Yo damn right.

But seriously folks,
I care plenty about the 3-4 separate issues that GamerGate supposedly are, but I haven't been wanting to engage in it, because it just seems like a big pile of crap that all gets lumped together

Issues I've seen in it so far:
1) Girl developer sleeps with game journalist - ex boyfriend angry
2) Journalistic Ethics about being a "good ol boys club" but with hippie feminists instead.
3) Women being portrayed as weak in games; male dominated development world/market/gamer culture
4) Abuse against outspoken feminists within the gaming community - death, rape, violence threats etc for various reasons

1 lead into 2, but it doesn't seem to be any meat on that bone, it was just the ramblings of the ex boyfriend, so while we should be vigilant about any journalistic improprieties, it seems like what was revealed was all just personal; and the boyfriend seems to be a bit of a cunt on top of it, so that doesn't help.
3 is probably true, but I wouldn't say it's a general direction. There are certainly games with women being weak, but it's the same with movies. There's room for that kind of games too - they don't all have to be empowering or vice versa - the market can decide.
4 is obviously not alright and the people participating in this should be neutered asap.

The problem with Anita Sarkeesian is that she's essentially, a hack. The whole gamergate incident has been one ugly affair, and absolutely there are valid points on both sides. But Sarkeesian is still someone who knows nothing about games, doesn't like games in the slightest, but tries to pass off as a gamer. And there are videos of just 4 years ago, of her saying to an audience she doesn't like videogames, she's not a fan. This person who doesn't even like or play videogames comes in, and starts pointing fingers around saying that this and that are wrong and that this and that must be changed. That, I think, more than anything is what pisses gamers off.

You wanna know what I think is the problem? What REALLY made this happen? Not the Zoe Quinn scandal. That was just the event that ignited the powder keg. A terrible event obviously. Her private life is nobody's business (unless it was absolutely true she got reviews from sleeping around with game journalists, which it wasn't).

The actual powder keg, was the CONSTANT barrage of pseudo-feminist and patronizing articles on sites like Kotaku. Day in and day out. A site for gamers who was, essentially, constantly offending their target audience.

@Enzoblue

Thunderf00t is probably the least level-headed response you will find. His video is terrible for a lot of reasons, mostly because he does all the same things Anita Sarkessian is accused of doing (for example, cherry-picking) to an exponential degree, but I recommend you watch it anyway and draw your own conclusions.

As much as some Gamergate supporters would like the movement to be about ethics in gaming journalism, it has its roots in a witch-hunt started by claims from a jilted ex-boyfriend that his girlfriend (Zoe Quinn) slept with reporters to get good reviews--claims that were later shown to be completely untrue but not before the Gamergate movement had found a cause to rally around. From the very start, the movement had trouble separating actual journalistic ethical problems (i.e. gifts from game publishers to game reviewers... see pretty much any tweet or video by TotalBiscuit about Gamergate for a reasoned overview of the problems) from anti-feminist screeds against Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, and later Brianna Wu. And it only got worse over time.

To understand why people might be opposed to Sarkeesian's critiques, you should probably read: this article. Just to summarize the article's main thesis: there is a group of gamers out there who refuse to see a problem with the status quo and make the claim that anyone trying to point out a problem is demanding special privileges. This is not to say that Sarkeesian's critiques aren't without flaws. It is rather to explain how so many people got enraged by her analysis that they felt the need to personally attack her.

So, to put it in a nutshell, there ARE some problems with gaming journalism but they are akin to the same kinds of problems entertainment journalism has in general (Colbert's point). But there are also some serious problems with gaming culture that were brought under the magnifying glass by the whole Gamergate phenomenon.

Frankly, as a "hardcore gamer" (30+ years of gaming experience including games across dozens of consoles and the PC), watching the "debate" on the topic has been embarrassing to say the least. Gaming was finally overcoming the stigma and stereotypes that it had been shackled with before this thing blew up and made us look like the bunch of socially inept man-babies the rest of society assumed we were.

I think not only is it going to take years for our social image to recover, it is going to take years to overcome the toxicity that has pervaded the debate. People on both sides are seriously butt-hurt about how everything went down and the back and forth has been more on the emotional side than the intellectual, leading to lots of flame wars and very little critical reflection.

It's a standard car handling test, simulating avoiding a Moose (a common problem in rural Sweden, or so I'm led to believe)

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Jeep-Grand-Cherokee-Moose-Test-The-Full-Story

I first heard of it from the Mercedes Benz A class Moose test failure referenced at the end of the vid above... in that case, many of the journalists rang in their stories (Lada beats Mercedes Benz) first before checking whether the driver was OK!

Actually, before 1997 it was known as “Undanmanöverprov”, Avoidance Maneuver Test, the name "Moose Test" was coined in the aftermath of the Mercedes Benz failure.

The reason why she knew she was going to be fired is because she was doing a report on a business she owns. She knew this and even told her twitter/facebook "fans" to tune in beforehand. It's obviously wrong for a journalist to do a news segment with conflict of interest like that, and she knew she'd be fired as soon as they went to commercial break. She used her position as a journalist at the station to promote her weed dispensary. Shitty as I think it is, it seems to have paid off because wow has she got some massive free advertising.

LexisNexis is a massive database of public records, legal documents and cases, publications, medical journals entries and on and on...

If you're a lawyer you'd use it to look up case decisions and legal statutes, a bill collector would use it to find public records of people in collections, an insurance underwriter can see all kinds of insurance and claim data for a person, a medical researcher could look up published research and journals on specific topics, a journalist would search for other published news items about a topic or individual.

As a database, it has tons of uses and it's very extensive. I think it's also totally expensive to subscribe to.

I never said anything about what the public thought, because I never interviewed them and, quite frankly, I don't care.

My issue is the reporter predicted the future.

"Some people said ... ." (past tense, showing action happened)
"Some people are saying ... ." (present tense, but isn't all present tense past tense by default?)
"Some people would say ... ." (future tense)

And I don't think journalists should predict the future, even if they don't attribute their sources. Good journalists report the facts, which means they're limited to reporting on events that have already happened, not what would or could or will potentially happen.

And as for protecting sources (real, or even imaginary):
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/03/us/james-risen-faces-jail-time-for-refusing-to-identify-a-confidential-source.html

The NYT reporter implies pretty clearly that other witnesses say that the cop did not grab Brown by the throat. If you actually take the time to read the article (anyone...did anyone actually read it?) the point of the piece was not to show a handwringing bias, it was to show that the trial is going to be clouded with conflicting stories, and that we need to step back from any kneejerk reaction that we may feel from just one piece of testimony; a concept that is lost to O'Donnell who only interviewed people who had similar stories. He could have gotten the other witnesses' testimony, but no, he just makes assumptions that align himself with his demographic. It shouldn't be surprising that O'Donnell doesn't understand the nuances of print, because he's never actually been journalist. It was eye-rolling to see him sit up there in the beginning of the piece and claim to be an authority on the inner workings of print journalism when he's never actually stepped foot in a press room. The whole spectacle was eye rolling to anyone who would be at all interested in looking for some unbiased information.

@lantern53
did you just compare a famous nazi warmongering propagandist (who got his playbook from an american *edward bernaise*) to a political satirist?

a political satirist who is skewering actual so-called "journalists"?

jon stewart is NOT a journalist and this segment is not about reporting on ferguson but rather pointing to the absurdity of some news outlets and how THEY propagandize.

nobody knows for certain the details of what went down,mainly in part to "news" outlets such as the daily show is revealing to be muppets rather than journalists but ALSO how the police department is handling the situation.

the news outlets are also ignoring the under lying reasons why there was rioting and looting.

or do you actually believe that people in this community just decided to blow up businesses and take to the streets.as if it were inherent to their nature and that rioting is fun!
yaaay rioting! WEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeEEEE!

but maybe...
juuuust maybe.
there had been an ongoing persecution brought on by years of flagrant abuse of authority and a disproportionate focus on this poor community?
think that could be possible?
not only is it possible but probable,because thats exactly what many of the residents have actually said.

a few decades of bad policing will have that effect on people.

who is the blame?
do we blame the residents?who after years of police stepping on their necks resorts to violence?
well,they do hold some responsibility.though we may understand,we cannot condone.

or do we blame the police?

well,several weeks ago you made the argument that it was actually those in command that set the tone for the entire force.

that was a good argument.
i agree with that argument.
being former military i understand the chain of command and how vital it is to a working and successful force that wields immense power.

so here is my basic problem with your commentary:
you chastise stewart for ignoring the violence,rioting and protesting,while at the VERY SAME TIME ignore the REASONS why that that violence erupted.

you appear to be very vocal in your support of the police,ANY police,which commendable...even noble,but you,yourself,noted that those in command could be corrupt,vicious and incompetent.

so my question is this:
why would you defend those cops?

Folks, just ignore the trolls. The ignore button is right there. There's a clear distinction between rational counterpoint argument and these guys' bullshit. Over a course of years visiting this site, it has become painfully (literally) clear to me that they are not worth listening to, and it sounds like many of you have reached the same conclusion. They're on my ignore list, but I end up reading their comments anyway because you guys put their comments in quote blocks, which makes me sad.

Now, slightly more on topic, I'm always amazed at how well satire shows like this, The Daily Show, and Colbert produce the most interesting investigatative material. It's an interesting line to walk where they are not performing purely journalistic functions, so they're technically more free to cherry-pick parts of the topic for comedy/satire, but you can also tell they ARE trying to get to the nut of the matter most of the time. Further, the discussions we've been having on this page (the productive posts, at least) illustrate that we're actually holding them to journalistic standards anyway. Or at least argumentative standards; we see the segments of their shows as "not just jokes". What a great format. It also allows them to instead produce whole segments on calling out others (usually Fox) on their journalistic failures, which is an extremely important function but one not undertaken by most of big media.

Sorry for the essay. I like productive contributions on VS because reading the comments on CNN is just worse than YouTube...

The police are also cracking down on journalists too.

Neils thoughts on the viral video

*** August 3, 2014 -- Anatomy of a GMO Commentary ****
Ten days ago, this brief clip of me was posted by somebody.

It contains my brief [2min 20sec] response to a question posed by a French journalist, after a talk I gave on the Universe. He found me at the post-talk book signing table. (Notice the half-dozen ready & willing pens.) The clip went mildly viral (rising through a half million right now) with people weighing in on whether they agree with me or not.

Some comments...

1) The journalist posted the question in French. I don't speak French, so I have no memory of how I figured out that was asking me about GMOs. Actually I do know some French words like Bordeaux, and Bourgogne, and Champagne, etc.

2) Everything I said is factual. So there's nothing to disagree with other than whether you should actually "chill out" as I requested of the viewer in my last two words of the clip.

3) Had I given a full talk on this subject, or if GMOs were the subject of a sit-down interview, then I would have raised many nuanced points, regarding labeling, patenting, agribusiness, monopolies, etc. I've noticed that almost all objections to my comments center on these other issues.

4) I offer my views on these nuanced issues here, if anybody is interested:
a- Patented Food Strains: In a free market capitalist society, which we have all "bought" into here in America, if somebody invents something that has market value, they ought to be able to make as much money as they can selling it, provided they do not infringe the rights of others. I see no reason why food should not be included in this concept.
b- Labeling: Since practically all food has been genetically altered from nature, if you wanted labeling I suppose you could demand it, but then it should be for all such foods. Perhaps there could be two different designations: GMO-Agriculture GMO-Laboratory.
c- Non-perennial Seed Strains: It's surely legal to sell someone seeds that cannot reproduce themselves, requiring that the farmer buy seed stocks every year from the supplier. But when sold to developing country -- one struggling to become self-sufficient -- the practice is surely immoral. Corporations, even when they work within the law, should not be held immune from moral judgement on these matters.
d- Monopolies are generally bad things in a free market. To the extent that the production of GMOs are a monopoly, the government should do all it can to spread the baseline of this industry. (My favorite monopoly joke ever, told by Stephen Wright: "I think it's wrong that the game Monopoly is sold by only one company")
e- Safety: Of course new foods should be tested for health risks, regardless of their origin. That's the job of the Food and Drug Administration (in the USA). Actually, humans have been testing food, even without the FDA ,since the dawn of agriculture. Whenever a berry or other ingested plant killed you, you knew not to serve it to you family.
f- Silk Worms: I partly mangled my comments on this. Put simply, commercial Silk Worms have been genetically modified by centuries of silk trade, such that they cannot survive in the wild. Silk Worms currently exist only to serve the textile industry. Just as Milk Cows are bred with the sole purpose of providing milk to humans. There are no herds of wild Milk Cows terrorizing the countryside.

5) If your objection to GMOs is the morality of selling non-prerennial seed stocks, then focus on that. If your objection to GMOs is the monopolistic conduct of agribusiness, then focus on that. But to paint the entire concept of GMO with these particular issues is to blind yourself to the underlying truth of what humans have been doing -- and will continue to do -- to nature so that it best serves our survival. That's what all organisms do when they can, or would do, if they could. Those that didn't, have gone extinct extinct.

In life, be cautious of how broad is the brush with which you paint the views of those you don't agree with.

Respectfully Submitted
-NDTyson

Dutch journalist Jeroen Akkermans keeps uploading scores of pictures taken at the MH17 crash site to his Flickr account. No corpses, just debris -- no warning neccessary.

A few interesting pictures, if you don't mind amateur forensics:
- left wing, top side: damaged by debris coming from the fuselage at an outward trajectory
- window panel, aft-most cockpit window, port side: shredded by shrapnel, downward trajectory?
- second door from the front, port side: no damage from shrapnel or debris
- port-side hatch of the forward landing gear: no damage

So, explosion in the foward-left quadrant, above the cockpit?

I know, I know -- wild speculation, utterly without a point. But it's infinitly less depressing than looking at the latest pictures from Gaza. Bad days to be a news junkie...

Edit: rear door, starboard side -- no damage

Related=http://videosift.com/video/Journalist-Aids-Child-Hurt-by-Shrapnel-in-Gaza

I'm mostly referencing the big news channels and their desire for having someone to interview on-screen. The best reporting I've seen about this current conflict has come from bloggers.

@radx The talking heads on the news outlets in the US have been spineless about everything for a long time now. I think it's partly due to fear of being cut out by the parties/administrations, and that they're more concerned with putting non-threatening well-dressed people in as the on-air talent rather than someone who is a good journalist.