in the credits for depression quest), then a romantic and sexual partner (the article about the failed Polaris game jam), all without ever telling anyone, including his editor Totilo, what was going on. The ethical issue isn’t with Quinn, who can do whatever she wants with whoever she wants, but with Grayson. But because Grayson is part of Kotaku and Kotaku doesn’t want it’s laughable ethics questioned, she gets used as the shield. She should be blaming them for doing it, except she’s close friends with so many of them that it’s probably very uncomfortable and she views them as being supportive of her, rather than using her. Sarkessian is only related because she makes herself related. The same with Wu. The same with Harper. Quinn is the only one who didn’t come to pick a fight, but like the others she has jumped on the harassment gravy train, getting donations that give her a salary better than what she was making before. Planned trips to Europe become fleeing from threats. Dox with incorrect phone numbers used as evidence. Wu gives interviews about being threatened and chased from her home, from her office in her home (i.e. she never left). Sarkeesian labels gamers as harassing misogynists based on threats she received from unknown parties, then lets that label fall on us, despite a lack of any link what so ever.

    This is how the chips fall. There is no evidence of GamerGate ever threatening anyone or ever harassing anyone (at least not to a legal definition; laughing at someone or disagreeing with them is not harassment). I spent six months investigating every claim that passed me by, and none of them ever had proof. A link to a tweet that was used by an account that had only ever sent that one tweet, that never interacted with anyone except to troll them, and that never had any association with GamerGate except for one use of the tag. The ‘mythical third-party troll’ that you can find on any given day with the minimum of effort of simply following up and looking at the linked evidence. Consequently, now the harassment claims don’t come with linked evidence, because the evidence doesn’t pan out the way claimed. A good portion of harassment claims are based around a single or a few tweets, generally just political disagreement. The former CEO of twitter even states this.

    Your narrative is a lie, used to protect the guilty by assaulting the innocent and using another innocent as a shield. It’s been transformed into a money making enterprise, but at it’s root, the harassment/threat story is a modern-day fairy tale, with GamerGate as the shadowy monster under the bed that eats children for being progressive gamers, but when you turn the lights on in this story, the shadow is just a shadow, and GamerGate is off in their own room playing video games and wondering why they’re even being mentioned again.

    We proved our claims. Deepfreeze.it has a lot of that evidence. Your claims were debunked. The only thing you have going for them are that they continue to be parroted by guilty or lazy (or both) journalists to people who won’t bother to look if they’re true or even remotely plausible, because your claims already support your bias. We’re your boogeyman, the thing you can blame for all your problems, including those that happened well before GamerGate existed. We use our time machine to plant bombs and get Hitler to hate the jews (BTW, the time machine bomb planting is an actual claim made regarding Sarkeesian’s bomb threats in March 2014, before GamerGate existed. She didn’t make that claim, but it was made for her). It’s farcical, but you cling to it because it’s all you have to justify things like defending a pedophile who distributed child pornography simply because she supports your side and is instrumental in keeping this lie going.

    People reading this? You don’t have to believe me. I encourage you to look into it yourself. Don’t just trust the media, actually look for the evidence of what they claim. Look at the evidence of what we claim. Evaluate it for yourself; don’t take anyone’s word for it. Every time this happens, a new GamerGate supporter (or GamerGate neutral as some call themselves because they don’t want to be caught in the ridiculous story about harassment but they know GamerGate is right) appears. Every time. The evidence will lead you to the same conclusions it lead me, the same conclusions it led developer Adrian Chmielarz, who went through the same process and describes it on his blog, who was formerly against GamerGate but now supports, at least, it’s ethical concerns, and is dubious of the harassment/threat claims.

    I don’t expect the ideologues to do anything, but for the others, take a bit of time before passing judgement and investigate; you’ll be surprised that everything you’ve been told be the media about GamerGate as harassers, as hating women, as a misogynistic response to changes in gaming culture (a culture which hasn’t changed because it was always inclusive), are all lies.

  • A Real Libertarian

    The entire motivation behind the DeepFreeze.it blacklist, a smorgasbord of accusations ranging from a few genuine ethical concerns, to being a member of GameJournoPros (it’s a forum of journalists, not the Illuminati), to using a Twitter blockbot (I don’t like the idea behind those, but really…).

    1. How is deep freeze a “blacklist”?

    2. Being in GameJournoPros is like being in JournoList. In fact JournoList was Kyle Orland’s explicit inspiration for creating GameJournoPros. GameJournoPros decided who to promote, who to lock out, and who to run hit pieces on.

    Never the less, if someone wasn’t active on it they get a pass.

    3. Where exactly is “uses Twitter blocklist” on deep freeze? Oh right, in the “trivia” section which isn’t counted as any violation.

    Systematically linking to archived pages of articles at those publications to deprive them of their circulation and the advertising that comes with it, and mocking those outlets (like VICE) when they call you out about it;

    Archives also preserve all those little “mistakes” in case those sites decide to change what the article says without any disclosure or just plain delete it to hide what they did.

    But you wouldn’t mention that, it makes it too hard to paint GamerGate badly.

    Also those sites said they didn’t want our clicks, don’t blame us if they’ve now realized that clickbait journalism requires people to click on the site.

    The exasperation with GG is that whatever happens, whenever someone associated with GG does something stupid or downright illegal, you always blame someone from outside the movement, the mythical third-party troll.

    Why did AntiGamerGate call in bomb threats on Airplay? Or do those “mythical third-party trolls” now exist when convenient for AntiGamerGate?

    just so that you can ask anyone opposing your movement why they defend so-and-so who might-or-might-not have been a pedophile

    Who are you talking about here? Valis? The guy has a criminal record for indecent solicitation of a child. Nyberg? Spreading around pics of drugged & naked children goes beyond “pedophilia” and into outright “distribution of child pornography”.

    The last straw I think was that Sikh writer whose picture a Gater photoshopped to turn into a Paris terrorist, and the rest of GG went about scrubbing evidence of that prankster’s involvement in their movement (because meddling with a terrorism investigation meant GG wasn’t in the junior league anymore, as far as law enforcement was concerned, and it has no patience for your actuallies and your just-a-hashtags). Worse, I’ve even seen some Gaters chastising the media who had used the photo in question to show how their ethics were deficient.

    The guy who did that says he hates GamerGate, and it was GamerGate & Breitbart who cleared Jubbal’s name.

    But that’s not enough to satisfy you people, you have to somehow blame GamerGate for multiple MSM outlets not bothering to do 5 minutes of fact-checking or even take a close look at the picture they are claiming shows a terrorist with the blood of hundreds on his hands.

    Standard AntiGamerGate behavior. Journalists are unethical? Blame GamerGate! Don’t blame the journalists who don’t fact-check or take bribes or admit they ran a fake story because they think they can get away with it.

    When Buzzfeed retracted their “these journalists called an innocent man a mass-murdering terrorist but they’re the victims because GamerGate” that should have been a wake-up call, but you think even a story doesn’t meet Buzzfeed’s quality standards it’s still perfectly fine to run it as long as it damages your enemies.

    And for law enforcement it’s funny how only AntiGamerGate people end up charged with crimes, almost like the FBI doesn’t give a shit about narratives and only cares about the evidence.

    Let’s not forget how this little “ethics” movement of yours got started: Not Gerstmann’s firing.

    Why should someone being fired for reasons that definitely weren’t related to criticizing advertisers cause any issues? Oh yeah, it was blatantly obvious that Eidos leaned on Gamespot but there was no hard evidence until years later and without hard evidence it’s not really possible to go after them. And social media wasn’t big back then, there was no Twitter for some dumb Gamespot fucker to blab that Gerstmann got fired for giving bad reviews.

    Not the Doritos affair.

    While the cringy & unbelievably blatant marketing of Dewritos Pope was the most iconic issue during that, it wasn’t exactly unethical. The unethical bit was Rab Florence being fired after his report on it was threatened with a libel suit, being in Britain and under British libel law Eurogamer folded.

    And you know what, if Doritosgate took off we’d be right here again, one of the factors leading to Doritosgate dying out was Wainwright claiming to have received death & rape threats and everyone rushed to denounce Doritosgate as “misogyny”.

    It’s just like how back in 2012 EA was claiming the backlash to Mass Effect 3 was “homophobia” rather then the third act collapsing as EA overruled the devs and shoved it into the market half-finished. After they got 2 “worst company in America” awards they realized that “social justice” won’t pay the bills and calling their customers bigots just means they will have less customers.

    Of course times have changed and screaming “Misogyny! Racism! Homophobia!” doesn’t have the same power anymore, trying to cover up bad behavior by accusing those pointing it out of bigotry has been used to the point of uselessness, like how McCarthy calling the waiter who messed up his order a card-carrying communist agent meant his wild accusations couldn’t be taken seriously anymore.

    No, your ethics movement got started *over the sex life of an independent game designer*

    That’s a funny way of saying “Nathan Grayson was friends with the dev of a game he promoted”, for gods sake his name was in the credits. And of course there was Patricia Hernandez and her habit of promoting games by people she knows without disclosure (twice for each of three different friends, thrice for a romantic partner, six times for her roommate).

    But funny thing, this whole controversy could have blown over in an week if Stephen Totilo just apologized and gave those two a slap on the wrist, instead he decided to claim shilling friends games is perfectly OK for a journalist to do.

    And they tried to censor the internet activating a massive Streisand Effect (the 25,000 comment grave was one of the most active posts in Reddit’s history before the mods shut it down), and when the Scientology tactics filed they decided to launch a massive attack on gamers, which just brought the whole little nest of corruption to the attention of a lot more people and also exposed that there was a network of corrupt journos.

    You still talk of ethics as some grand idea, while you see yourself as under no obligation to behave ethically.

    GamerGate as a whole is under no obligation to follow journalistic ethics because we are not a journalistic organization, journalists have to follow journalistic ethics, lawyers & tax accounts & game devs & everyone else in GamerGate who isn’t a journalist doesn’t have to follow journalistic ethics. Other ethical standards? Sure. But not journalistic ethics for the simple reason they aren’t journalists.

    And now you complain why people don’t believe you, even if you have a point.

    If they want to stand for lies over truth out of some ideological conviction then they can be destroyed by their own hubris.

    How well did the “Saddam has WMDS!” brigade do in the long run? Same narrative > facts mindset, same ending.

    That’s what I meant: GG destroys everything it touches.

    No, AntiGamerGate wanted to destroy everything GamerGate touch. So GamerGate touched everything, and now AntiGamerGate has decided to blindly attack everything & everyone who isn’t 100% on their side.

    Ethics are too important to be left to GamerGate.

    Ethics are too important for to important for GamerGate to not be involved. Who stood & fought before GamerGate did? It’s a been a long time claim of AntiGamerGate that they care about ethics, so why not fight for ethics? Why demand GamerGate stop lobbying the FTC and clearing the names of those smeared by unethical journos before you’re willing to address these issues?

    If you’re going to claim that you “have to fight hate & bigotry”, then you should read David Auerbach’s plan on how to end GamerGate. TL;DR “address the ethical issues, and all the bigots using the name GamerGate to hide their bigotry will be exposed after they have no ethical issues to hide behind!”

    Of course that was never going to work because the number of “bigots hiding behind ethical issues” is a tiny, tiny fraction at most.

    Same with EA, same with Rolling Stone, same with a lot of the media, they are unethical and hide behind “social justice” as a shield.

    It’s why NotYourShield was formed, a bunch of women, racial minorities, LGBT, and disabled people who said very clearly they were not OK with journos excusing corruption with “but I’m fighting for women/racial minorities/LGBT/disabled people!”

  • A Real Libertarian

    You might be right, I could be royally screwing this up. But whatever SPJ AirPlay was, the Kunkel Awards are different. The former was about just GamerGate. The latter is about all gaming media.

    Everything these people don’t like is “GamerGate”, take a look at this.

    Note, that’s a journalism professor saying that.

    I’ll give you some more examples from Vetarnias’s comment.

    In other words, there is a direct link between GG and the Kunkels, and it passes through you. Without you, there would be no Kunkels, and without GamerGate’s intervention, you’d be doing something else at present.

    Absurd guilt by association to try to delegitimize what they can’t control.

    If the Kunkels can foster more serious reporting on the gaming industry by the gaming press, all the better, though I think the mainstream generalist press is in a better position to do serious reporting

    The mainstream press has no credibility among gamers due to spending decades attacking gaming with ludicrous hysterical smears (the Cooper Lawrence-Mass Effect “sex-box” incident was probably the most crazy since the anti-Satan game burnings of the 80s) and giving a megaphone to every crank with a with grudge (and even Jack Thompson, the most prominent of the 90s-00s cranks called out the “sex-box thing for being ridiculous”).

    If you want to know how the average gamer sees mainstream press reporting on games, imagine the New York Times reporting on ISIS and mentioning “the King of Syria, Kim Jong-il”, ignoring that 1. Syria isn’t a monarchy, 2. Kim was The Dear Leader of North Korea, 3. Kim has been dead since 2011.

    Now imagine if you pointed out that was wrong you were called a “filthy neckbeard virgin” & the New York Times wrote a story saying psychological research has shown that people who know how the government of Syria is organized are predisposed to go on killing sprees.

    Because that’s what gamers have experienced for decades.

    readers who, in the case of the gaming press, have shown time and again (and of which GG is the exemplar) that they are prepared to side with the industry against game journalists.

    If this is about Kotaku’s “we deserve free swag!” whine, then good. You know Kotaku had this happen before? They got their readers to bully the company into caving last time, but after years of more & more shitty “journalism” and increasingly open attacks on gaming itself they burnt all credibility with gamers, not to mention they did the same thing that happened to them to noted YouTuber Steven “Boogie” Williams.

    And when noted gaming webcomic Penny Arcade decided

    to point out the obvious (“The old accord is over. Go buy your games at the store. Do you not
    understand that this is literally the best thing that ever happened to
    you? They don’t owe you shit, and now you don’t owe them shit”), Kotaku responded by blacklisting Penny Arcade.

    Self-awareness was never Gawker’s strong point, it’s why they keep calling themselves “ethical journalists”.

    In other words, the Kunkels probably won’t raise the prestige of the gaming press, rather than confirm how inadequate the gaming press really is — which in the end just plays in the hands of GG

    And how does confirming the ethical problems with gaming press help that “hate movement” GamerGate? Unless GamerGate is fighting for ethics.

    It’s a bait-&-switch tactic “GamerGate is really a hate movement that only pretends to care about journalistic ethics, but we can’t have more ethical journalists because that means GamerGate wins”.

    Either GamerGate is a hate movement that doesn’t care about journalistic ethics, and thus there’s no excuse to not fight for ethical journalism. Or GamerGate is a movement for journalistic ethics, and thus the only reason to fight against GamerGate is support of unethical journalism.

    The usual excuse is that “GamerGate has made the conversation toxic, so GamerGate needs to stop before we can have it”, but I’m not betting the people who have spent over a year supporting everything Gawker does will suddenly care about journalistic ethics if GamerGate suddenly stops, they didn’t care before GamerGate happened after all and a bunch of the more prominent people are implicated in cronyism.

    Thanks for your time.

  • A Real Libertarian

    FYI I responded to parts of your comment here.

  • Some furf

    So, long story short, it’s going to be bad because it’s associated with something you don’t like.

    (Your reasoning for that dislike being the same old guilt-by-association, listened-and-believed, Kotaku-did-nothing-wrong we’ve all heard a hundred times over, why even bother discussing it?)

    Who gives a fuck? If you’re so petty that you’ll refuse to acknowledge journalistic accomplishments because the ones recognising them gave a GamerGate debate a chance, it only reflects poorly on your character, and not at all on the SPJ.

Connect

Twitter Facebook Google Plus RSS Instagram Pinterest Pinterest LinkedIn


Copyright © 2007-2016 Society of Professional Journalists. All rights reserved. Legal

Society of Professional Journalists
Eugene S. Pulliam National Journalism Center, 3909 N. Meridian St., Indianapolis, IN 46208
317/927-8000 | Fax: 317/920-4789 | Contact SPJ Headquarters | Employment Opportunities | Advertise with SPJ