#GamerGate and Ethics

It’s quite disheartening having watched the #GamerGate campaign unfold , as someone who is a self-proclaimed gamer who has logged endless hours on her multiple Nintendo gaming systems, either in Lumiose City battling Team Flare (Pokemon Y) or rummaging about in Hyrule after being tricked by Ganandorf trying to make everything right again (The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time).  The gamer community was supposed to be a niche that welcomed those interested in the complex map work of a new indie first player, or someone who just wanted to cause havoc in a virtual city, because well, there are some serious repercussions for doing so in our physical reality.  The #GamerGate movement, however, I think caught a majority of true gamers off-guard. The (so-called) initial motif behind the campaign was for ethical concerns for journalism and writing in the gaming community, which being that this concern seemed to be targeted at one woman in particular (Zoe Quinn) seemed kind of odd if you ask me.  Truth be told, this campaign was the result of Quinn’s ex-boyfriend ranting in a blogpost about her having slept around while they were together with five guys, one of which was a gaming journalist from Kotaku, Nathan Grayson.  Subsequently, this journalist ended up writing a review about Quinn’s game “Depression Quest”, which was the ACTUAL cause of rioting within the gaming community. For this angry few, it seemed as if sex meant a good review, and women had no place in the “gamer” identity (read more here).

Now, despite the original intent of the #GamerGate rabble-rousers, which was oozing with misogyny and a pretty obvious sentiment of hate, their later transformed concern about gamer journalism ethics is something that deserves some attention.  Gaming is an industry, first and foremost, and within that industry (as with others) connections are made between reporters and developers.  Within that relationship, their should be some code followed so that reviews are legitimate and not the result of nepotism and so that there is a fair advantage of all out good games to speak for themselves.  As far as ethical concerns for the games themselves, well that’s a whole topic on it’s own.  One can argue that for the gamer community, Mills utilitarianism is applied appropriate within this community.  The games and their content (although massively appealing to the male gamer) makes most gamers happy, and that’s what matters.

Zoe Quinn

Anita Sarkeesian

When it comes to “Social Justice Warriors” (SJW’s) like Zoe Quinna and Anita Sarkeesian who have been brave enough to voice their observations and concerns about the gaming industry and their representation of women, various ethnic groups, and so on, they bring to the forefront a lot of genuine ethical concerns about the gaming community that hold a lot of meaning.  Video games are an extension of our society.  They are a medium in which we can live out alternate realities that are perhaps not recommended in our physical world.  Not to mention we can live multiple lives in a video game, which gives us ample opportunity to try different things.  Feminist like Sarkeesian and Quinn bring forth important issues that we perhaps overlook because we think a game is just a game, and nothing more.  But, we really should be outraged at some of the graphics and storylines of some games, because some of them are completely opposite of what we would allow in our society yet they are upheld and commended in the video game for doing so. Let’s not forget video games don’t just fall out the sky, they are coded, scripted and thought out by humans, *insert sarcastic voice* that’s right, a human, a mammal capable of ethical reasoning.  In “Media Ethics: Issues and Cases” by Philip Patterson and Lee Wilkins, they discussed (in chapter 9)  “new media: continuing questions and new roles”.  Although, this chapter was focusing on the journalism sphere it can be applied to the gaming realm as well.  A video game is a medium, and a message is being transferred through it.  For the most part, there is a code of ethics for every professional group that goes about the business of sharing information; as for video game developers, they actually do go by a code of ethics (International Game Developers Association), but theirs aren’t of the same quality as that of one sharing news.  This code is more of an internal relations code, as oppose to how communication with the public is perceived.  Which quite honestly makes any feministic and social justice argument fall on deaf ears because for game developers their code isn’t really in the business of making everyone happy.

Back to the #GamerGate “vigilantism”, in the midst of this revolutionary group trying to make their point they decided doxing (or publicly sharing private information) Zoe Quinn was an acceptable action (because broadcasting someone’s personal information is a great way to get your point across, NOT!)  Clearly in this instance Bok’s ethical decision making procedures were not followed because I guarantee if this group had a serious interest in ethics they could have found a professionally acceptable way to spread their concerns.  Or maybe even Mill’s valuational hedonism, pleasure not pain, because i’m pretty sure the obscure obscenities that were outed about these individuals online caused a great deal of pain with an absence of pleasure in all realms.  I don’t see any difference between Quinn’s doxing experience and Jackie (the center of the UVa Rolling Stone article).  The invasion of privacy is a crime no matter how you look at it, no matter what you are trying to prove.  Both instances potentially put lives in harms way and that should be taken seriously.

This is what makes the internet such a complex, scary and amazing place.  You can find or hack your way into getting information about anybody your desire, you don’t even have to use your identity, create a fake one, never be seen.  When the #GamerGate community decide to host a chat on ways to torment Quinn, as well as those who actually sent her hate mail and death threats, their access to anonymity on the Internet made their lives easy, but made it incredibly hard to Quinn to get to the bottom of who was attacking her.  It can definitely be seen as a cause for concern for the #GamerGate community to use the anonymity of the Internet for their movement because it left no one responsible for the actions they played out.  Think of it this way, if everyone could be anonymous in our real world, getting away with awful crimes and no one ever being able to find out who did what, we would pretty much be screwed.  Clearly, if you have to found behind anonymous identities and social accounts, you’re well aware that you’re taking part in less than admirable behavior and don’t want to be found out. 

Moving a bit back into the #GamerGate discussion, when Intel pulled ads from Gamasutra amid the #GamerGate conversation it made Intel look like a supporter of the misogynistic conversation.  Was it ethical? Well, I don’t believe Intel would be the type of organization to support that kind of behavior, plus they issued a public apology to those who may have had the impression that they did support such behavior.  I feel amid the conversation, it was something that Intel didn’t want their brand to be pulled in to, so in the midst of trying to erase their presence, ever vigilant eyes saw and had a different perspective.

Who knew the world of gaming could be so controversial?

Ethical Standards in Journalistic Writing

When it comes to the story published by Rolling Stone, written by Sabrina Rubin Erdely, about the UVA rape allegations, there are definitely ethical standards in question.  Without a doubt, the basic code of ethics for journalism was not followed in the laying out of this story.  The lack of fact-checking played a huge part when it comes down to determining whether or not Rolling Stone followed the code of ethics established for journalist.  When the victim, Jackie’s, story came into question as not having matched up with stories that the fraternity was bringing forward, in terms of a party having been thrown, the name of her date and his affiliation with the fraternity - or him existing at all - all made Rolling Stone look very ill-educated in what acceptable journalism looked like.  For a journalist, the core principal of writing a story is to be as objective as possible, which relies on hearing both sides of the story and writing a piece the equally reflects the issue from both perspectives, doesn’t judge, and allows for a clean cut of the situation being reported on. Rolling Stone did not follow this technique, so on an ethically expected level, yes - there is cause for ethical concern.

In terms of Rolling Stone reporter, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, having adequately served her source, Jackie, I would have to say that although there were good intentions behind writing the story, she ultimately failed in her attempt because she did not follow the journalist code of ethics.  Sabrina wanted to bring attention to an issue that is extremely prevalent in our society.  Clearly this reporter, and editor were not abiding by Mills Utility principle, which begs to look at the outcome associated with completing a certain task.  If the Rolling Stone team had looked ahead and kept in mind the possible backlash, questioning, and lack of information that they used to write and publish this story, a lot of what’s happened could have been avoided.  It’s true, if the reporter had taken just a little more time to gather information and inquire deeper into those who Jackie mentioned than maybe their article would have been even stronger and would have been able to withstand the backlash it received, because they would have had a credible more objective piece.  But sadly, after having been criticized for the lack of information and accuracy in their published article Rolling Stone stating that their trust in jackie was misplaced, not only discredits Jackie’s claim altogether, but after putting this young woman story in the public eye, lacking all the information possible, and then abandoning her and her story, was not a respectable move on behalf of Rolling Stone.  Rape is a serious topic, and perhaps, as mentioned in Maya Dusenbery’s blog post, it’s a topic that should be left out of the objective realm of writing since there are so many outlooks and beliefs about the act.  Following the idea of Pluralism, which essentially says there are multiple competing values and not one ultimate value, there are certain topics that just can’t be broken down or perceived through an objective lens.  When you have a topic, such as rape, where the victim, the perpetrator, social norms, personal value, and morals are affected it seems like a topic that is almost impossible to restrict to an objective view.  To turn rape into an objective view, for me, discredits just how serious a topic it is.

Now, as we continue our discussion on ethical situations, within the entire series of events that unfolded since the release of the Rolling Stone article, other actions can be brought into question as ethical or not as well.  Charles C. Johnson, who decided to take it upon himself and leak Jackie’s personal information online, shattered a ton of ethical obligations, not just journalistic ones.  Yes, Jackie did agree to sit down and be interviewed for the Rolling Stone story, but no, that does not mean she has relinquished her right o privacy in some extent.  And not at all does that give the right of some attention-seeking “internet-troll” to leak Jackie’s personal information online.  An individuals right to privacy should always be respected no matter what the circumstances.  Jackie’s story should have definitely been fact checked before being published; and this is not at all to discredit her claims and recollections of what happened the night that she was attacked, it just makes for a stronger argument, so that if her story is attacked (which is was, due to the lack of fact-checking) the publishers can at least say that they have heard her story, and have in fact contacted and talked to all involved in order to make for a more compelling argument, perhaps on Jackies case.  Fact-checking doesn’t mean “we don’t believe you” it means, we need to have all the information possible so if we are questioned, or ‘new’ information is brought up, we can say, we know/knew/are aware/ and have done that, it just makes for a stronger story, in the journalism world at least.  Also, if they had fact checked in the first place,  they probably wouldn’t have had to abandon Jackie at all when s*** hits the fan.

When a story is called into question, who should shoulder the “burden” of transparency?  Ultimately I would have to say the reporter.  Although after the story leaves the reporters desk, and undergoes the eyes of the editors, the reporter is charged with the responsibility of having done proper research and accurate fact-checking before presenting the final product to their editors.

Within the series of events that unfolded since this articles release, there have been questions to whether or not “activism journalism” could be a possible thing to flourish and work within the industry.  The reporter wanted to make a statement about rape culture within American universities, and while using her article on Jackie as a foot in to such a topic, ended up with ridicule from the upset journalism community.  The idea of activism journalism holds certain ethical problems, because one, journalism in itself holds its own code of ethics to be followed, and two, activism (the policy or action of using vigorous campaigning to bring about social or political change) doesn’t use an objective lens but a persuasive one, to make you think a certain way.  So while the idea is interesting, it ultimately wouldn’t make much since if we’re abiding by the ethical codes of these two realms.  Activism should be done with a persuasive style and the freedom to be bias, whilst journalism needs to abide by its code which calls for an objective lens.  Ethics is a complex topic and idea to grasp, and while forever the core of most issues in the world, it’s still makes for an interesting dinner topic……and maybe the loss of a few friends along the way.