PewDiePie and the Death of Old Media

Before you go off and say that I am doing what everyone else has been doing and mining what has happened for clicks, hear me out.  I got me degree in Journalism and Public Communication.  I have an understanding of this medium better than most.  And it is because of that that I feel a great sense of shame and pity for what has happened here.  Everything about what has happened was a sign of how the medium that I grew up loving, who was supposed to be the vanguards of democracy, is failing.  And there is no coming back from it.  But here’s the thing – we all should have seen this coming.  From a long ways off, this was apparent to me.  It’s happened before, and it now it is beginning to happen again.

Where did it start?  You could make the argument that it most recently started with the Wall Street Journal putting out a video which was an unfounded hit-piece on the YouTube personality PewDiePie.  There was no defending that video.  None.  It was such blatant bullshit that you felt ashamed of yourself watching it.  To think that a news outlet that was once believed to be a very respectable source could make an attack video against a YouTuber for a video where he was blatantly satirizing the people calling him racist and making a joke about finally giving in and becoming a Nazi.  It was all so obvious, and the Internet tore the Journal to pieces over it.  But that isn’t where it started.

Maybe it started back in 2014, with a little uprising known as GamerGate.  Indeed, the parallels between what happened to Felix and that instance are rather shocking.  We have a corrupt press colluding together to take on an Internet culture that is clearly a threat to their industry, and now we see the beginnings of a new culture war.  And just like with the “Gamers are Dead” articles, now we have every major media outlet releasing a barrage of articles lambasting Felix and his politics.  Also just like GamerGate, this is blowing up in the media’s face so badly that not one person involved is walking away clean.  I don’t think this is where it started either.

The first time I truly got a taste of the downfall was looking at a video on NPR.  I didn’t believe what I was seeing.  There was a link to a video that was, quite literally, an unboxing video.  That’s right, NPR, one of the most respected journalism outlets who does some truly biting work from time to time examining critical issues. was doing an unboxing video.  It was of a PS4.  A lot of people tried to make the argument that they were trying to talk about unboxing videos.  That’s wrong.  It wasn’t a video about unboxing.  It was a fucking unboxing video.  I was so embarrassed for them at that point.  However, that most certainly wasn’t where it started.

So where was it?  Where was the great downfall of the media’s beginning?  The beginning of the Internet?  Getting closer, but still no bueno.  It was actually around the time when Princess Di was killed.  The news at the time wasn’t talking about the facts of her death.  Instead, they were creating narratives.  It couldn’t be enough that a great woman died.  No, the narrative had to be that a wonderful, fantastic woman died.  And her passing needed a good catch phrase and sad music to be played over it.  It was when cable news decided to come into the picture and turn the news from a discussion about the events of the day that transpired, to a narrative telling their audiences how to think about the news.

Here’s the thing – this idea of unbiased reporting is bullshit.  There is no such thing.  You can strive to be as unbiased as possible, have a rigorous vetting process to remove the scruples of bias to whatever extent you can.  But the cold hard truth is that you still have to deal with the fact that bias exists, and it will always be there.  Edward R Murrow admitted his bias, but his way of counter-manning it was to let the other side have its day.  He let Joseph McCarthy come on his show and give a very passionate defense of his position, where he called Murrow and his ilk all sorts of unprofessional names.  In giving his stage to his opposition, Murrow did more to cement how right he is in the eyes of the public.  Still, Murrow was biased.  The best minds are.  Walter Cronkite told some harrowing stories about the war in Vietnam, but he did so with an agenda to get the troops out of there.  He had a bias, but he had enough dedication to his craft to make sure to get people to the truth as close as he could.  It wasn’t hard to sell people on the war in Vietnam being a bad idea.

PewDiePie is the victim of a medium that is lost.  Print media is dying.  I feel it all the time.  I am just one of a thousand blogs that are ignored by the masses.  My audience is still pretty awesome, but I realize that I am part of a bygone era.  I don’t have video-making chops.  This is the best I can do.  Like all animals that feel their end coming, the media is lashing out.  PewDiePie makes for an easy target.  His popularity cannot be overstated.  Traditional media has to work very hard for all of their stories.  Felix basically just gets in front of a camera and plays video games, then he makes millions.  He makes astronomical amounts of money just by exaggerating his expressions while playing video games, and now making more original content.  Of course the media who has to work hard to make any content would despise such a person.

And for those who will say “it’s not anything to do with that!  It was the fact that he used Nazi imagery in his videos!”  First, the video they went after was so cherry-picked and avoided context where Felix showed that he has no love for Nazis, but decided to give the media who attacked him to no end what they wanted.  They do everything they can to take his videos out of context.  And when the Internet took them to task for it, the media overall decided to try and make it in to a big deal about how context doesn’t matter.  Actually, dumb fucks, it does.  It really does.

Old media is dying, and its final death throes will not be pretty.  But I don’t miss them.  Sure, the person who spent $40,000 on a degree like me would be pissed that some guy on YouTube can make boatloads of money.  But I don’t see any of them trying to make a niche for themselves.  I mean, when a high school dropout can become the biggest atheist channel on YouTube and last for longer than anyone else on the site, that means that if you can keep a fresh idea and change up for your audience enough, then you can make a new brand for yourself.  Media has to change with the times.  Its refusal to do so leads to some unbelievably sad things.

Until next time, a quote,

“The trouble is, you think you have time.” – Buddha

Peace out,


You Are, Officially, Too Low-Hanging Fruit to Mock (A response to The Guardian)

When you see sites like The Mary Sue or the click-bait garbage fire that is BuzzFeed, you immediately realize that mocking their “articles” is a waste of time.  Why?  Because they are the lowest of the low-hanging fruit.  It’s like attacking shockofgod or VenomFangX’s videos.  We all know that they are trash.  It’s not even fun to ridicule such bullshit.  You feel like your time has been wasted and all you really got from the experience was older.  Then you have what some people believe is the higher-hanging fruit.  Kristi Winters challenged all non-sjws to go after the most rigid, academic sources and the most robust arguments that we could, in an effort to really grow as people.  Well, I can’t do that, because the sources that are supposed to have credibility are dying out, fast.  Which brings us to The Guardian.

Time was, this newspaper was regarded as an unbiased source, printing some of the most hard-hitting news, like when Edward Snowden went to them first to reveal the leaked info about the NSA.  They used to be one of the few publications telling the truth about the quagmire wars in the Middle East, while the rest of the media was sucking George Bush’s cock.  But those days are long gone.  Now we have the new Guardian.  This version is infested with sjws, and has them all writing articles, like this lovely tidbit.  I’m going to share the title with you (the link to the article will be in the title), and you can judge if this has added any value to anything in modern cultural discourse based on that.  You’re gonna love this.

The ‘tears of joy’ emoji is the worst of all – it’s used to gloat about human suffering

If you heard that title and aren’t immediately inclined to smash your head into the nearest wall, I genuinely don’t know what’s wrong with you.  This is what it’s come to.  We’re talking about emojis now.  Those stupid little things that people use the same way the Elcor do how they explain the emotion behind their statements to other species.  These stupid little things are now being equated to somehow gloating about human suffering.  Like you can’t be laughing so hard that you cry.  Nope, that never happens.  Instead, the article will go to all kinds of sjw logical leaps and bounds, like commenting on the Pepe frog, to make a contrived, bullshit point that this article is somehow indicative of people making light of human suffering.  This is the shit that I see and I can’t help but think that there’s no hope for journalism.  Because this is a mainstream publication putting this bullshit out.  Not some rag that we expect it from.  The Guardian is viewed as a respectable publication.  They have won Pulitzer’s, for fuck’s sake!  Now it’s come to this?!

The cackling grin and tears of mirth are the mockers’ attempt to tell us that, in a world full of human suffering, their brand of callous disregard is winning

What the fuck does that even mean?!  Winning?  At what?!  At not being as tinfoil hat-conspiracy nuts as you?  If so, then oh yeah, I won.  I won hard at that.  Because I don’t see “oppression” and “privilege” and all BS terms that you have everywhere.  I see the world not in black and white, but shades of grey.  I see nuance everywhere, which is something that the woman who wrote this article (Abi Wilkinson) is incapable of doing.  That sentence says nothing.  Absolutely nothing.  Is that what The Guardian is aspiring towards?  Saying nothing?  Well, they let Jessica Valenti post articles with them.  So maybe.

I got my Bachelor’s in Journalism and Public Communication.  I was raised believing that the Fourth Estate’s job was to be the vanguards of democracy.  But that’s not what I see when I look at the news anymore.  I see every left-leaning news outlet doing whatever they can to tear Trump apart.  I see endless articles about white nationalists everywhere, as if they are the biggest threat in the universe right now.  Even though the last white nationalist gathering had 200 people at it.  To contrast, the last brony convention had 7,000 people attending.  Had they wanted to, those 7,000 bronies could have easily gone over to the white nationalist gathering and beaten the shit out of them.  There are more bronies than white nationalists.  That’s how seriously I take the “neo-Nazi” rise under President-elect Trump.  It’s a non-issue.  I wonder how many articles The Guardian has published about the “alt-right” and “neo-nazis.”  Take a look for yourselves.  Any publication with ANY credibility should see all this bullshit for the gross hyperbole it is.  But that seems to be too much for the poncy British assholes who write for this publication.

The sad reality is that journalism is dead.  The Fourth Estate is crumbling before my eyes, and the Fifth Estate “journalism” is a bad joke.  The punch line being that they so often report such sanctimonious garbage that anyone who can take them seriously anymore is a fucking retard.  And I’m done commenting about things that The Guardian has written.  They have officially become too low-hanging fruit to go after.  If Jessica Valenti’s contrasting articles about how men are too forward and she’s offended, and how men are too submissive and she misses when men weren’t so submissive (that woman’s lack of self-awareness is awe-inspiring) didn’t clue you in, perhaps this latest bit of intellectual diarrhea will.  We’re talking about fucking emojis now.  That’s the best that these British fucks can do.  And they make fun of Americans…why, again?

Until next time, a quote,

“For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.” – H.L. Mencken

Peace out,


#GamerGate’s Vindication

Two years ago, there was a blog post written, a video by Mundane Matt DMCA’d, and a massive backlash that followed, which was given steam after a video by Internet Aristocrat.  That began the consumer revolt known as GamerGate.  It was a brutal struggle, with the media doing everything in their power to make those who supported the cause look like the biggest misogynists in the world.  The battle brought sides together who had always hated each other to fight against a common enemy.  Friendships were made.  Battle lines were drawn.  The struggle got ugly, and then it ended.  To be honest, it didn’t end with a bang.  It all kind of fizzled out.  However, something recently came to light that truly blew open the gates on the original beliefs surrounding Zoe Quinn and how all of GamerGate got started.  It is something that has vindicated everyone involved.  Leo Pirate made an amazing video about it.  See for yourself, then we’ll talk about it.

It is amazing.  Absolutely amazing.  After two years, we have finally been vindicated.  In conceivable way, GamerGate has been vindicated.  Zoe Quinn’s lies have been unmasked for all to see.  Her manipulation of the Rebel Game jam and her collusion with Nathan Grayson is laid out for all to see.  Gee, it’s almost like he had some prior relationship with her.  Oh, right, Stephen Totilo said that that didn’t start up until after the articles were published.  Because he’s TOTALLY not full of shit, right?

Quinn has been exposed as a doxxer, harasser, and being completely full of shit.  She was constantly trying to sabotage the Rebel Game Jam that she was made famous for.  This was something that she had planned to do.  Gee, Nathan, didn’t see you talking about that.  I wonder if it was because of a RELATIONSHIP that you had with her.  I’m not slut-shaming.  I’m collusion-shaming.  I will shame the fuck out of her and him for having a relationship that OBVIOUSLY made it so that him writing about her is a conflict of interest.  I don’t believe for a second that he just hit the send button on his article and then called her up and said, “hey, wanna fuck?”  That’s ridiculous.

Now it’s been exposed the Quinn’s network of scumbags, Crash Override Network (just CON for short.  How fitting) has been actively working to dox, attack, and blacklist anyone that they don’t like.  What’s more, we have evidence showing how some of them will take the blame so that they can avoid looking bad as a whole.  With people like an Amazon employee who publicly condemned people for doc-dropping being among their number.  It truly is amazing how far down this rabbit hole of bullshit goes.  But it proves, definitively, that Quinn and her little cabal are so utterly terrible

Oh, and as a nice little cherry on top, CON worked hard to help get the attention away from the disgusting pedophile Sarah Nyberg, aka Sarah Butts.  These people helped a pedophile.  But hey, when you realize that Feminist Frequency has a pedophile who goes by Valis77 modding her Twitch streams and pedophiles like HannibalTheVictor as her most ardent defenders, then does these people’s chumminess with pedophiles really come as a surprise?

Keep this in mind, all of this is coming from someone who went to the UN to talk about how hard her life is being the victim of “harassment.”  Now we have verifiable evidence that Quinn and her cohorts are harassers and doxxers.  What was that quote Quinn had about the harassers believing that they are the good guys?  With the release of the harassment episode of Candace Owens and how she was able to show that Quinn was using sock puppet accounts to attack her, I guess what that hypocritical, blue-haired bitch had to say is prescient, isn’t it?  She does think she’s the good guy, and she is in the wrong.  Funny how that works.

Oh, and here’s a nice little way to bring this back to GG – it has been revealed that Dina was indeed manipulating the development of Mighty No. 9.  It’s something that we already knew, of course, but irrefutable evidence just makes it that much better.  At least her story ended with her crashing and burning out of the game that she helped fuck up. Also in the chat logs, there is a bit where they were talking about how they needed to coordinate news articles to keep the pressure on GamerGate.  The link Leo posted in his video is just amazing!

GamerGate has been vindicated, and I’m not gonna lie – it does feel a little sweet.  I’m glad that now, two years later, we can rest knowing that our side of the fence truly has always had the moral high ground, in every conceivable way.  It’s just awesome.  With each leak that happens, the people who are abusing their power and feeling the hurt.  I’m glad about that.  I bet the look on Quinn’s dye-soaked face was just priceless when the Internet was ripping her and hers to pieces.  Wonder if that landwhale Randi Harper had to attack the Oreos for a while.  Mad about me insulting her like that?  She’s a doxxer, and we have irrefutable proof that she did that, how she was using sock puppet account and bots to inflate her social media pages, and abused her power with Twitter, who she and the rest of CON are tight with.  Fuck her.  Fuck all of them.

This is just great, and watching the hugbox of SJWs yelling and screaming puts a smile on my face.  It’s good to be right.

Until next time, a quote,

“There we go!  That’s what I like to see.  A nice, big smile…” – Joker, Batman: Mask of the Phantasm

Peace out,


You’re the Victim Here? Really? (A response to Stephen Totilo)

The people at Kotaku have decided to raise a stink recently.  See, according to them, they have been blacklisted by the likes of Ubisoft and Bethesda, and they want everyone to know what victims they are.  All the while making sure that GamerGate is known to be such an enemy, and how they are nothing but the victim of a massive conspiracy against them.  Here’s a link to an article written by Stephen Totilo, where he is crying the blues about what he calls “the price of games journalism.”  Yeah, because you are totally the victim here, Stephen.  You and Kotaku did nothing wrong, and us evil gamers are the ones who screwed you.  Of course.

Stephen, I am going to go through a list of things that your publication has done, and you tell me how sympathetic you are.

  • You were totally fine with one of your writers having a casual, sexual relationship with someone he had written about, and only saw fit to disclose it after it went public.  What’s more, in your disclosure, you said that the sexual relationship happened the day after the article was published.  That sure is convenient.  For you.  And your publication’s “ethics” principles.
  • You wrote a series of article demonizing gamers and taking up the “gamers are dead” party line.  Then, when the gaming community rightly gave you the finger, you try and white-wash history by saying that us gamers are just tops, and how we are super, and acting like what you said never happened at all.  Because a few months was all it took for everyone to forget about it, right?
  • You wrote an article where you talked about a sexual harassment claim, in great detail, without getting a single counterpoint.  Say, did Sabrina Ruben Erdely work for you guys?  That would explain a lot.
  • You reported the outright lie that Brianna Wu was forced to leave her home, while it was shown that she was doing TV interviews from her office.  Which is in her home.  Go figure.
  • Time and time again, you and your publication has ignored corruption and gamer dissatisfaction, such as after the “Doritogate” scandal.
  • Your writers have established relationships with people working for publishers like Ubisoft and Bethesda.  Relationships that got them to a point where they were under an embargo about releasing information about their latest games that were coming out.  An embargo which you then subsequently broke.  The irony is that you are crying the blues about something that was, quite clearly, your fault.  Something you did wrong, because…
  • Your entire publication is nothing but a click-bait machine that has been shown, time and time again, to lack ethical standards, objectivity, and a desire to improve.  Any publication that tries to white-wash its own history such as after the “gamers are dead” incident obviously has no sense of shame, and does not deserve any respect.

Stephen, I’m gonna give this to you straight – the people who write for you aren’t journalists. They’re salesmen/women.  Any publication that is as dependent on click-bait as you are is trying to sell to people.  What is your product?  Simple – sensationalism.  You want to make the most stink and the most fuss out of anything that comes to your doorstep.  Given that your parent company is Gawker, this isn’t a surprise.  Just look at the hot water they are in because of them leaking the Hulk Hogan sex tape.  That case is getting so ugly for them that they may very well not survive it, which will mean that you and everyone who works for you will be out of a job.  I’d feel bad for the people losing money, except I actually do have a degree in journalism, Stephen.  And I think that anyone who uses the Yuppie Nuremberg Defense to do the kind of work you do does not deserve even the slightest amount of sympathy.  After all, if you didn’t know that your position was wrong when you did the “gamers are dead” articles, then why did you feel the need to whitewash it?  You knew, and you tried to make it go away.  Just admit it, and let’s stop this pathetic charade of you being the victim, when it is so obvious that what is happening to you is years of unethical retribution that is being meted out on your company.

And since you are merely a product of how broken games journalism is, of course people are coming to your defense.  Naturally.  Games journalism has become nothing but a giant circle-jerk, after all.  The “gamers are dead” saga was coordinated.  It all happened at the same time.  You all were connected via the Google+ group “Gamejournopros.”  Everything about you and our industry is crooked and corrupt.  But you are the victim.  Who do you think buys this?  Who do you honestly think is listening to you?  Why, your friends in the various companies, of course.  Part of me can’t help but wonder if this whole article was you covering your ass now that Gawker is looking to fall apart, with Hulk Hogan on the war path and tons of lost revenue, which has led them to restructure around political commentary.  In other words, SJW bullshit.

If you ask me, what happened to you should only be the start.  This should be the beginning of every major game publisher cutting click-bait publications like you off.  I hope to see the likes of Square Enix and EA throwing you to the wolves.  It would be a fitting end to you and your publication, Stephen.  To watch as your coverage gets so bad that you actually have to step up and do REAL journalism, where you make a ton of calls and get interviews and coordinate with people.  It’s hard work, but it can only be good for the industry.  But let’s be honest, you won’t survive to that point.  You’ll just shrivel up and die, or move onto Polygon or whoever else will take you.  This article felt like your resume pitch, to whoever wants you there.

I don’t feel any sympathy for you, Stephen.  None whatsoever.  I think I’ll end with a quote that you might be familiar with.

“You made your gamergate bed, now get fucked in it.”  – Randi Harper

Peace out,


Some Serious Questions to Anita Sarkeesian

I am going to try and be as decent and polite as I possibly can.  But there are some things that I would like to ask the feminist critic, or anyone associated with her, and I would like legit answers.  If you all could pass this on, as respectfully as possible, then I would be very grateful.  But there are some things that I want to know.  Let’s call this – 10 questions I want to legitimately ask Anita Sarkeesian, and would like a serious answer on.  I graduated from college with my Bachelor’s in Journalism and Public Communication, and while I am not going to be focusing on the journalism part with my current career choice, I still remember that part of me that wanted to be a journalist when I started college.  With that in mind, here are my questions, with little bits afterwards that will explain why I want to know.

10. If a video game character appeals to lesbian and bisexual women, then how is it derogatory to women?
Here’s something I’ve been wanting an answer for, for ages.  Form really any feminist, but specifically you.  Because you seem to conveniently forget that there are lesbian and bisexual women out there, who may find the representations of a female video game character sexually attractive.  Which strikes me as kind of two-faced, considering that you have said that your reading of “queer women” literature enriched you as a feminist.  All of your statements about representations of women in video games seem to focus exclusively on their appeal to men, while completely ignoring that women may find this sort of thing attractive.  Or gay men who have a healthy respect for femininity .  I know more than one such person.  Went to class with one.  He was the most flowery queen I’ve ever met, but an interesting guy all the same.

9. Why do you consistently ignore context when you point out things about characters or situations in games?
The ONLY time I have seen you address this issue is in your Damsels in Distress videos, where you talk about the mercy killing of a female character.  That is the only time that you acknowledge that context does play a part.  But you then subsequently brush it off, like it suddenly doesn’t matter.  How do you reconcile that with your positions?  If context plays a role, however minuscule, shouldn’t that mean something?  Like when you have a clip from Watch Dogs where there are naked women, but the instance of that was at a sex slavery ring, which the game never tells you is a good thing.  In fact, it goes out of its way to point out that it’s bad.  Why do you simply ignore context at some points, and then address it with a simple brush-off at others.  Does narrative context never matter?  Guess that was a few questions rolled into one, but I thought I’d ask all the same.

8. Do you have a problem with sexual expression?  If so, why?  If not, what is the acceptable level of sexual expression that you believe should be in games?
You consistently deride sexual expression in games, yet then deride that female characters don’t have the correct kind of sexual expression.  I am just curious where you view the line.  What do you believe is the correct amount of sexual expression?  At what point is it offensive?  I don’t mod comments, so whoever wants to answer, feel free.  If you want to just say that women in gaming are for chauvinist men, you can do that.  I disagree, but I want to know where you stand, Anita.

7. What do you believe is the most offensive female representation in a video game?
I’m not speaking in general terms.  I want you to be very specific.  What female in a game is the worst, and why?  There must be elaboration on this, because so many of the qualities that you describe as negative contradict one-another.  An example – your recent review praised the new Lara Croft, yet she is sexually-appealing and also seems to fit into the Ms. Male character archetype, since she is very much the male equivalent of Indiana Jones.  I want to know what you believe to be the absolute worst female character depiction in a video game, and give me concrete reasons as to why.

6. Which game do you believe worst represents female characters?
A larger extrapolation of the previous question, but worth asking.  Because your examples seem to cherry-pick specific things from specific games, ignoring the larger picture.  So, with that in mind, I want to know what game do you believe represents female characters the worst, and subsequently – why?

5. Which game and which character do you believe are the best representation in a video game?
The reverse of the previous two questions, but now I think that if we should look at the worst, let’s subsequently look at the best.  Which female character do you believe is the best female representation, and which game do you believe has the best women.  Again, why?

4. What do you believe is the correct type of male character in a game?
Since I am going to be posting this to some subreddits and other places where people I am sure will have a thousand and one hilarious examples, I want to know – what do you believe a male character in a game should be?  For all the negative traits you associate men in games with having, what do you believe they should have.  As an extrapolation, which male character do you believe most exemplifies the traits you list.  Be specific.

3. In a Tweet, you derided difficulty in games, stating that it works against women.  Do you not believe that that is a little condescending?
I believe that women have just as much skill as male players.  There are plenty of women who can defeat me rather soundly at Bloodborne PvP.  You’ve talked about how there needs to be less difficulty in games for female players.  Do you not find that even the least bit insulting to the women who dedicate their time and energy to becoming skilled in their respective games?  Not to mention, isn’t it insulting to the idea that women are equal with men, when you want there to be a way for things to be easier for them?

2. Isn’t it a touch bit hypocritical that you can deride the trash-talking women get in gaming, yet then totally ignore the fact that men online get it just as much?
This has been brought up by just about everyone, but it is a very good point.  In both online gaming, and trolling, there are plenty of men who get it just as much as you, if not moreso.  I guarantee you that PewDiePie gets plenty of abuse from people.  So does any other online personality.  So does anyone online, really.  Don’t you think its hypocritical for you to go to the UN and complain about rudeness direct at yourself, while then ignoring all the men who get it?  Are you saying that it is only hurtful towards women?  If so, does that not how do you defend that position, in respect to the fact that it has been shown, quite clearly, that it does affect both genders equally?

1. Will you please clarify your views on violence in gaming for me?
In your Rise of the Tomb Raider review, the person you had stand in for you stated that the game was flawed due to the fact that there were no women in the antagonist’s mercenary outfit, yet then subsequently went on to deride the violence in the game as well.  Which is it?  Do you believe that violence in video games is wrong based on its own merits, or that violence should also be acceptable toward women?  After all, Lara Croft kills the mercs in that game, in exceedingly more violent ways as the game goes on.  Is that wrong all on its own, or are you complaining that she can’t kill women as well?  She would, if women were added to the roster of mercenaries.  Your views seem contradictory.  So perhaps you could lay this bag of snakes out straight.  In your E3 2015 coverage, you derided the new Doom trailer for the violence in it.  Doesn’t that seem contradictory to what you have said?  Just putting that out there.

Those are my questions.  If you all could find a way to get these to the people at Feminist Frequency, I hope that they will answer them.  I have been completely respectful in this post, so maybe that will help.  I somehow doubt it, yet I hope for a discourse, because my inner journalist would like nothing better than for someone at that enterprise to engage with me, so I could learn more about where they stand.  The chance for an interview with the lady herself would be a dream come true, since we could perhaps finally see behind the veneer she puts up, to who Anita Sarkeesian really is.  It’s a dumb dream, but I can dream it, can’t I?

Actually, wait, I got another one that just came to me –

0: Why do you have a convicted pedophile running your stream?
I think that one speaks for itself.  Right, Valis77?

Until next time, a quote,

“When you tear out a man’s tongue, you are not proving him a liar.  You’re only telling the world that you fear what he has to say.”  -Tyrion Lannister, Game of Thrones

Peace out,


The Flaw in Analysis of Last Night’s Debate

Something to know about what has been happening the past year – Bernie Sanders has been routinely ignored by the media at large.  It is almost surreal how corporate media is doing everything in their power to pretend like he doesn’t exist.  But the crowds that he has been drawing at every event say that the people are not fooled by it.  In fact, his strength as a populist candidate should scare Shillary Clinton right down to her pantsuits.  Neat fact – someone made an image of her in every color pantsuit of the rainbow and put them in order of the visible light spectrum.  To that person, you have my thanks.  Look it up.  It’s kind of hilarious.  In fact, let me save you the trouble.  Enjoy the lulz.

Shillary Pantsuit RainbowWhat wonderful people we have in this world.  In any case, back to the topic at hand.  Bernie Sanders has been the victim of a concerted effort to be kept out of the eyes of the corporate media.  Or at the very least be made to appear to be not even remotely a threat to one of the most boring and corporate candidates that I’ve ever seen.  Shillary’s biggest problem is that she clearly stands for nothing other than being President and getting corporate money.  It’s kind of sad to watch.

Last night’s debate, if you follow every single corporate outlet, was the defining moment of Shillary Clinton’s victory, which is so obviously guaranteed.  Right?  Well, the truth is a little more complicated than that.  See, according to every single outlet that isn’t corporate media, Bernie Sanders won that debate by leaps and bounds.  Don’t believe me?  Here is a story that shows how polls conducted on every site, even CNN, favored Sanders.

There is a real question – why does every news outlet seem to want to make sure we all know that Shillary is absolutely in the lead, without question?  It’s almost like they are afraid to admit that Bernie is a real threat to her.  It can’t be argued at this point that that’s the case.  Unlike her, Bernie is actually popular because of the fact that he stands for things, and he stays on point, all the time.  If you ask me, the fact that the media seems so dead-set on ignoring Bernie is only working out in his favor.  See, we live in the age of the Internet.  Being a populist candidate is easier now than ever.  The media seems to forget about that.  Maybe it’s because the media has been doing everything they can to pretend that the Internet and the culture that it espouses doesn’t exist.

After all, why would CNN tell the truth about Sanders?  Their parent company is Time Warner.  They are one of Shillary’s top contributors.  Naturally they are going to do everything they can to kiss her pantsuited ass.  But why is every single publication so dead-set against Sanders?  Naturally, The Guardian has to make sure that they kiss Shillary’s ass.  That publication has ZERO journalistic integrity.  It is just so strange that every publication and its brother is looking to abandon their journalistic integrity just so they can support a candidate that not ONE poll has shown to be in the lead.  The Drudge Report, a publication that hates the left, had a poll with Sanders clearly in the lead.  When all evidence shows that the conclusion you have come to is wrong, does journalistic ethics mean nothing?  It’s about taking in the evidence and reporting it.  What did it look like in the editing room when they were drafting these stories?  I shudder to think.

This isn’t really a post about the debate.  It’s more about how the news is so fast to throw away what little ethics they have in order to paint a narrative that all objective evidence shows isn’t true.  Is there any line that the media is unwilling to cross in order to push a narrative?  What has modern journalism come to?  Hell, The Young Turks, a group who is unabashedly biased in the extreme, was baffled by the fact that none of these outlets seem able to report the plain as day facts of this story.

Regardless of where you are on the political spectrum, it should bother us all that the news seems to not even try doing the right thing.  But not all major news outlets were this bad.  After the debate, PBS reported on the winner by just having the poll be the story.  Now that is how it’s done.  Regardless of what the pundits think, the facts speak for themselves.  Take that for what you will.  As for me, this is why I didn’t focus on the journalism side of my degree in Journalism and Public Communication.  Because I didn’t want to get sucked into this nightmare of ignoring facts to make a narrative.  I already have a site where I admit that I inject my own opinion into, but I don’t ignore when facts get in the way of my opinions.

In the end, though, Bernie is still riding high.  The base supports him.  That’s something that really should scare Shillary.  After all, during the first debate with Obama, the media was quick to support her then as well.  Look at how that turned out.  As for myself, I think that while Bernie did good, that debate did show his age a bit.  That guy needed some coffee or something.  He is a dinosaur, after all.  I suppose this should be expected.  But the campaign is far from over, and I look forward to seeing what happens next.

Until next time, a quote,

“All I can hope to teach my son is to tell the truth and fear no man.”  -Edward R. Murrow

Peace out,


Native Advertising Now? (A response to Polygon)

I am going to give you a brief education on a concept called native advertising.  It works like this – the media is really lazy.  See, doing good journalism apparently takes too much money.  The people doing the bad journalism are looking for easier ways to make money.  Conventional advertising doesn’t work anymore.  It just runs off people like water off of a duck.  So now advertisers are trying to sneakily get their advertising into things.  Here’s the problem – it only works once.  That’s it.  After that, people have the whole, “fool me once, shame on you” approach and you aren’t able to get them again.  Native advertising works by having a product that you want to sell.  In order to sell it, you get a publication that is meant to inform people of things.  These companies then pay these publications to print stories that cleverly pimp out these companies products in the stories.  Not to the side.  In them.  It’s insidious.  It’s greedy.  It’s taking what little respect online news has and flushing it down the drain.

Which brings me to Polygon.  When GamerGate started, people thought that all the stuff about collusion with the press was just a smokescreen for sexism.  But then more and more we saw that there is real collusion between Indie and AAA devs and games journalism.  It’s a real thing, and while there have been real strides in publications that actually respect the intelligence of their audience, others have decided – eh, fuck that!  We have stuff to pimp out, to people we are tight with.  Such as with the senior editor at Polygon, Phil Kollar, and freelance “journalist” and crappy book author Phil Owen.

According to some interesting digging that people have done (linked here) which shows that Owen and Kollar have a gay little bromance between them, which ended up having Owen’s book being pimped out in an article.  See, what happened is that there was this article that was written where the majority of it was just a part of Owen’s book put in the article.  The rest was written by “Polygon Staff.”  Which, when someone busted Polygon for this, they then tried to do some revisionist history and edited the article.  Twice.  Eventually, it stopped being written by “Polygon Staff” and then was written by Phil Owen.  Funny how that works.  In the article, not only do they pimp Owen’s book, but they also tell people how much it costs and how to get it.  Did they at least charge Owen for the publicity?  Given the nice gay little bromance that he had with Kollar, I doubt it.

Why do I bring this up?  I bring it up because the thing that got GamerGate started was tied into the infidelity of one person.  But not the fact that Zoe Quinn was sleeping around.  It was who she was sleeping around with. One of them was Nathan Grayson.  A writer for several publications at the time.  Detractors of GG are quick to claim that he never reviewed her game.  I agree.  But he did give Quinn positive coverage in a couple of articles.  He is also credited at the end of her “game” (I don’t call it that.  It’s a choose-your-own-adventure digital storybook) Depression Quest.  That was clear and present evidence of an Indie dev trading on her relationship with a writer (but Grayson’s editor said that the relationship started the day after those articles came out!) to get positive coverage.  That was the whole deal.

Garbage journalism should be noticed by someone.  Anyone.  I hate that it is so easy for people to just turn the other cheek about this stuff.  Why?  Because there are people who I am sure will defend Polygon for this decision.  For the decision to allow native advertising AND collusion in their publication.  That’s the “standard” that they hold to.  This publication is so bereft of integrity that they accept when this sort of thing happens.  How can people keep reading stuff like this and go, “yeah, I’m totally fine with this.”  What does it take for you to bring into question a publication’s professional integrity?  Do you have to see Owen sucking Kollar’s dick?  Do you have to have photographic evidence of Owen handing Kollar money with taped audio of him going, “alright, you sexy beast.  Print my story and you’ll get even more”?  What does it take?

Fifth Estate journalism is a joke.  A really bad joke.  We need to turn this around.  It needs to happen.  Right now.  Because with each story like this, the field dies a little more.  When I went into college, and decided to major in journalism, I was so ignorant to how much garbage infected this medium.  Now I am not ignorant.  I see the truth.  The truth is that journalism is dying a little more every day.  Every piece of crooked journalism is doing more damage.  Most people think of Fox News with this crap.  But as you can see, they aren’t the only ones who are guilty.  This isn’t totally on them, either.  After all, does the public not consume this stuff?  Are we not at least a little responsible for how bad it’s gotten?  If people didn’t consume it, we wouldn’t see stuff like this.

Thankfully, I know that at least I am not helping to contribute to this problem.  I don’t read Polygon.  I don’t read Kotaku, Destructoid, or Rock, Paper, Shotgun for the same reason.  Forget the hashtags for a moment.  Do you honestly want to support this kind of unethical behavior?  We all draw lines.  Each line is in a different place, but we should at least be agreed that the place of blatant corruption is a line that we will not cross.  As for Kollar, you suck at your job, and if I were the boss at that publication, you would be fired that day.  But wait, never mind.  If your publication had standards, then none of you would be working there.  After all, the “Polygon Staff” clearly didn’t protest this, either.

Until next time, a quote,

“The thing about drawing lines in the sand is that they disappear with the next breeze.”  -Raymond Reddington, The Blacklist

Peace out,