"evidence", "undeniable".

These words clearly have a different meaning to SourceFed.

God help us if this is the new standard for journalism.

Ok, hang on. A story from some random on the internet called "coffeecat" is not evidence.

FFS Cenk, you said yourself that this is important, so fucking do some fucking journalism. Find coffeecat, contact them, get some documentation that proves or disproves their story.

They could be lying through their teeth, but if they're not the people should be told about it.

Finally, let's say for the sake of argument this turns out to be true, and Hillary's people are doing some dodgy things (which wouldn't surprise me at all). What actually happens then? Is there a recount? Another primary?

you are equating intentional harm with unintentional harm. mixing situations of conflict with situations with no conflict and equating sentient life with non-sentient life since it is impossible to live without killing, it is also imperative to do the least harm possible and that can be accomplished by first refusing to murder sentient animals in the name of pleasure and profit. in many countries the vast majority of humans also used to strongly believe that a white person's life was much more valuable than a black person's life but that did not make it so.

it is telling that one would consider the torture and murder of 60 billion+ sentient beings every year in the name of a trivial taste preference as a mere "pet project". in fact, many organizations are finally coming to realize that it IS the most critical issue humans and the planet are facing. here is but one of countless examples:
https://journals.law.stanford.edu/stanford-environmental-law-journal-elj/blog/leading-cause-everything-one-industry-destroying-our-planet-and-our-abil
ity-thrive-it

even if one does not accept the idea of animal rights and the equality of sentient beings, if non-human animals matter morally (as they obviously do to the man in the video in question and anyone who likes this story), this short article will explain why not eating or using non-human animals is the only logically consistent response:

http://thephilosophicalsalon.com/veganism-without-animal-rights/

"Kaiser Permanente Encourages Plant-Based Diets

VegNews Daily
Kaiser Permanente Encourages Plant-Based Diets

By Melissa Nguyen | May 16, 2013
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

The healthcare company’s peer-reviewed medical science journal tells physicians to promote plant-based diets to patients.To address the rising cost of healthcare and skyrocketing rates of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease, medical publication The Permanente Journal recently released an article encouraging physicians to advise patients to reduce meat, dairy, and processed food consumption and implement a plant-based diet. It points to research showing that consuming whole foods can reduce the need for medication for chronic illnesses and decrease risk of fatal ischemic heart disease, all while offering the most cost-effective prevention and low-risk medical intervention. “Healthy eating may be best achieved with a plant-based diet … Physicians should consider recommending a plant-based diet to all their patients,” the article states."

thepermanentejournal.org/issues/2013/spring/5117-nutrition.html

C-SPAN had a wonderfully informative discussion with former US Attorney about HRC's email server:

http://www.c-span.org/video/?406228-4/washington-journal-joseph-digenova-hillary-clintons-emails

That's the price of having a free press. Free from government interference and free to print what they like.

Good journalism is rare now. But I'd rather have a free press and have to hunt to find good journalism than to have a North Korean style propaganda machine.

I made it to 1:41

The worst journalism ever. Hitting on keywords, What I heard from her: "Just push the agenda through, that's I want to from you Thor.".

I'm not allowed to accept gifts etc at work... and I don't even work in anything close to journalism

Honestly tho, you got on a site, or youtubes or w/e for game reviews...and you don't pay a dime, hell, you might not even see any ads... hmm. Wonder how they make a living!

I'd love to know how much people are actually influenced by reviews. I tend to stick to developers who have delivered in the past. For everything else there is always a lets play or twitch stream shortly after release. Most of the time I read reviews after I've bought a game just to see what other people think about it...

I think it's safe to say it has happened. I doubt it's all that common though, the majority of reviewers seem quite happy to do it for free copies. And given the state of game journalism in general, I'm not sure that paid reviews would be any less reliable or meaningful. Mind you, I don't think -any- of this is anything new...it dates back at least as far as the 80s, when dead-tree reviewers were pretty much assumed to be biased by the advertising dollars paid to the mag in question.

As always with reviews, the best approach is to play a demo when possible, and when it's not available, find a reviewer with similar taste to your own and take the rest with a big grain of salt.

Holy crap.

Yes, Cruz is unlikable, but once again, what passes for journalism in America shows just how shitty it is. To ask those kinds of questions to his wife is just so tasteless.

So many other legitimate things to attack Cruz on.

Abortion on the due date?? wtf?? For fuck sake, even fellow Republicans have to be lambasting him for that blatant lie.

Fuck gamergate. They are not, never have and never will be about "ethics in journalism".

They are straight-up misogynistic assholes that make me ashamed to be associated with an art medium/hobby that I've been involved with for over 30 years.

Let's just put this in context. They claim they are against the collusion of game companies and journalists.

First up, the specific instance they targeted was not a conflict of interest. There are absolutely, undoubtedly, HUGE collusions between game reviewers and games, but gg ignored all those because they were for AAA mainstream games that gg likes and instead accused journalists of giving higher review scores to indie games.

Here's a fucking hint: go read some movie reviews, and tell me if you see movie critics favouring indie movies over blockbusters. Of course they do. People who are seriously into something almost always prefer a niche product. See also: craft beer vs budweiser, restaurants vs McDonalds, etc. I could go on.

But here's the cheery on the big cake of poo.

When a games journalist dared to express an opinion against an otherwise well-reviewed game*, what did gamergate do? Applaud their journalistic integrity in offering a dissenting opinion?

Nope: they started a fucking campaign to get the game company to blacklist the reviewer.

The hypocrisy is simply staggering.

And I haven't even mentioned the doxing, the rape threats and so on.

Once again, fuck gamergate. Frankly, they're on a par with the KKK as far as I'm concerned.


* polygon gave Bayonetta 2 a score of 7.5/10 because the reviewer felt it was juvenille and over sexualised. gg started a campaign to get nintendo to block polygon. Nintendo, to their credit, ignored the little fucktards.

@enoch

Sorry, bro, you know I love you but I had to downvote this.

You mentioned in a previous comment in this thread that context is important and I think you're right--particularly the fact that the author of this video is hugely pro-GamerGate and the purpose of this video seems to be--yet again--to rationalize the personal attacks against high profile activists in the GamerGate saga.

This video is a classic example of how and why GamerGate as a movement completely self-destructed--it wanted to debate the people involved and avoid debating the actual ideas.

So what if the people making the claims are narcissistic? So what if they believe they are special snowflakes? None of that matters. What matters is their arguments and how strongly they can support them.

Some initial GamerGate arguments actually had merit, for example complaints about too close ties between media sites and game publishers and a lack of disclosure about those ties.

And you know what? People actually listened! For what it's worth, GamerGate did in fact cause most gaming media outlets to reconsider and revise their ethics guidelines. For example, journalists now feel the need to mention whether they bought their own copy of a review game or were gifted one by the company (honestly, I don't give a fuck either way but apparently some people thought it was a big deal).

I think the irony of this video is that everything that the author says about "SJWs" can in fact be applied to many GamerGaters themselves. Are they not seeking reform? Who could be against ethics in gaming journalism? It could be argued that just as the Occupy movement was destroyed from within by people more concerned with their priviledge than actual change the GamerGate movement was destroyed from within by "gamers" who felt their opinion alone was what should matter to publishers making games, and any form of dissent from that party line meant you were an SJW unworthy of being listened to.

On second thought, maybe I shouldn't have downvoted this video... the irony here is too delicious.

What exactly is valid about gamergate...?

Anyway. These people who can see all privilege except their own, who make mountains out of every molehill, who can't seem to understand nuance, martyrs without a cause... wait - I've forgotten which side of this retarded bullshit I am I talking about. The only people I can think of who whine more about nothing of real consequence than those misguided campaigner types...are those misguided campaigner types. Could you get any more #1stworldproblem than white guys complaining about integrity in games journalism? (please do enlighten me if there is something more to that besides that charade)

Honestly enoch. I don't know you, but you still mystify me completely. I can't reconcile the person who watches and posts these videos with the one who has responded to comments with respect, and even sometimes concession. How do you watch these things without your brain cells forming a puddle around your feet? Are there people who abuse political correctness? Yes, of course - people will and do abuse the best things in life. Like trust or love or welfare or selfies or god knows what else. Is the answer to brand all of these are evil tools of oppression? or, you know, to take a more, err, nuanced position and accept that a few entitled fucks doesn't invalidate occupy, or feminism, or black lives matter etc etc.

gamergate is still retarded though. That shit invalidates itself

I'm rambling. I wish I was a better at this.

You're right with me up to the point we reach the kinds of censorship you happen to support.

What's the penalty for incurring the ire of the social justice elite? Well, only that you'll be branded a sexist or whatever by the entire gaming media, perhaps have your Twitter account banned or your videos taken down from YouTube, or maybe you'll just be arrested on false charges of harassment. It's a storm that a strong individual might weather, but from which any company will steer away automatically. Of course it's censorship.

Games are being censored (they came for the japanese bikini simulators and I said nothing...); social media is being censored: Twitter, Reddit, YouTube, Wikipedia and any number of even less reputable sites are being censored - all in response to social justice histrionics. This crybaby, zero-offence, closed-minded, closed-mouthed malaise is damaging to our culture: damaging to art, to academia, to journalism. And if you acknowledge the need for open expression, you will oppose it.

"There is more than one way to burn a book," wrote Ray Bradbury of interest groups taking offence, "...each ripping a page or a paragraph from this book, then that, until the day came when the books were empty and the minds shut and the libraries closed forever." You don't recognise any of this?

Yes, 'critics just don't have the talent to create' is a tired old fallacy and I regret echoing it, but there I was thinking particularly of the likes of Wu and Quinn: loathsome reptiles and degenerates whose own creative efforts are so miserably inept that to garner sales, patreon donations, and fraudulently positive reviews they resort to pretending themselves the brave minority voices raised against the misogynistic, LGBT-phobic, uni-racial establishment - in an industry that has never actually had any of those problems.

As for Anita Sarkeesian; that liar, mountebank, fascist collaborator, and 21st century Jack Thompson; that professional victim and demagogue who harnesses manufactured outrage for profit; or in the most generous possible light, that half-educated nincompoop who somehow rode a tide of hysterical activists-without-a-cause to a broadcast platform for her worthless, narcissistic rambling:
It isn't the fact of her fuck-witted critique to which the gaming community so righteously objects but the baffling inaccuracies and outright slanders therein, her self-promotion via false claims of harassment, her attacks on artistic expression and internet freedom.

And these are exactly the kind of sub-intellectual trash who will presume, against all standards of rectitude and conscience, to instruct their betters on what kind of jokes they're allowed to tell.

You never cede an inch to these fucking people. That's how you get Mary Whitehouse, or the Comics Code Authority, or McCarthy, or the FCC, the BBFC, the OFLC, the IWF.

Here is the published article in Nature. http://www.nature.com/nnano/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nnano.2015.309.html

and the super sciency, way beyond my understanding, pdf