Bill's only crime here was really only that it wasn't a very funny bit.

As for the "PC Police", most of the time, I think "PC gone mad" is just said by the likes of Jeremy Clarkson who are just upset that they're not allowed call people darkies or poofs anymore* but in this case it's just lazy journalists looking to drum up faux outrage.

* because that's what they are right? I mean, it's not racist or homophobic, that's just facts. Why are you all looking at me like that?

Talk about blatant cop propaganda. Acting as if the president is a journalist, when he's using it to push an underlying message. Propaganda 101

It's a five part essay series, so it cover quite a bit.

This first part is the intro of course, so yes it sorta drags.

I strongly encourage you to listen/read all five parts.

She talks about stuff like:

- How hypersexualization of males in games is completely ignored.

- Cultivation Theory - and how's it be misrepresented to correlate and/or assert hypersexualization with an increase in misogyny/rapist behavior.

[When in fact, the theory states that an audience would simply perceive the world as more sexualized than it really is.]

- The difficulties she's faced in being taken seriously as a female games journalist for over a decade..

- And how it's bullshit that youtube sensationalism allows less legitimate & disreputable "journalists"..

to drown out the voices of much better, tempered analysis/commentary.

I listened to the entire series while playing Age of Wonder 3.

w00t! woot! go games! Have fun!

For a critical analysis of these issues with journalistic integrity..

I refer you all to Ms. Liana K

http://videosift.com/video/Liana-Kerzner-An-Honest-Look-At-Women-in-Games

Enjoy

Online Harassment - been apart of the internet since chatrooms were available.

Are you ashamed of being an "internet-er" too?

Slut Shaming - been apart of society since clothes were invented.

Are you ashamed to being part of society?

Gamergate is specifically about game "journalists" and reviewers being bribed for positive reviews & articles.

Full stop. Nothing more. Nothing less.

I feel sorry for you or any other male "gamer" who attaches part of their indentity to the 4chan trolls who blew this entire thing out of focus.

And not for nothing. But the shit coming out of the mouths of Anti-GGers, SJWs, modern feminists, whatever..

It's JUST as batshit crazy, abusive, threatening, demeaning, belittling as the 4chan trolls & their bandwagon.

Saying "gamers are dead". They're all greasy basement-dwelling neckbearded 30 yr old virgin pig losers who should be exterminated..

isn't exactly becoming of polite, civil, "adult" discourse.

If anything, feel embarrassed to be a WASP because.. seriously, history.

I'll stop right there tho, before i cause another shitstorm.

It pains me deeply to admit it because this is Ross fucking Kemp, who is not a journalist or even for many definitions a sentient creature, but this is the only piece of war reporting I've seen where you actually have some basic idea of what's going on.

Yes, I'm deeply biased in favour of Greece and have been a fan of Varoufakis' work since one of the first drafts of his "Modest Proposal" back in 2010.

That said, look at the report used as an introduction to this interview. The doublespeak behind structural reform alone is enough to discard any claims of objectivity or impartiality.

George Monbiot had a piece on it just last week: Our ‘impartial’ broadcasters have become mouthpieces of the elite.

I'm curious why this is being described as a racially motivated attack. Just because the assailant was ignorant of his own state's law(s) and an idiot doesn't make him a racist. He may very well be a racist but that can hardly be determined from a silent video; just because the man he tackled is black, doesn't mean the victim couldn't have just as easily been a Caucasian (or Asian, Hispanic, etc.)

I understand the current racial tensions and situation in the US is pretty volatile right now, but not every act of black-on-white or white-on-black violence is racially motivated. By making these assumptions and posting them as facts (e.g. dailykos website), all it does it stir the pot even more and shows a huge lack of journalistic integrity.

Unless there is evidence to suggest that Mr Foster, the assailant, targeted Mr Daniels, the grandfather, because he was a black man carrying a firearm then people should treat it for what it is: an over-zealous wannabe hero who is ignorant of the law. He was arrested, so it's not like he got away with his crime. Maybe more information will come to light (prior arrests, complaints, etc) that will reveal it to be a racially motivated attack.

As for the others being arrested, there were only two other people in physical contact with Mr Daniels, after the initial take-down, and I don't believe that they struck him; they only held him down, which is probably well within the confines of a citizen's arrest. The other bystanders just removed the gun from the area. Big deal. The cops did the right thing in this situation.

That's a lot of people on the streets in France.

But my favorite is still the meeting of world leaders, including Turkey's Davutoglu (highest # of journalists in prison), Bahrain's Sheikh Khalid (#2 on the list of journalists in prison), Polish PM Kopacz (raided newspaper for criticising the government), etc.

When these folks are presented as staunch defenders of the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press, you know someone spiked your beer with LSD.

Still alive after four days of too much info to process and too little sleep. So I'll just dump a list of talks here that might interest you:

- Richard Stallman: Freedom in your computer and in the net
- Jake Appelbaum/Laura Poitras: Assassination lists, planetary surveillance
- Tobias Engel/Karsten Nohl: SS7, the backbone of mobile networks, is fucked beyond repair (two talks, same topic: one, two)
- Laura Poitras and others: cryptography for high-profile journalists
- Bill Scannel: Inside Field Station Berlin Teufelsberg (NSA spy post - wierd talk)
- internet of toilets
- What Ever Happened to Nuclear Weapons?

@newtboy
i agree with you but consider a few things:
1.for the first time bob is actually engaging and revealing where his perspective originates.(which came as no shock,to anyone).now we can disagree on his position but understanding how he got to that position gives an opportunity to disseminate the particulars.

this is a good thing.

2.while bob's breakdown of the political spectrum is extremely,overly simplified and his understanding of socialism vs corporatism is staggeringly..wrong..it begs the question ..why does bob have it so wrong?

which he answers by where he gets the majority of his information.i dont necessarily blame bob for this but rather the institutions and media outlets he gives authority.

bob is not the exception but rather the rule.people tend to congregate and gravitate towards those who speak in the language they,themselves,can relate to.this is why FOX is so successful and why every other 24 hr news channel has tried to copy their success.

FOX appeals to the emotional rather than the rational.they pound a message for entire news cycles with little or no actual analysis of very complicated issues.there IS actual news hidden in there but it gets drowned out by the screaming apologists who just seek to perpetuate their own agenda and/or popularity.the hyper-partisanship alone is reason enough to never watch FOX.

most americans do not have the time to do a research paper every night,and the majority never made it past 9th grade civics.so they tune in to 5 minute soundbites that appeal to their own emotionally triggered prejudices.presented by vapid pretty people who are the exact opposite of a journalist.

they ALL do it.every 24hr news channel does it,FOX just does it better.

3.the fact that bob frequents a predominantly secular-left site should be an indicator that he is not as partisan as he appears in many of his comments.he comes here to see what the "lefties" find important and their take on current events.

the problem always arises when people assume that if given all the information,everybody will all come to same conclusion.

which is untrue.

but to come to a rational and reasonable conclusion we must have the information ...all of it...we may still disagree in the end but at least the discussion is founded on even ground and not polluted by propaganda and politics.

the hyper partisanship has got to stop.it only serves those who wish to divide and conquer.

4.the tea party in the beginning was pretty amazing and,ironically,had a very similar message that occupy wall street had.remember what was going on when the tea partiers first exploded on the scene?

the wall street bailout.

now they were eventually co-opted by the very power structure that they originally protested against..ironical..but if you look at the history of mass movements the powered elite were using an old playbook in that regard.

ugh..you got me writing a damn lecture newt!

let me just conclude that i am glad bob is engaging on much more personal level and i hope he continues.
will bob and i still disagree? most likely

It's hard to have any respect for Journalists and more when so many no longer have any integrity. They have become the pawns on the front lines to propaganda machine by those who wage war and seek to pull the blinds over the eyes of the world.

WHAT?!? She's a daily mail columnist/journalist. What she isn't is a reporter or investigator. She is exactly the kind of 'journalist' the right wing has put forth for decades now.

I must admit some confusion that you now seem to support the idea of AGW and seem to imply the scientists are right and industry is not.

I really wish someone would pipe pure CO2 into the board meeting of Exxon, because they call it life it should make them healthier, right?

EDIT: Oh, there's a surprise. Trancie downvoted my comment. Odd, that's NEVER happened before.

As I'm sure you know, empirical data needs a theory in order to interpret it and make sense of it. So far, climate change models (i.e., the theories upon which their data is interpreted) have failed, by the proponents' own admissions. And they have not been able to disprove counter theories either. So the debate goes on within the scientific community. Meanwhile, activists, politicians, and "journalists" don't know how to come up with these theories, so they rely on what they know how to come up with: ideologies, rhetoric (which they, themselves, may not believe), hermeneutics and other poor substitutes for rationalist theory through which to interpret the data.

So far, all of the "arguments" I've heard in support of climate change draws upon the IPCC as the source of its "evidence." What they don't realize is that the IPCC is a political organization, not a scientific one.

Since when do politicians decide on the "truth" about scientific fact?