Today has been another wild day on the SPJ Airplay front. I wish I could say I was surprised, but I’m not. Originally, I had held my fire on all this. I didn’t go too hard at the organizer, Michael Koretzky. I can now see that was a mistake. The update he put out today was completely incendiary and his attitude was flippant and dismissive. I will give him some slight credit for responding to tweets and trying to put his side out in the face of a Twitter-mention onslaught, but it was the same old shit. Some people were saying I don’t have the right to criticize this behavior, since I’m such a bomb-thrower myself. Let me talk about that for a second.

First-off, I’m not a journalist. I always strive to tell the truth and to run an ethical shop, but at the end of the day, this isn’t an objective site. I’m offering up a viewpoint and I’m biased. I don’t want to hide that, because objective is boring to me. That being said, we do need SOMEONE to be objective sometimes. That’s why we have journalists. Can you realistically take every single bias out? Maybe, maybe not. But you can damn sure try either way. I’m beginning to think Mr. Koretzky isn’t trying very hard. That’s the main issue I have.

Here’s an except from his belligerent post from earlier today:

I announced from the beginning that AirPlay’s agenda would evolve, and when GamerGate’s critics declined to attend, I “hid” and “lied” about those changes in an update read by thousands. Mea culpa.

Oh, and that change you hate so much? Someone within GamerGate suggested it to me. (“Will your kind listen to a history lesson? Maybe just a dirty and quick overview?”) So I listened to your community and made the debate better.

Finally, this: I don’t need your approval. As I’ve said often on Oliver Campbell’s own streams: “AirPlay is for journalists. It’s not for you.”

Well, that’s certainly inspiring, Koretzky. When I read this, as well as the rest of the screed, I decided to go ahead and let loose a little bit myself. Keep in mind, I hadn’t said anything to this guy the entire time because I kinda thought this event was a waste (although it did show how cowardly the other side is):

I was far from the only one:

https://twitter.com/AdamBaldwin/status/621363506323914752

https://twitter.com/mahoumelonball/status/621389107734810625

There’s more, and I might add a few later. But let’s get to the BuzzFeed story real quick. I certainly don’t think it was beneficial in terms of getting a positive story out about GamerGate. These biased reports always do accomplish one thing, though. It exposes our cause to people who might not have heard about it before. You would be surprised, but there’s a lot of people even now who have no knowledge of GG. Sometimes these people just accept the media’s reporting at face value, and sometimes they dig a little deeper on their own. These curious minds will often see that there’s more to all this than meets the eye when they do a little investigating.

Anyway, here’s some of that hot garbage from BuzzFeed:

“GamerGate critics are boycotting AirPlay,” Koretzky explained on the event’s website.

One of those to decline was Arthur Chu — the former Jeopardy champion turned ombudsman of nerd culture — who told BuzzFeed News that “I declined because, like everyone else who was asked, I see no benefit to myself or to the world at large giving these people any more coverage than they’ve already gotten.”…

Of course, if you were paying attention to the controversy last fall, you would know very well what “both sides” represent: GamerGate, as many reporters have extensively documented, acts like a goon squad that gussied up its retrograde agenda in language about journalistic malpractice. The largely anonymous partisans of the largely anonymous movement were responsible for persuading brands to cancel ad campaigns with several major outlets, including Gamasutra and Gawker; the doxxing of several prominent women in the games industry; and scores of death and rape threats against the game critic Anita Sarkeesian and others. “Anti-GamerGaters” united a group of game journalists, mainstream journalists, and internet social progressives against a movement they characterized as a thinly veiled campaign to keep game culture an immature boys’ club.

Well, that sure was a positive portrayal. It almost sounds like this piece of shit has an ax to grind. I wonder why that is? Could it be that he was in on the original wave of “gamers are dead” articles back in August 2014?

1
http://deepfreeze.it/journo.php?j=joseph_bernstein

Yep. 

And they weren’t lying about the long-winded analogy part. Jesus, that thing is long and tedious as fuck. Here it is if you want to go read it. I had to stop. I don’t give a shit what that windbag has to say anyway, but I’m glad we have him on record. There was another funny occurrence down in the comments section of the article, by the way. Our old friend (and notoriously abusive troll) Stonemirror showed up and was promptly reminded of our work on him:

1

This shit just keeps getting crazier and crazier. I guess we’ll see what happens with everything. I’ll continue to monitor this story and bring you the latest from Twitter and elsewhere throughout the evening. I have a piece from the lovely and amazing Janet Bloomfield coming up next, as well as some stuff on what’s going on with a wild case in Canada, and whatever else I can think of to write about. Lemme know what you think about Airplay and the recent turn of events down in the #BasedCommentSection. I still say we should go, if only because of the caliber of people signed up to attend. I know I trust Milo over pretty much anyone to make the right call. If he backs out then I would say fuck it altogether. As of now, I’m just thoroughly disappointed in the moderator.

58 comments
  1. SPJ: “We found people who want to talk ethics in journalism, which is our thing, so…”

    Buzzfeed: “Don’t talk to those ‘ethics’ people, they’re crazy.”

    SPJ: “…we’re ‘ethics’ people.”

    Buzzfeed: “We know lol”

  2. There was nothing in Koretzky’s “belligerent” post that you quoted that was particularly belligerent. Maybe the rest of the article was more belligerent

    It would be equal parts hilarious and sad if GG allows this opportunity to go to waste because they feel they aren’t getting a fair shake and are afraid that the panel might be hostile to them. You certainly are not going to prove anything to anyone by then reacting in kind. You prove your own weakness just as the SJWs have when you lash out at any perceived threat to your position.

    1. What opportunity? The opportunity to be laughed at very publicly in front of an audience and cameras? LOL, look at these morons who think they’re “activists” for better journalism ethics! We journalists should do so-and-so to deal with such fools in the future.

      I used to be hopeful, as indicated by my comment to a TechRaptor article, but now? No, this may well be a raid wipe in the making. I can only hope GG will recover, and also not turn into even more of a monkeys-flinging-poo mess than it already is.

      1. And if GG behaved professionally throughout such a farce it would be a massive win for them, and illustrate many of their broader points about journalism. I’m not expecting professionalism from the average GGer. The average GGer is a gamer who is pissed off because the hobby that they love was attacked by its own journalists. I do expect a bit of professionalism from people chosen as representatives of any movement.

        But to more directly respond to your question.. how is throwing this opportunity away any different from what the SJWs did, and what GGers have been gloating over the last week or so? The SJWs long decided that GGers weren’t worth having a conversation with. Now, after one bad turn, the GGers are deciding the conversation isn’t worth having either. As I said, I find it equal parts hilarious and sad.

        1. how is throwing this opportunity away any different from what the SJWs did, and what GGers have been gloating over the last week or so?

          Because AntiGamer was catered to, had most of their demands met, and were treated far, better then us.

          And they decided to walk out.

          Meanwhile, we we get jerked around, had pretty much zero of our demands met, and were treated in a blatantly unfair manner.

          And we overall kept treating this as if it was in good faith until Koretzky dropped his mask and violated the code of ethics of his own organization, that same code of ethics that Airplay was supposed to be about.

          And we’re still going, we’re just not going to lie to ourselves and pretend it’s not going to be a trap.

          There, that’s the differences.

    2. I have conflicting feelings about this. I adore Oliver Campbell; he has more tenacity than almost anyobe in dropping tweet after tweet to nail well-reasoned arguments home, but by the same token, it’s easy to assume he’s not got a lot of experience being concise. That he flipped out when asked to be concise is also believable, because I, who am also long winded, have done that too; more than once. I guess I like Oliver partially because I can relate to him.

      Chances are high Milo could do a much better job, but while I won’t deny being impressed with Milo’s writing on occasion, in fact he’s too much of what GamerGate as a whole is ACCUSED of being–white, upperclass, and blatantly right-wing to the point it seems like he’s deliberately expressing reactionary views for negative attention many times. He’s also not a gamer, and as much as he is correct in concluding that people are more united by libertarian vs authoritarian than left vs right, it often seems Milo isn’t actually a libertarian himself. Both factors don’t help him against accusations that he’s using mostly liberal/libertarian gamers for his own ends; even if he’s not.

      Oliver may not be a good public speaker (by his own admission); much less a CONCISE one, but as sad as it is to have to prove ourselves, I think having a non-white, non-rightist on our team would help us there–it certainly would be a wake-up call to viewers who previously thought GamerGate was racist.

      As it stands, though, fifteen minutes is plenty of time to share websites, twitter accounts and blogs for viewers that want to learn more. We can still make the best of this, even if Koretzky doesn’t

    3. Turns out Koretzky lied through his teeth, including attributing something he said to Oliver.

      Along with the other stuff, that means if we walk in, then we need to understand it’s a trap, and our strategy must be based on making that trap backfire.

      1. I would have been fine with Chu, Klwue, Butts, AMiB, Wu, and stonemirror as the other side

        Because honestly, between Chu’s utter tone-deafness, Klwue’s fake laughing douceness, Butts crying “deadnaming transphobia!” every time her obvious lies fell apart, AMiB having to answer why he tweet “I got in this to bloody my fists on nerds”, Wu screaming “is this a hit piece?!!!!!” every time she’s triggered, and stonemirror being stonemirror, it would have been a slaughter.

        The only people who could watch that and not think “GamerGate is completely right” is someone who’s already mindkilled themselves into a walking coma patient.

      2. It still baffles me how a group of bigoted racists are calling us gamers harassers and people believe them…

  3. Fuck Koretzky, that dishonest fucking snake. He’s hardly any different than any other fucking journalist we’ve dealt with in the last year. The only difference is he waited for our trust before screwing us over.

    I want MediaGate to start right fucking now. They’re all corrupt, every last fucking one of them. We have the limitless power of the internet, if someone can dig up the dirt, we can spread it far and wide and make all these mother fuckers answer. Nearly a year of this fucking bullshit and we still can’t get any sort of fair or objective chance to talk about our concerns.

    Meanwhile the threats that have been falsely attributed to GamerGate pale in comparison to the threats from aGG, yet WE’RE still somehow the harassment campaign. http://imgur.com/a/ZOl8K

    Tell me, what’s a bigger conspiricy: Journalists colluding to help friends and push ideology OR the countless people in GamerGate (including women, trans people and people from countless races, cultures, backgrounds and religions) using “ethics in journalism” as an excuse to harass anyone who isn’t a straight white man out of gaming?

    God damn, this shit pisses me off.

    Also, fuck Buzzfeed. Literal dogshit is more appealing reading material.

    1. Yeah, but that’s the thing. We wouldn’t be this far if they had just played ball in the first point. It looks a hell of a lot less suspicious when they’re like “Yeah, these game journos are unethical.” rather than “GAMERGATE IS A HATEMOB LOOK AT THE HATEMOB EVERYONE!”

      1. I made a post a few days ago about how this was a media wide problem. But, frankly, you sound like you’re going to war – and it sounds ridiculous. As much as I understand your passion, you and those who responded are WAY overreacting. You could call this tone policing, so listen up, you anti SJWs you:

        “that fucking dishonest snake”

        “They’re all corrupt, every last fucking one of them”

        “make all these motherfucker’s answer”

        “yet WE’RE still somehow the harassment campaign”

        “He mistakes our patience for weakness”

        “Beware the nice ones”

        “this is definitely some e-celeb drama”

        Honestely, rustbeltexpat has it pretty right with his observation. They are trying to strangle GG in the crib.

        Because. You. Keep. Fucking. Saying. Ridiculously. Overblown. Shit.

        It’s fucking RIDICULOUSLY easy to make fun of you.

        Is that enough internet vitriol for you? I can really get into this, if you want, I have lots of experience. But GamerGate represents the first time any group of people reacted to challenge the larger shit establishment of journalism, rather than just finding a new source for news. Because there wasn’t a new source for gaming news. Game journalism was all, overwhelmingly, shit, and they all showed their brown notes within a few days of each other.

        I, personally, feared that Breitbart and other conservative groups were trying to co opt this group, and so I’d started making some comments recently. Now, I am not so sure that conservative media is doing much of anything other than watching, laughing, and profiting from you.

        1. Dude, how exactly does not saying “Ridiculously. Overblown. Shit” help?

          Please tell us how that will somehow make the all crooked journalists we’ve been fighting stop trying to kill us? And I don’t mean in the general sense, I mean I want a detailed step-by-step explanation on how not saying that any of the sentences you quoted leads to a solution.

          Because we’ve gotten as far as we have by telling journos & SJWs & other people we deal with to go fuck themselves when they demand too much.

          Honestly, you are a moron if you think that reacting to every single unfair demand from people operating in blatantly bad faith with “yes sir!” is going to achieve anything.

          Do you honestly think we’re scared of being laughed at? Do you honestly think we’re terrified of another round of hit-pieces?

          The Parliament of Britain laughed at the half-savage colonials thinking they could govern themselves, the Royal Court of France tittered at the sans-culottes of Paris demanding bread, and all the Tsar’s advisers chortled at the thought of those ragged Bolsheviks being in charge.

          Now how did that work out for them?

          Pro-tip: You don’t need to convince the powers-that-be to change the world, all you need to do is convince enough people that the
          powers-that-be should become the powers-that-were.

          GamerGate cost Gawker 7 figures, influenced the FTCs regulations, and now has the Parliament of Australia interested in our info.

          And that’s not counting the collapse of Anita’s support, the term SJW starting to enter common use, and “Social Justice” starting to get hit with a world-wide backlash.

          And that’s still nowhere near the extent of what we’ve done/started.

          GamerGate could die tomorrow and the fire we started would still rise.

          Do you understand that a lot of Fortune 500 companies would literally kill for just the influence we’ve had over the FTC alone?

          You say we sound like we’re going to war? We’re already at war! A war of ideals, a war of culture, a war of morality, but a war nonetheless.

          So you can keep bowing to corrupt shitbags all you like, in vague hope of them deciding to not be corrupt shitbags anymore. Meanwhile they’ll be laughing at how you are never going to effect them. And we’ll be over here, reporting crimes to the proper authorities, lobbying governments, and dispensing red-pills to whoever is interested.

          You’ve locked your mind inside a little box, and when our plans involve leaving that little box, you just dismisses them as impossible.

          Your vision is fundamentally reformist, you work entirely within the system trying to make it better, and when someone decides to change the system or destroy it and start again, you react like a character out of Lovecraft seeing Cthulhu, mind breaks because it can not process what is happening.

          And you can deny our success all you want, but the truth of the matter is that we are the future. That GamerGate is merely the first of many movements/revolts/call-it-what-you-like that is going to keep happening.

          We don’t want to be taken seriously, we want to succeed.

          And they are not the same thing, no matter how the world might look inside your box.

          1. So, you caught on? How does saying ridiculously overblown shit help? Or, was that a serious question and the irony went over your head? I gotta say, it’s hard to know these days.

            Ah, then the fun begins. If you think that what I’m saying is that you should respond to their “demands” with “yes, sir” you are the “moron.”

            See how that just did nothing? Why would you think that would improve your position? I doubt you’ve been reading any of my other posts, but I’m not anti GG. If anything I am more anti-anti GG than pro GG. I chimed in to the larger discussion before atheism+ was a thing and while the MRM was budding on youtube. But I am not anti SJW broadly, because that would be the same sort of generalization the media and the SJWs have engaged in when they refuse to engage any GG positions.

            As I write this, I’m working through your post. I don’t need a rundown on the success of GG. I really, really don’t. GG won in the first instant because the position of Sarkeesian and other radical feminist critiques of gaming were so ridiculous they would never survive long in the open air. I am only now wondering if they wouldn’t have gone away faster if GG hadn’t arrayed themselves so adversarially.

          2. How does saying ridiculously overblown shit help?

            Morale-raising?

            But here’s the big thing, you say “if it doesn’t help, don’t do it” I say “if it doesn’t harm, do it if you want”.

            Do you know where that whole “everyone must be focused on being productive all the time” shit leads? It leads directly to burn-out, as people stop contributing because if everything they do is going to hyper-scrutinized and criticized for not matching some idealized portrait of what someone else thinks “improves our position”, then they won’t contribute.

            You say we are wrong for “you sound like you’re going to war” but you are the one trying to impose army discipline on a worldwide coalition of extraordinarily diverse people who are doing this in their free time.

            Again: Box. Mind. Cthulhu.

            I doubt you’ve been reading any of my other posts

            That would be hard, because you have your activity set to “private”, and you use the default Avatar so you won’t stand out particularly well in anyone’s memory.

            Or do you think your words are so important that all smart people who see them are going to remember them, remember you, because you’re so special?

            I chimed in to the larger discussion before atheism+ was a thing and while the MRM was budding on youtube.

            And we have a lot of veterans of previous Anti-SJW campaigns here, you aren’t special there either.

            But I am not anti SJW broadly, because that would be the same sort of generalization the media and the SJWs have engaged in when they refuse to engage any GG positions.

            And there’s a mistake, recognizing that SJWs are aggressive, fanatical, think that you’re either with them or against them, and thus can not be reasoned with, only destroyed isn’t “acting like SJWs”. Because we recognize that neutrality exists, we understand that there’s middle ground between “100% with us” and “must be destroyed”.

            But we aren’t going to pretend that SJWs aren’t an insane hate movement just because it would make you feel better.

            Because no matter how much you don’t want to see it “everyone who doesn’t agree with with me 100% of the way is 100% evil and must be crushed” and “people can disagree with me and be OK, people can stand against me and be OK, people can be evil but still be reasoned with, but sometimes people are 100% evil and must be crushed” are not the same thing.

            Yet again: Box. Mind. Cthulhu.

            GG won in the first instant because the position of Sarkeesian and other radical feminist critiques of gaming were so ridiculous they would never survive long in the open air.

            A lot of us knew since the beginning that the other side also resembles vampires in that they spontaneously combust in the light of the day.

            Also their fanatic aggression means they push anyone involved for long into our hands.

            I am only now wondering if they wouldn’t have gone away faster if GG hadn’t arrayed themselves so adversarially.

            How did we “ally ourselves adversarially”? Is it because we let those awful conservatives in?

            Pro-tip: If you’re more concerned with making sure your allies have the “correct thoughts” then damaging your enemies, you will fail. Should FDR & Churchill & Stalin have all told each other to fuck-off because they disagreed with each other on most political issues?

            If you want to come in here after almost a year and shit on Milo for not being a card-carrying Labourite, then you’re going to have problems.

            Because Milo has been contributing excellent material to the cause since September. And you flat-out admitted you’ve only started contributing since you feared “the conservatives” were going to co-opt us.

            As a communist I’m telling you that’s bullshit. I’d rather stand with conservatives that stood with me, fighting shoulder-to-shoulder, then with leftists who didn’t give a shit until they were worried I might be “corrupted” by those same conservatives.

            Do the higher-ups at Breitbart understand what they’ve done? Oh hell no, that’s not very likely. But does Milo? I don’t think it’s possible for him to not have a good idea of what’s been started.

            One more time: Box. Mind. Cthulhu.

          3. Oh dear, so many pro tips, so few babies.

            I’ll first offer a condolence. On most of our issues, we are probably in what I call violent agreement. We agree at our core but have taken issue with the semantics. Regardless:

            Did Milo every explain or apologize for his coverage of Eliot Rodger, “It’s clear what’s going on: for this dorky loner, video games had become an alternate reality in a terrifyingly literal sense”? I honestly don’t know and am curious. I would fully accept a “mental health” response, but would still take issue with the suggestion that it was video games that were primarily the cause of said mental health.

            Also, I must have missed something if you are A Real Libertarian and identify as a communist. Someone told me on this site that they’ve never met a real liberal. I guess I’ve never met a real libertarian either.

            Stepping back a bit, you do realize that your revolution over reform is straight out of the radfem handbook? Or at least the bell hooks handbook? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePCMMFJIolo

            At this point, I would imagine your reading has stopped and your typing has begun. But I hope you will continue

            And so: I don’t often post anywhere. I don’t know how I set my account to private on this platform. Considering how involved your responses were, I actually did assume you had seen at least a few of my recent posts. My mistake. The real, libertarian, communist, liberal?, pro GG, anti-breitbart, lovecraftian was not what I expected out of you, either. Lol.

            To say that I live in an echo chamber is a fascinating piece of work. You seem to be the established poster here. What echo chamber do you think I live in? My own mind? A decade and a half of pursuing secular reason? Guilty.

            As for the “going to war” and “adversarial” comments, they were primarily in response to the actual content of the original article, describing Koretzky as “belligerent.” I was merely pointing out that the GG response was far more belligerent (or adversarial) than Koretzky’s offering, and that it would be very easy to portray the highlighted GG responses as proof of Koretzky’s and anti-GG’s larger claims that GG is merely throwing a childish tantrum. As I mentioned at the end of my last post, I fear that the only real evidence anti-GG has is the immediate anecdotal response of a small group of self described GGers.

            For my last point, I again suggest that a lot of the anti-SJW sentiment around GG is far too similar to SJWs themselves. It stinks of self righteousness and some of your own comments (revolucion!) only highlight those. Candidly, I think the GGers arraying themselves as mostly anti-SJW are essentially donning a social justice banner themselves (A label I would neither claim nor reject, by the way). Even if you, personally, are only denying certain positions of the SJWs and offering no alternative, you still fit the overall shape of a righteous keyboard/hashtag warrior, IMO (which, again, I don’t have a general problem with – but a lot of GG does).

            If I chose not to respond to any other points you would like to continue with, let me know.

          4. Did Milo every explain or apologize for his coverage of Eliot Rodger,

            Considering he’s now a Gamer himself, I’m saying yes.

            Stepping back a bit, you do realize that your revolution over reform is straight out of the radfem handbook? Or at least the bell hooks handbook?

            So “you can reform, or we can start the revolution” is a “bell hooks tactic”?

            So? I mean bell hooks drinks water too. Should we give up doing that?

            If our enemies use a tactic, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t.

            Honestly “That’s wrong!” “Why?” “Because the other side does it!” “Why does that matter?” “But they’re the other side!” isn’t a very convincing argument.

            For my last point, I again suggest that a lot of the anti-SJW sentiment around GG is far too similar to SJWs themselves. It stinks of self righteousness and some of your own comments (revolucion!) only highlight those. Candidly, I think the GGers arraying themselves as mostly anti-SJW are essentially donning a social justice banner themselves (A label I would neither claim nor reject, by the way). Even if you, personally, are only denying certain positions of the SJWs and offering no alternative, you still fit the overall shape of a righteous keyboard/hashtag warrior, IMO (which, again, I don’t have a general problem with – but a lot of GG does).

            “Blah, blah, blah. Both sides are the same, only I’m smart enough to understand this.”

            We’ve changed the world for the better (protected free speech, changed laws, dragged SJWs into the light of day).

            We’re not arrogant, aggressive, assholes.

            A cow & a chicken are very similar if you ignore the differences, that stil doesn’t prove anything.

          5. Huh, I think I addressed your, “Honestly “That’s wrong!” “Why?” “Because the other side does it!” “Why does that matter?” “But they’re the other side!” isn’t a very convincing argument.” In the same response…

            I’ll reiterate what I said earlier. GamerGate has a “justice” narrative (redress for shoddy journalism and censoring of dissenting opinions, and the overall smearing of gamers), and they use hashtags and keyboard activism to achieve their goals. This is also happening in the broad realm of social issues. However, a lot of GGers tend to be incredibly dismissive of what they term “SJWs” when they themselves very much resemble it. I don’t have a problem with drawing that similarity to myself. Many GGers would.

            Your criticism of my response was basically exactly what I was saying, except that “revolution v reform” is a much bigger concept than what’s at work in GG. Radical Feminists mean it when they say they want a real revolution – a change to the core principles of society and law. GG seems to base their position very strongly on the core principles of the western world in free speech and free expression, (not to mention holding journalism to a high ethical standard). So, no revolution is needed for the GG position – it already represents a strong core of western ideals.

            If you are simply talking about a ‘revolution’ in Games Journalism, or journalism more broadly, than internet hyperbole is at work and we are in violent agreement on the core issue of a widespread lack of ethics in modern journalism. And that’s why I started to call out the larger anti-left sentiment and hypocritical generalizations I have been seeing here (I think the general tact of the right’s journalism is even worse than gaming journalism).

            My involvement in this particular thread started precisely because I believed the comments in it WERE aggressive, belligerent, hypocritical, and adversarial. At least compared to Koretzky’s comments, who was being called out for being “belligerent”. So, I strongly disagree that the comments in this thread in which I was responding were not aggressive or assholeish, at least compared to the stimulus.

    2. At first, I was willing to give Koretsky the benefit of the doubt and chalk this up to miscommunication and clashing tempers. But it’s become evident that this was a Trojan Horse. The fact that Koretsky was so quick to spin his side to Buzzfeed without letting Oliver & Company (couldn’t resist slipping in an old school Disney reference) share their side, as well as changing the 1 hour duration to 15 minutes without prior notice, demonstrates that Koretsky wasn’t going into this in good faith. Whether this was done to discredit GamerGate, to give him an excuse to bail on AirPlay, or to become an e-celebrity remains to be seen.

      1. Maybe he got a taste of those delicious clickbait hits and this is his resume for Gawker?

        I totally get changing details and times, but it’s like you said, he seemed to have done this secretively. According to Oliver, they agreed he wouldn’t make changes like that without talking to our representatives, then we find out that it suddenly changed, going back on his word.

        While I don’t think Koretzky is an e-celeb, this is definitely some e-celeb drama bullshit one would pull.

    3. Koretzky has made a mistake they so many of our adversaries have made.

      He mistakes our patience for weakness.

      Because we’ve bent over backwards for him, forgiven his “mistakes”, and been willing to accept a rather large amount of double-standards, he assumed he could keep pushing forever.

      There’s a trope for that, Beware the Nice Ones, it’s what happened with Mark Kern after “Mechanical Apartheid”:

      http://i.imgur.com/rtbEPlS.jpg

      And what happens to everyone who thinks that just because we’re not the evil hate movement they want to smear us as, that we can’t make them hurt.

      After 7 Figures, the FTC, and now what’s happening in Australia, they really, really, really should know better.

      GamerGate may be good, but Good. Is. Not. Soft.

  4. This fails to make sense to me. The SJW and anti-gamer media all refuse to show up, and the whole damn thing is falling apart and we’re being blamed, even by the organizer. This thing was going nowhere quick when our opponents wouldn’t show, but the way this is being spun as “look at the GamerGate harrassers mad cause of 15 minutes” really just pisses me off. Oliver got a little upset and blew his top, everyone does, but to use it to paint this as a pointless effort and once again attack GamerGate is shameful and dishonest! It really just makes you wonder, was sliming us the plan all along?

  5. Billy Usher should’ve went instead of Oliver Campbell.

    I like Ollie and all, but he explodes far too easily. Billy or Milo would’ve layed Airplay out.

          1. I wouldn’t be surprised that the legal team is reviewing and reviewing and reviewing. Don’t forget that the UK has some stringent Libel laws.

          2. if my guess is right then part 3 will be the opinion piece so it should be getting a through comb through by professionals.

    1. I would nominate Brad Wardell and Sargon of Akkad. Brad has dealt with being shit on by the media before and came out on top, and Sargon manages to be level headed and on point, even when he’s on full blast.

      AFAIK, Milo is a go. He’s great at pushing people’s buttons and throwing them off their game without breaking a sweat.

      1. Wardell WAS meant to go, but he saw the writing on the wall quicker than Oliver did, and got himself the fuck out.

    2. TBH it could be something else, it could be that after seeing Oliver (allegedly) “blow up” in private Koretzky chose to goad him a bit to see if he was stable enough for a wider professional audience. If that was the case then outcome confirmed.
      Otherwise it’s a simple case of a targeted wind up less than a month before an event that could have some real world impact on online journalism.

  6. I suppose I’m glad that he “responded” to tweets, but most of it just reminds me of the early days of GamerGate when people were infatuated with BTFOing people on twitter rather than emailing advert suppliers.

    And what he cut out of my tweets was that I thought that calling out Ethical missteps, such as the commitee revealing confidential documents to panelists, should be dragged out into Town Square for all to see. Drama should be kept in the dark.

    I found it extremely puzzling that he basically wrote a big blog that seemed like it was a eulogy for something that wasn’t even dead yet. He was complaining about his house burning down before firefighters had even had a chance to put it out.

    To me, when you organize an event like this, there’s bound to be a lot of backstage drama. Most of it doesn’t need to be heard, especially given that people have their reputations on the line and a heated moment can turn into… well, this.

    I found it extremely troubling that a journalist who is supposed to be impartial would basically post a blog that cherry picks a bunch of tweets (including mine) that he doesn’t like so he can dismiss them in a vacuum. He never approached me to elaborate, or tried any discourse. Next thing I know there’s a blog post that’s supposedly an update to Airplay that’s just him addressing tweets in about as inflammatory a fashion as someone can muster. (Edit: In retrospect, this was probably the only sensible thing he could do. Addressing people one by one wouldn’t have ensured the message was heard. I just wish the message was a little less rhetoric and more substantive.)

    If I were of his mindset, I would use my very small and fairly insignificant position at TechRaptor to post a rebuttal – but I’m not him, and to be frank, none of it really has anything to do with the real issue. There’s nothing to be gained by posting crap like that but catharsis. The public should be spared masturbatory exercises and given information that’s germane to the topic. If Oliver has a problem with the time limit, that’s something that needs to be resolved privately. If someone is leaking confidential documents from a privileged position, that needs to be public.

    Just as I was against TechRaptor calling out GamesNosh before proper time was given to fix a situation, I’m against him posting some gigantic call-out blog where he bemoans the fate of his beloved AirPlay when negotiations are still ongoing.

    Anyway, rant over. The whole thing is starting to look like a shit show.

    1. If you ask me he was complaining about his house had burned down while he was about to lit the match that would ignite the gasoline he had just poured out all over his place…

  7. I said it elsewhere but while disclosing details of what I now know to be a private discussion is sketchy, I have seen Oliver on a rant before and he does take some time to wind down IF incensed and that was with people who knew him.
    A shame to loose him at airplay but the event still needs to be attended if only to show good faith and get a final yes/no on if anyone in the written media can take a hint or if the entire system needs to be abandoned and circumvented with more trustworthy youtube, blog and podcast content providers.
    IMO, in terms of gaming most press releases get picked up everywhere and other than that gamed journalism its just a hype and drama factory outside of the smaller sites.

  8. I’m more disappointed in our response than the moderator this time round. I think our actions have made us look immature, which up until now has been the product of their media spin. Since when did we become so spoilt that we act this way just because every little thing doesn’t go precisely our way? We should be tougher than this by now! We have (or had?) so much to gain through AirPlay, we should have persevered through the imperfect minutia.

      1. It’s my first comment on this new account. Since GG gets such a bad rep I’m worried about potential future employers etc.
        I’ve been doing twitter under this name for months now though…

    1. I think it’s more in the sense that nothing have gone our way and anything we have accomplished have been true sheer willpower and fighting and the guts to never give up.

      and it of cause didn’t help that the AirPlay representative is a unethical journalist,

  9. I can’t see why people are surpise by Koretzky’s actions. His “snake status” is of no secret! What part of “keep your guard up around snakes” don’t people understand? Treat your enemies like enemies!

  10. “Scores of death and rape threats.” A score is 20 units. Scores, at bare minimum is 40. GamerGate has sent zero. I know asking Buzzfeed to know what words mean is hard, but can’t they at least try?

  11. Pretty fucking pathetic when Koretzky is the representative of the “bastion” of ethics in journalism.

    he is unethical as fuck… you know something is fucked up when Ralph is more ethical than a “professional” journalist… 🙁

  12. I’ll say this, Oliver probably wasn’t very rational about the situation, but Koretzky really poked the bear pretty hard with all this. If he wanted an example of how vocal GamerGate can be when they get riled up, he is getting it now. Which in and of itself destroys the narrative that GamerGate “only goes after women.” How very misogynistic of us to loudly disagree with a male journalist.

  13. Oliver seems like a loose canon but the personal blog style spjairplay updates by Koretzky were unprofessional. Basically, a lot of spaghetti spilling going on.

  14. I’m amazed at how many women in the comments criticized the author and Anita Sarkeesian, one of them even calling her a cunt! Wow, this is the face of GamerGate: white, male, misogynistic gamer, I mean, multi-racial female criticisers of unethicalness.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.