[DrPizza]

> You're constantly

[citation needed]

I don't think I've engaged with gators for several months.

> on the front lines of this debate

[citation needed]

I have been at best a minor footnote in the entire debacle.

> pushing for more leniency for journalists.

[citation needed]

I'm all for ethical journalism. But that is not a call for "objectivity" as I do not believe that journalism can be objective, nor is it a call for removal of "opinion" from both news and reviews.

> You are anti-audience in that respect

Did you consider that perhaps gators are not my audience?

> and yes I consider that unethical.

Writing for different audiences is _unethical_? Do words even have meaning in your world?

> You can have any agenda you wish but when that agenda hurts your readership's trust in you, it seems strange to continue to push it.

Did you never consider that your views do not in fact constitute the consensus opinion of my readership? If I were to lie to my readers and maintain a pro-gamergate persona, I daresay it would hurt my readers' trust in me far more than my current position.

I'm still waiting for you to list all the unethical things I have done. You know: stuff that, for example, demonstrates a conflict of interest or a deliberate misrepresentation of facts. Something that's an actual journalistic ethics issue. I mean, you were so very quick to claim that I was an unethical journalist. Can you not even substantiate the claim?

[exstudent2]

You just said this:

> Oh, and Totilo doesn't describe any kind of compromising relationship between Quinn and any of his writers,

But action was required on Kotaku's behalf because they weren't acting ethically. Here's another Totilo statement about how Kotaku messed up: https://archive.is/fL71k

He does admit wrongdoing. You're straight up saying he doesn't. How is that ethical?

> you idiots continue to bitch about "oh gosh someone in the games industry knows someone else"

That you find people's concern over undisclosed relationships in reporting something worthy of mockery is appalling and quite frankly all the evidence needed to show you're out to push an agenda that requires overlooking a very traditional staple of journalistic integrity.

[DrPizza]

> But action was required on Kotaku's behalf because they weren't acting ethically. Here's another Totilo statement about how Kotaku messed up: https://archive.is/fL71k

What the fuck does that have to do with Quinn? Oh right: nothing.

> That you find people's concern over undisclosed relationships in reporting something worthy of mockery is appalling and quite frankly all the evidence needed to show you're out to push an agenda that requires overlooking a very traditional staple of journalistic integrity.

That you find it remarkable or notable that people who write about games know people who make games shows that you have very little understanding of the trade press. "I know this person" is not a relationship that needs disclosure.

There's no clear consensus on things like Kickstarter, by the way. While investment would be a clear ethical breach, Kickstarter is--by law--not an investment. Kickstarter backers are not acquiring any kind of stake in the company. There's no clear journalistic rule that would, for example, prohibit backing Kickstarters but still permit preordering games (and I've never once seen a gator demand that game preorders be disclosed).

Similarly, the distinction between, for example, making payments through Patreon, subscribing to a game such as WoW, or buying a DLC season pass is quite subtle, and there are no universally agreed, widely established rules on what is and isn't acceptable. This is a matter primarily of personal taste, not hard-and-fast rules.

In any case, _none of this supports your claim that I am an unethical journalist_. I've linked you to a page that should (assuming our CMS is working correctly) list every single article I have written. Which of those pieces is unethical, and why?

[cerberusss]

> What the fuck does that have to do with Quinn Why not keep it civil? I truly don't understand.

[DrPizza]

I haven't been anything other than civil.

It seems quite uncivil to me to claim that I'm unethical and the not even bother to support that claim, but curiously enough, I don't see you complaining about that.

[exstudent2]

> I haven't been anything other than civil.

No you haven't. You almost got both of us banned from HN for being uncivil.

As for Quinn, no on here is talking about her or harassment other than the anti-GGers. I've been talking about Kotaku.

In response to ethical breaches in your articles (opposed to your activism which I've broken down already), I'd say all of your articles are suspect given your publicly stated stance on non-disclosed relationships.

How many of those articles are written about your friends without you disclosing it?

[DrPizza]

> As for Quinn, no on here is talking about her or harassment other than the anti-GGers. I've been talking about Kotaku.

You brought up Kotaku in response to this post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10253942

The context is very specifically Zoe Quinn.

> In response to ethical breaches in your articles (opposed to your activism which I've broken down already),

What "activism" have you "broken down"?

> I'd say all of your articles are suspect given your publicly stated stance on non-disclosed relationships.

You do understand, right, that your standards and expectations for disclosure have nothing to do with any recognized standard for journalistic ethics, right? Just open a newspaper or read a website.

> How many of those articles are written about your friends without you disclosing it?

You tell me! You're the one asserting that I'm an unethical journalist. Surely you have some kind of factual basis to justify such an allegation?

[eropple]

> Did you consider that perhaps gators are not my audience?

Moreover, did he consider that sometimes journalists should say things that the audience does not reflexively and unthinkingly agree with?

I mean, jeez, I disagree with you approximately all of the time, but that's because I'm right and you're wrong--err, because we come at this from different places and have different priors, that doesn't mean you're hisssssss anti-audience hissssssss.

The fixation on media telling them what they want to hear, regardless of any sort of truth or honesty behind it, and the drive to retaliate against people with the temerity to have an opinion that is not completely complimentary to straight white men is probably the worst part of this whole cancerous mess.