User:Rhoark/sandbox/PerreaultParadigm

The Gamergate controversy developed in three ways. The first of these is that it started a conversation about journalism ethics. A blog run by Jenni Goodchild collected allegations from anonymous contributors. These included: lack of transparency in game journalists' personal and professional connections, using game media as a platform to advance social justice, conspiring with the Digital Games Research Association, and collusion between different publications to shape an agenda. The charge of collusion seemed to gain support from the near-simultaneous publication from several outlets arguing for the end of gamer identity. The idea of a conspiracy within academia were largely dismissed, but discussion of the other allegations continues within Gamergate. The second line of development was a sustained pattern of misogynist harassment related to gaming being historically male-dominated. This gender bias itself exists in part due to attitudes present in early games journalism, persisting through the 1990's. The third strand of the controversy consisted of conservative pundits who objected to progressive politicization of video games.

Journalists tended to adopt two tacks in reasserting legitimacy in the face of the controversy. The first of these was to distance themselves from the gaming audience while emphasizing parallels between their own work and classic mainstream journalism. The second way was to cast themselves as source of paternal guidance for gamers. The paternal stance served as a natural extension to game journalism's traditional role of providing guidance on buying and playing games. Journalists adopting this style framed the controversy around the motivations of people engaging in harassment. They dismissed ethical allegations out of hand because of the existence of that harassment. Others responded readily to the charges, but redirected discussion towards harassment in order to condemn it. Journalists felt it was urgent to respond to harassment because they were situated in the community where it was happening, yet at same time they paradoxically had to adopt a disciplinarian tone distanced from that same community. While journalists saw this as an expansion of their relationship with the audience, some gamers saw it as being rejected as an audience. The choice to cover motives for harassment reflected journalists' view that players are a subject for coverage just as much as the games themselves are. Those conducting harassment believe that criticism of the games they enjoy will lead to these types of games becoming unavailable in the future. Some journalists refused to acknowledge the ethics angle of the controversy at all, believing that to do so would legitimize the harassment. Some felt a need to distance themselves from the audience in order to preserve the legitimacy of their craft. For others, it was more a matter of withholding coverage as a means of punishing the transgressors. The situation was a dilemma of how to appropriately balance coverage of the ethics discussion with condemnation of harassment. In most articles, the ethics angle was addressed in some fashion.

Some game journalists acknowledged that reviewers did sometimes engage in criticized practices, such as accepting gifts from game publishers. These instances were cast as remnants of a paradigm that game journalism in the main was already moving beyond. Game journalists regarded their present work as essentially the same kind of activity as traditional journalism. In this way, they defended the integrity of their craft by placing questionable practices, when they occur, as by definition outside the sphere of actual journalism. Game journalists articulated their role as the promulgation of truth, sometimes contra the desires of both game publishers and audiences. More than simply reporting facts, however, game journalists saw it as their responsibility to mediate discussions about social issues and counter harmful practices in their audience. Most journalists who were interviewed attributed Gamergate's attacks on the media to resistance against journalists promoting diversity and inclusiveness, and they responded to the pressure by redoubling their commitment to these values. Game journalists further defended the legitimacy of their field by noting it shared the same ethical standards as mainstream journalism, as in following the SPJ code of ethics, avoiding conflicts of interest in connection with industry, and being transparent about personal connections. Criticism of game journalism was compared to perennial criticisms of liberal bias in mainstream journalism, with critics cast as reactionary or peddling conspiracy theories. The intent was to discredit criticism through analogy to other discredited arguments and enlist the rhetorical support of mainstream journalists.

Some elements of Gamergate criticism were typical of journalism criticism in general, addressing transparency in relationships and independence from the industry it covers. Other demands were less typical, such as to forgo a social-justice orientation in favor of offering consumer advice. Journalists responded both in a paternal fashion and as traditional journalists. In the paternal role they spoke in a disciplinary voice and dismissed ethical charges out of hand, justified by many of those claims being unsubstantiated. Game journalists tried to understand the connection between the ethical charges and harassment of women and to explain this to a larger audience. There was no rational explanation, but they attempted to understand and explain it since the harassment came from within their audience. At other times, journalists in the paternalistic mode saw harassment as delegitimizing ethical claims or that harassers do not deserve a voice. Game journalists sought to maintain the legitimacy of their craft by linking it with traditional journalistic practices and organizations, such as the Society of Professional Journalists. They acknowledged that problems existed in game journalism in the past. In reaction to Gamergate criticisms, games journalists explicitly broke with the former paradigm of the enthusiast-press.