![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Link.
Allow me to paraphrase what I took away from this article: "Waaaah, music journalists get away with this kind of thing and nobody calls them out on it! You 'twisted' 'nutcases' and 'ravenous wolves'[1] won't leave us alone and let us take kickbacks from companies free and clear without bringing down the almighty wrath o' god on us! You don't see this kind of watchdog behavior in music, movie, or political journalism so why are you assholes so obsessive over games journalism? Huh?! We're not as bad as they are! Leave us alone already, sheesh! Baaaawwwww!"
[1] - All of those are direct quotes from the article used to describe those who may happen to disagree with this assessment that "games journalism is in much better shape than you think." Seriously, to hear this guy tell it, the main problem with games journalism seems to be that this sort of amateur overwatch even exists at all and oh such a bother it is. Yeah, sure, he didn't ever come right out and say that, of course, but I certainly got the impression that he kind of wanted to, what with the overly hyperbolic brush he used to paint those of us who don't care for that shit at all. He apparently tried to frame it in a sort of "because this stuff exists, games journalism isn't really that bad off, relatively speaking" but then kept describing "this stuff" as a bunch of overly whiny, obsessive nerds going overboard or some such thing. I'm sure he was probably just trying to be "funny" or whatever, but it fell pretty flat, and just made the writer seem like kind of a douchebag to me. (EDIT) But then, you take a look at the whole GamerGate thing, which pretty much is nothing but a bunch of overly whiny, obsessive nerds going overboard about colossally stupid horseshit, and you just have to stop and think that maybe, just maybe, this dude had a point after all, given that GamerGate imagines itself to be some sort of watchdog against the video game journalism industry. (/EDIT)
Maybe, just maybe, you should stop and consider that perhaps this sort of thing should be present in music journalism or political journalism (oh, wait, it kind of already is, given all the independent factchecking sites there are now) or movie journalism or whatever, rather than lamenting the fact that it exists in gaming journalism and talking about those vocal critics who partake in it as though they're some sort of aberrant freaks, even though they're keeping the journalists honest. (EDIT) Though, once again, I refer you to GamerGate, which pretty much is made up of a bunch of aberrant freaks. (/EDIT) Oh, wait, no, they're actually not successfully keeping the journalists honest. If the journalists were actually being aboveboard, then we wouldn't be ranting about it like this in the first place, now would we?
Anyway, see also the Doctrine of Relative Filth. It's very similar, and perhaps even identical, to the fallacy of relative privation. In other words, the argument is that because other issues involve people who are perceived as worse (or more covered in filth) than those involved in the current issue being discussed, then the filth covering those involved in the currently discussed issue is not so bad after all and, thus, the current issue should not be discussed at all. E.g., the above video game journalist is saying, essentially, "all of the guys involved in those other journalistic subjects are just as scuzzy, if not even scuzzier, than video game journalists, so leave us video game journalists alone and go bother them instead!"
Allow me to paraphrase what I took away from this article: "Waaaah, music journalists get away with this kind of thing and nobody calls them out on it! You 'twisted' 'nutcases' and 'ravenous wolves'[1] won't leave us alone and let us take kickbacks from companies free and clear without bringing down the almighty wrath o' god on us! You don't see this kind of watchdog behavior in music, movie, or political journalism so why are you assholes so obsessive over games journalism? Huh?! We're not as bad as they are! Leave us alone already, sheesh! Baaaawwwww!"
[1] - All of those are direct quotes from the article used to describe those who may happen to disagree with this assessment that "games journalism is in much better shape than you think." Seriously, to hear this guy tell it, the main problem with games journalism seems to be that this sort of amateur overwatch even exists at all and oh such a bother it is. Yeah, sure, he didn't ever come right out and say that, of course, but I certainly got the impression that he kind of wanted to, what with the overly hyperbolic brush he used to paint those of us who don't care for that shit at all. He apparently tried to frame it in a sort of "because this stuff exists, games journalism isn't really that bad off, relatively speaking" but then kept describing "this stuff" as a bunch of overly whiny, obsessive nerds going overboard or some such thing. I'm sure he was probably just trying to be "funny" or whatever, but it fell pretty flat, and just made the writer seem like kind of a douchebag to me. (EDIT) But then, you take a look at the whole GamerGate thing, which pretty much is nothing but a bunch of overly whiny, obsessive nerds going overboard about colossally stupid horseshit, and you just have to stop and think that maybe, just maybe, this dude had a point after all, given that GamerGate imagines itself to be some sort of watchdog against the video game journalism industry. (/EDIT)
Maybe, just maybe, you should stop and consider that perhaps this sort of thing should be present in music journalism or political journalism (oh, wait, it kind of already is, given all the independent factchecking sites there are now) or movie journalism or whatever, rather than lamenting the fact that it exists in gaming journalism and talking about those vocal critics who partake in it as though they're some sort of aberrant freaks, even though they're keeping the journalists honest. (EDIT) Though, once again, I refer you to GamerGate, which pretty much is made up of a bunch of aberrant freaks. (/EDIT) Oh, wait, no, they're actually not successfully keeping the journalists honest. If the journalists were actually being aboveboard, then we wouldn't be ranting about it like this in the first place, now would we?
Anyway, see also the Doctrine of Relative Filth. It's very similar, and perhaps even identical, to the fallacy of relative privation. In other words, the argument is that because other issues involve people who are perceived as worse (or more covered in filth) than those involved in the current issue being discussed, then the filth covering those involved in the currently discussed issue is not so bad after all and, thus, the current issue should not be discussed at all. E.g., the above video game journalist is saying, essentially, "all of the guys involved in those other journalistic subjects are just as scuzzy, if not even scuzzier, than video game journalists, so leave us video game journalists alone and go bother them instead!"
