#GamerGate: ABC Reporter admet qu'ils ont choisi l'angle de harcèlement sur la corruption

Campagne de harcèlement des journalistes ABC

Ce n'est plus une question de médias incompétents, ineptes ou dépourvus de mesures d'intégrité pour mener à bien les nouvelles et rendre compte des faits, c'est une question de médias dominants et de médias en général optant pour ne pas maintenir l'intégrité ou maintenir une position équilibrée lors des reportages dans l'intérêt du public. Un autre radiodiffuseur majeur a admis avoir choisi de couvrir un côté de #GamerGate dans l'intérêt des contraintes de temps.

Australian Broadcasting Corporation is a major news organization over in the Oceania territory. They’ve been running coverage of #GamerGate since early September of this year. Majority of it has been ill-informed and negative save for a article de ce blog par Tim Dean, qui va dans les détails (avec beaucoup de détails) sur #GamerGate, en sondant les deux côtés de l'événement pour informer au lieu d'instiguer.

L'une des pièces les plus récentes d'ABC.net.au était une pièce de six minutes et demie 7:30 program that basically reiterated the agenda-driven line that’s been pushed by most of mainstream media.

The piece depicts phrases about Zoe Quinn being accused of sleeping with someone for “good reviews”, even though it’s already been clarified that Nathan Grayson, a game journalist, did write deux favorable des articles sur Quinn sans dévoiler sa relation avec elle avant le lancement de #GamerGate.

The video rolls out all the standard talking points and misconstrued spin that we’ve come to expect from the media regarding #GamerGate.

J'ai contacté Monique Schafter, journaliste de l'ABC du programme 7: 30, et je leur ai demandé s'ils allaient lancer d'autres articles sur #GamerGate pour discuter du côté opposé de l'angle de harcèlement et parler avec d'autres femmes qui soutiennent #GamerGate. .

According to Schafter…

“At this stage there aren't any plans to do another GamerGate story.”


“We used this as a springboard to look at the representation of women in games and in the games community, and sought a variety of perspectives on this.”

Mais qu'en est-il de The Fine Young Capitalists qui ont été harcelés et condamnés par les gens opposés à #GamerGate et comment #GamerGate a dû financer leur campagne pro-féministe IndieGoGo pour attirer plus de femmes dans l'industrie du jeu vidéo? Ou que diriez-vous de Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers qui a récemment apparu sur un ABC.net.au programme pour parler du féminisme de la troisième vague - et est aussi un fervent partisan de #GamerGate?

J'ai mentionné le Dr Sommers apparaissant sur ABC’s Counterpoint and asked why her views regarding #GamerGate weren’t used in the continued coverage of the event on other channels of ABC. According to Schafter…

“Occasionally content from radio and TV is appropriated for news online, if the news editors are interested. The producer of Counterpoint would have more of an idea about that.”

(Mettre à jour:) Back on October 29th, 2014 a reader provided Schafter with a list of articles and information about #GamerGate, including the harassment squad tracking down and outing Anita Sarkeesian’s harasser, who happened to be a Brazilian journalist. According to Schafter…

"Thanks [Redacted]. Not just looking at harassment – I’m interested in how the internet has lost its shit about this and attempting to break it down."

Alors qu'est-ce qui est arrivé à des nouvelles justes et équilibrées? Qu'est-il arrivé de rapporter tous les faits? C'est les nuances de la CBC se répètent.

Eh bien, si vous regardez à travers l'éditorial ABC.net.au Guide des normes et des politiques, you’ll see that the 7:30 piece is just one of many that the media organization has run that crosses the line when it comes to upholding their own ethics and standards policy.

Par exemple, la section 2, la page 4 du Politique éditoriale for the principles and standards of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, it’s stated that…

"L'ABC devrait faire des efforts raisonnables, appropriés dans le contexte, pour signaler aux auditeurs des gradations de précision, par exemple en interrogeant les personnes interrogées, en qualifiant les affirmations chauves, en complétant en partie les bonnes et en corrigeant les erreurs manifestes."

Ce serait clarifier que #GamerGate a effectivement démarré sur l'apparition d'intérêts contradictoires par les journalistes du jeu et les développeurs qu'ils couvrent.

La raison pour laquelle le hashtag est resté si longtemps est à cause du revêtement perpétuel de implicitement pour corruption complice des médias. It’s even starting to s'infiltrer dans des sites médiatiques modérés et ouvre les yeux de ceux qui sont neutres dans tout cela.

When “bald assertions” from individuals stating that “#GamerGate is about harassing women” surface, it would seem only relevant to ask real women who use the hashtag why they are part of a consumer revolt that’s supposedly about harassing women and outline to viewers why sub-movements such as #NotYourShield exist.

According to the Editorial Policy, however, they do note that not all views may be represented in the coverage, stating…

“Impartiality does not require that every perspective receives equal time, nor that every facet of every argument is presented.”

"L'évaluation de l'impartialité due dans des circonstances données nécessite une considération dans le contexte de tous les facteurs pertinents, [...] y compris le délai dans lequel l'ABC devrait fournir des opportunités pour que les principales perspectives pertinentes soient exprimées, eu égard à l'importance publique la question de la controverse et la mesure dans laquelle elle fait l'objet du débat actuel. "

Schafter does mention that due to the limited time of the segment the details relating to #GamerGate could not be covered, stating…

“Due to the time constraints of our program, we are not able to go deep into every thread of an issue, so need to make an editorial call on what is most relevant and important to our viewers.”

However, if a cultural backlash relating to the inaccurate portrayal of social topics within media is being misconstrued by media, then doesn’t that in itself justify the existence of #GamerGate?

And this leads to section 4.5 under the “Standards” category of the Editorial Policy, which blatantly states…

“Do not unduly favour one perspective over another.“

Cela s'est produit et pas seulement dans le morceau 7: 30 sur ABC.net.au, mais aussi dans un article de Jeff Sparrow sur September 4th, 2014 qui a écrit dans un éditorial...

“This resentment of change and sense of persecution perhaps explains another commonality of such groups here and in the US: a conviction that they are being repressed and censored.

“These are mobilisations of the privileged - but those involved don't think of themselves in that way. On the contrary, they feel distinctly oppressed, though in ways that they can't quite articulate.”

J'ai demandé à Jeff Sparrow s'il avait l'intention de faire un suivi et d'inclure une mention sur The Fine Young Capitalists, mais il a simplement répondu Twitter saying “Nup.” The intention was to find out if counterpoints or alternative views to avoid the broad sweeping labels against gamers would be rectified by the ABC, but it doesn’t appear as if that’s on the agenda.

(Mettre à jour:) One reader wrote in to the corporate affairs office about Sparrow and Dean’s opinion pieces and received a response from the ABC Corporate Affairs decision, stating that…

"Both the articles you have referred to are opinion pieces commissioned from non-ABC staff. The opinions they provide are their own and are not those of the ABC. The ABC’s editorial policies do not require impartiality from external contributors if it is clear they are expressing their views."

"The intention of both articles was to provide readers who were not familiar with Gamergate some background and to stimulate debate and discussion among those who were. Both were followed by lengthy online discussions that provided a wide range of opinions and perspectives on the issues raised.

"Accordingly, while noting your concerns, Audience and Consumer Affairs are satisfied the articles were in keeping with the ABC’s editorial standards for impartiality."

It was helped even less by the fact that ABC’s technology editor Nick Ross mostly dismissed a reader on Twitter who voiced concerns about the news organization’s one-sided approach to the subject matter.

Nevertheless, in section 7.7 of the Editorial Policy for ABC, it’s firmly stated that…

“Avoid the unjustified use of stereotypes or discriminatory content that could reasonably be interpreted as condoning or encouraging prejudice.”

Veuillez regarder cette vidéo #NotYourShield et déterminer vous-même si ce sont les voix du mâle blanc privilégié.

Bien que cette vidéo ait été diffusée le 12e 2014 de novembre, le hashtag #NotYourShield était en cours depuis Septembre 2nd, 2014 et était - et a été - un sujet Twitter tendance utilisé aux côtés de #GamerGate.

#NotYourShield is especially relevant in light of Pat McGrath’s editorial on Octobre 23rd, 2014, which quotes PhD student Jessamy Gleeson from Swinburne University, saying…

"Certain sectors of the gaming community have been threatened, or their idea of what games are have been threatened or critiqued by people that they don't see as belonging to their community.


"So women or people of different colours or genders have been standing up and saying we want more diversity in games, or we want women to take more of an active role in games, or we see sexism in games, and they see that as threatening what they view to be as their form of games."

The video and articles above about #NotYourShield kind of disrupts Gleeson’s viewpoint, but opposing views wasn’t on the agenda at ABC, especially on their L'interview de World Today featuring Pat McGrath and a female game critic going by the pseudonym of “Sarah”, which further drives home the harassment angle.

In section 9.5 relating to Public Access and Information in the Editorial Policy, it’s stated that…

“Do not knowingly mislead audiences about the nature of the content.”

Les audiences trompeuses ne proviennent que de l'information, de l'accès à l'information et de la connaissance des faits en toute connaissance de cause, tout en les ignorant délibérément ou en les abusant pour faire avancer un programme. Cela a été mis en évidence par le Game Journo Pros dans les e-mails divulgués, optant pour ne pas imprimer des faits ou toute l'histoire afin de continuer leur récit.

According to Schafter, they were aware of the other side of things but chose against using that narrative, or rather, telling the whole story. Schafter stated…

“I understand there are other elements to the GamerGate conversation, but 7.30 felt that the most important news angle for our program was focusing on the online attacks, particularly towards women, which form part of the gamergate controversy.”

Even if the different elements of the #GamerGate scandal beyond harassment were absent from ABC’s coverage, another policy that stands against their motivations is section 1.6 of Australia’s regional Professional Conduct Policy, quels États…

“Journalists should not rely on only one source. Be careful not to recycle an error from one reference source to another”

When 7:30 referenced Brianna Wu’s death threat sender, there’s no mention that the anonymous individual who sent the threats had no relation to #GamerGate or had any factual signs of being associated with gaming. In fact, you can check the tweets from the suspended account of Chatterwhiteman à voir par vous-même. En fin de compte, il n'y a pas eu de seconde source ou d'agence d'application pour prouver que cela avait quelque chose à voir avec #GamerGate. Alors pourquoi est-il référé comme un facteur corrélatif de la motivation pour la révolte des consommateurs?

Under section 1.10 of the “Accuracy” section in the Professional Conduct Policy, it’s stated that…

"Les informations provenant des médias sociaux doivent être vérifiées et vérifiées avant leur publication sur n'importe quelle plate-forme"

#GamerGate is taking place on social media; verifying that it’s a harassment campaign would mean fact-checking that the majority of those using the hashtag are engaging in harassment. However, according to a Article de Newsweek, approximately 90-95% of the tweets under the hashtag are engaging in neutral communications. This is never clarified in any of the ABC pieces, either written or in their video broadcasts published after October 25th, 2014… this includes the 7:30 piece.

Pour ceux qui trouvent que ABC a violé leurs propres politiques et éthiques en matière de rapports et d'intégrité journalistique, assurez-vous de déposer une plainte en utilisant ce qui suit Page de plainte ABC ou le La page des conseils de Media Watch.

(Main image courtesy of The Loop)