It's very easy to talk about game "journalism" without being lumped into the "vocal minority". Just talk about game "journalism" without sticking up for the hopeless "GamerGate" brand, and be careful not to bring up game "journalism" in discussions about gender parity.
I get your point, yet I also see why that would be impossible from the GamerGate point of view considering how the media for the most part covered GamerGate in a biased one-sided way.
Don't get me wrong, I don't support GamerGate (or the other side) at all. Yet, all gamers aren't women-hating misogynists, despite the reporting.
The problem is that GamerGate was created as part of a harassment campaign, explicitly billed as a propaganda tool, and never had a coherent message or structure, neither of which is necessary for a PR operation.
This meant that while the media coverage was generally accurate there are GamerGate supporters who aren't aware of the true origins and now incorrect feel that they were misrepresented — precisely the kind of distraction the original 4chan / burgersandfries cadre were hoping for.
See, you stuck up for "GamerGate", and now I think you're one of those people who believe that Zoe Quinn's private life is everyone's business because "ethics in journalism".
And is that my fault or is it the fault of the coverage of GamerGate?
Please note that I don't side with either of the sides, both sides are acting stupidly and I would rather spend time browsing TMZ than to engage in the stupid flamewar.
See, you paint people with a broad brush, and now I think you're one of those people who don't bother thinking before they post in a mean way because "fuck you got mine" and "karma to burn".
