Journalism and bias in the gaming industry.

[Meshugger]

So guys, what do you think about Kern bringing back the League for Gamers?

https://m.facebook.com/leagueforgamers?refsrc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FKotakuInAction%2Fcomments%2F2y8zhz%2Fgoal_mark_kern_bringing_back_the_league_for%2F&_rdr

 

https://twitter.com/League4Gamers

 

http://youtu.be/Y8ZhznFfJZY

 

 

Also, the IGDA appears to be anti-unionization.

 

https://archive.today/5MzVI

 

Sceptical at this point. This guy hasn't been the best manager of his previous projects. On the other hand, i gladly welcome an alternative to IGDA. There is also of course the possibility of it being equally corrupt as IGDA within 10 years and we're back to square one.

 

The ride never ends.

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

 

Like I wish Sargon of Akkad and CameraLady got more attention simply for the fact that they do all their research themselves and make it clear how they did it, and they've yet to make promises they don't keep. 

 

 

...Is this the same Sargon of Akkad who managed to simultaneously fail at statistics and interpreting basic research in his "why gamers don't need diversity" video, or some different clown?

 

I haven't seen the video, why does he fail?

 

 

He basically takes a research paper with a sample size of 27 (that would give you a confidence level of around 40, by the way, which, I note, is below the odds of a coin toss) with very specific questions about identification with characters in games, and treats it as ultimate, objective proof that the feminists are lying and gamers really don't need diverse characters, because they can identify with their on-screen avatar just fine. (Simultaneously proving that he also doesn't understand why feminists think games need more diverse characters, but that's beside the point.)

 

 

Edit: oh, then he also charmingly accuses the person who made this paper with "trying to downplay this finding because it doesn't fit the narrative".

 

 

Even if he is wrong on his conclusions, the whole gaming journalist- and the industry in general, treat the paper as a framework for how gaming "identity" should be treated. 

 

Games shouldn't be something, they just are IMO. Therefore, all this forced diversity is just another form of authoritarian social engineering. I spit on such juvenile scorn. 

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

Even if he is wrong on his conclusions, the whole gaming journalist- and the industry in general, treat the paper as a framework for how gaming "identity" should be treated. 

 

 

 

[citation needed]

 

Edit: I mean, his problem was that the evil, evil feminists were "hiding the research away because it didn't fit the narrative". You can't simultaneously do that and "treat it as a framework for how gaming identity should be treated"! It's either one or the other.

 

 

 

Games shouldn't be something, they just are IMO. Therefore, all this forced diversity is just another form of authoritarian social engineering.

 

 

You mean, all the horrible, horrible forced diversity like... urm... what exactly? I literally can't recall any high-profile games with "forced diversity" in them. Then again, it's not like I follow high-profile gaming too closely, so I'm honestly curious.

Edited March 7, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[SophosTheWise]

The main problem with the crowd that demands better journalism basically is that they ask games journalism to make a change that not even big media can. As long as games journalism is product-focussed  there will always be a worrisome closeness between PR and journalists. The second problem is people demanding objective reporting AND art criticism at the same time (or at least they demand games to be taken as seriously as art) which is absolutely ridiculous. Art was and is always, or at least most of the time, extremely political (besides not considering politics is also politics, you cannot be unpolitical) and art criticism was always subjective, at least since the 60s. 

 

What journalists can do in my opinion is explain how their publication works, what dynamics are at play, how decisions get made. I'm a journalist and I cycle through readers comments a few times per day and what I see most is people not really understanding how journalism works, sometimes to an astounding degree. Same goes with the gamergate crowd.

 

Every journalist in the world knows that his profession is in danger, every journalist wishes he had more time, every journalist wishes he could act more independently, but considering the state of media economically, there's no chance in hell we're going back to the 60-90s where journalism probably has had its best time. A few weeks ago I had an argument with a guy who basically deemed every cliffhanger title to be clickbait. Then he proceeded to rant about journalism. When I asked him if he supported really good journalism and named some local sites he said no - he reads the clickbait sites. When I told him that he could do away with bad journalism by supporting good journalism, he simply said it's not his responsibility. And let me tell you, yes it's your responsibility, because journalists are dependant on you, dependant on their readers. I see it every day - the good articles, the relevant and truly inspiring articles are surpassed by factor 10 or more by more "popular" stuff like pop stars, half-naked women and scandal stories. Why? Not because journalists are evil and lure their readers into bad articles, but because you read it and that makes journalists (who, compared to other jobs) be able to pay their rent and eat - because we don't make a decent living (and I imagine games journalists making a LOT less).

 

Media acts as a mirror to society in some cases. If you want to change media, change your attitude towards it.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

The second problem is people demanding objective reporting AND art criticism at the same time (or at least they demand games to be taken as seriously as art) which is absolutely ridiculous. Art was and is always, or at least most of the time, extremely political (besides not considering politics is also politics, you cannot be unpolitical) and art criticism was always subjective, at least since the 60s. 

 

^This.

[Orogun01]

The main problem with the crowd that demands better journalism basically is that they ask games journalism to make a change that not even big media can. As long as games journalism is product-focussed  there will always be a worrisome closeness between PR and journalists. The second problem is people demanding objective reporting AND art criticism at the same time (or at least they demand games to be taken as seriously as art) which is absolutely ridiculous. Art was and is always, or at least most of the time, extremely political (besides not considering politics is also politics, you cannot be unpolitical) and art criticism was always subjective, at least since the 60s. 

 

What journalists can do in my opinion is explain how their publication works, what dynamics are at play, how decisions get made. I'm a journalist and I cycle through readers comments a few times per day and what I see most is people not really understanding how journalism works, sometimes to an astounding degree. Same goes with the gamergate crowd.

 

Every journalist in the world knows that his profession is in danger, every journalist wishes he had more time, every journalist wishes he could act more independently, but considering the state of media economically, there's no chance in hell we're going back to the 60-90s where journalism probably has had its best time. A few weeks ago I had an argument with a guy who basically deemed every cliffhanger title to be clickbait. Then he proceeded to rant about journalism. When I asked him if he supported really good journalism and named some local sites he said no - he reads the clickbait sites. When I told him that he could do away with bad journalism by supporting good journalism, he simply said it's not his responsibility. And let me tell you, yes it's your responsibility, because journalists are dependant on you, dependant on their readers. I see it every day - the good articles, the relevant and truly inspiring articles are surpassed by factor 10 or more by more "popular" stuff like pop stars, half-naked women and scandal stories. Why? Not because journalists are evil and lure their readers into bad articles, but because you read it and that makes journalists (who, compared to other jobs) be able to pay their rent and eat - because we don't make a decent living (and I imagine games journalists making a LOT less).

 

Media acts as a mirror to society in some cases. If you want to change media, change your attitude towards it.

But gamers do support sites by disabling ad-blockers and have taken it to archiving links of clickbait journalism. TB has become mainstream due to his ethical behavior that predated this whole debacle, because a lot of people were waking up to the fact that games journalism was corrupt. So I don't why is it a problem because they are doing something to support good journalism, but this will ultimately force media to adopt an ethical model that works for the Information Age.

 

Another thing; "everybody is doing it" is not a good moral justification. If journalism in general is corrupt that doesn't make the norm moral, it is just proof of the magnitude of its failure.

 

Also, gamers that clamor that games are art do not consider or dislike highly subjective movements that spawned in the 60's like Dada, Expressionism, Abstraction and so on. For them the measure of art still is it's aesthetic value and it's conceptual. At least that's what I've gathered from their arguments which ridicule modern art and praise games for having greater aesthetic value.

[Namutree]

 

 

 

Even if he is wrong on his conclusions, the whole gaming journalist- and the industry in general, treat the paper as a framework for how gaming "identity" should be treated. 

 

 

 

[citation needed]

 

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

 

 

Even if he is wrong on his conclusions, the whole gaming journalist- and the industry in general, treat the paper as a framework for how gaming "identity" should be treated. 

 

 

 

[citation needed]

 

 

 

Amazing. I just gave a well-considered analysis why the guy shouldn't ever be treated as a reliable source, and what's the first source popping up when I ask somebody for citation? 

 

I'll probably watch it sometime later, but I've heard enough from the guy for the week.

Edited March 7, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Malcador]

Would prefer games journalists just stuck to being the variant of whores they are now, in a way, don't think it will be all that harmful.

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

Even if he is wrong on his conclusions, the whole gaming journalist- and the industry in general, treat the paper as a framework for how gaming "identity" should be treated. 

 

 

 

[citation needed]

 

Edit: I mean, his problem was that the evil, evil feminists were "hiding the research away because it didn't fit the narrative". You can't simultaneously do that and "treat it as a framework for how gaming identity should be treated"! It's either one or the other.

 

 

 

Games shouldn't be something, they just are IMO. Therefore, all this forced diversity is just another form of authoritarian social engineering.

 

 

You mean, all the horrible, horrible forced diversity like... urm... what exactly? I literally can't recall any high-profile games with "forced diversity" in them. Then again, it's not like I follow high-profile gaming too closely, so I'm honestly curious.

 

 

Check the video again, the Dan Golding's article is referenced in several of the "Gamers are dead" articles.

 

For forced diversity, check David Vavra's treatment of not including minorities in his game Kingdom Come:Deliverence: https://archive.today/KWpAH

[Namutree]

 

 

Amazing. I just gave a well-considered analysis why the guy shouldn't ever be treated as a reliable source, and what's the first source popping up when I ask somebody for citation? 

 

I'll probably watch it sometime later, but I've heard enough from the guy for the week.

 

Don't blame you for not wanting to watch it. It's long and kinda boring.

 

At any rate it literally shows game journalists using the study as a framework for how the gamer, "identity" should be treated.

 

The study itself is unreliable; I was skeptical of it's conclusions the moment I saw it. That wasn't really the point though.

[Meshugger]

The main problem with the crowd that demands better journalism basically is that they ask games journalism to make a change that not even big media can. As long as games journalism is product-focussed  there will always be a worrisome closeness between PR and journalists. The second problem is people demanding objective reporting AND art criticism at the same time (or at least they demand games to be taken as seriously as art) which is absolutely ridiculous. Art was and is always, or at least most of the time, extremely political (besides not considering politics is also politics, you cannot be unpolitical) and art criticism was always subjective, at least since the 60s. 

 

What journalists can do in my opinion is explain how their publication works, what dynamics are at play, how decisions get made. I'm a journalist and I cycle through readers comments a few times per day and what I see most is people not really understanding how journalism works, sometimes to an astounding degree. Same goes with the gamergate crowd.

 

Every journalist in the world knows that his profession is in danger, every journalist wishes he had more time, every journalist wishes he could act more independently, but considering the state of media economically, there's no chance in hell we're going back to the 60-90s where journalism probably has had its best time. A few weeks ago I had an argument with a guy who basically deemed every cliffhanger title to be clickbait. Then he proceeded to rant about journalism. When I asked him if he supported really good journalism and named some local sites he said no - he reads the clickbait sites. When I told him that he could do away with bad journalism by supporting good journalism, he simply said it's not his responsibility. And let me tell you, yes it's your responsibility, because journalists are dependant on you, dependant on their readers. I see it every day - the good articles, the relevant and truly inspiring articles are surpassed by factor 10 or more by more "popular" stuff like pop stars, half-naked women and scandal stories. Why? Not because journalists are evil and lure their readers into bad articles, but because you read it and that makes journalists (who, compared to other jobs) be able to pay their rent and eat - because we don't make a decent living (and I imagine games journalists making a LOT less).

 

Media acts as a mirror to society in some cases. If you want to change media, change your attitude towards it.

 

I rather have game journalists reviewing games than giving them critique. Modern art (and its subequent critics) is so horrendously bland, pretentious and just generally **** to begin with, that you have swim through a sea of **** to find something not insulting to your senses. 

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Don't blame you for not wanting to watch it. It's long and kinda boring.

 

 

At any rate it literally shows game journalists using the study as a framework for how the gamer, "identity" should be treated.

 

The study itself is unreliable; I was skeptical of it's conclusions the moment I saw it. That wasn't really the point though.

 

 

 

*Sigh*. Okay, I watched it.

 

Actually, the interesting thing is, he's trying to use a completely different study (by the same academic) as framework, but, hampered by his lackluster reading comprehension, according to Mr. Sargon (ironic, based on his first video, but since I'm lazy to read the study in question, I'll just believe him for the moment), he even fails at that.

 

In any case, I don't think it's fair to say "the study is treated as a framework for how the gamer identity should be treated", when the articles in question have nothing in common with the conclusions of the study in question. "The study was name-dropped in a vain attempt to lend academic credence to an argument it actually had no bearing on" would be more accurate (y'know, aside from the "completely different study than the one we were talking about" thing). If we are to believe Mr. Sample-Size-27-Is-Good-Enough-For-Me. (Which we shouldn't, because he has demonstrated how "analysis" means "skimming through the abstract" to him, but that's beside the point.)

Edited March 7, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

For forced diversity, check David Vavra's treatment of not including minorities in his game Kingdom Come:Deliverence: https://archive.today/KWpAH

 

 

...I've read the article.

 

Then I ctrl+f-d it for mentions of "vavra", just in case I missed something.

 

It literally makes no mention of the gentleman in question. What "treatment" are we actually talking about?

[SophosTheWise]

 

The main problem with the crowd that demands better journalism basically is that they ask games journalism to make a change that not even big media can. As long as games journalism is product-focussed  there will always be a worrisome closeness between PR and journalists. The second problem is people demanding objective reporting AND art criticism at the same time (or at least they demand games to be taken as seriously as art) which is absolutely ridiculous. Art was and is always, or at least most of the time, extremely political (besides not considering politics is also politics, you cannot be unpolitical) and art criticism was always subjective, at least since the 60s. 

 

What journalists can do in my opinion is explain how their publication works, what dynamics are at play, how decisions get made. I'm a journalist and I cycle through readers comments a few times per day and what I see most is people not really understanding how journalism works, sometimes to an astounding degree. Same goes with the gamergate crowd.

 

Every journalist in the world knows that his profession is in danger, every journalist wishes he had more time, every journalist wishes he could act more independently, but considering the state of media economically, there's no chance in hell we're going back to the 60-90s where journalism probably has had its best time. A few weeks ago I had an argument with a guy who basically deemed every cliffhanger title to be clickbait. Then he proceeded to rant about journalism. When I asked him if he supported really good journalism and named some local sites he said no - he reads the clickbait sites. When I told him that he could do away with bad journalism by supporting good journalism, he simply said it's not his responsibility. And let me tell you, yes it's your responsibility, because journalists are dependant on you, dependant on their readers. I see it every day - the good articles, the relevant and truly inspiring articles are surpassed by factor 10 or more by more "popular" stuff like pop stars, half-naked women and scandal stories. Why? Not because journalists are evil and lure their readers into bad articles, but because you read it and that makes journalists (who, compared to other jobs) be able to pay their rent and eat - because we don't make a decent living (and I imagine games journalists making a LOT less).

 

Media acts as a mirror to society in some cases. If you want to change media, change your attitude towards it.

But gamers do support sites by disabling ad-blockers and have taken it to archiving links of clickbait journalism. TB has become mainstream due to his ethical behavior that predated this whole debacle, because a lot of people were waking up to the fact that games journalism was corrupt. So I don't why is it a problem because they are doing something to support good journalism, but this will ultimately force media to adopt an ethical model that works for the Information Age.

 

Another thing; "everybody is doing it" is not a good moral justification. If journalism in general is corrupt that doesn't make the norm moral, it is just proof of the magnitude of its failure.

 

Also, gamers that clamor that games are art do not consider or dislike highly subjective movements that spawned in the 60's like Dada, Expressionism, Abstraction and so on. For them the measure of art still is it's aesthetic value and it's conceptual. At least that's what I've gathered from their arguments which ridicule modern art and praise games for having greater aesthetic value.

 

 

First of all, TB is not a journalist and if he was, he's not a good journalist. He's an entertainer who knows what people want to hear. That's of course a valuable skill, but it doesn't make him a journalist.

 

No, "everybody's doing it" is not a good justification, but it is a reason. It's easy saying people should change when you're not in an existential crisis. I work for one of the biggest newspapers in my country and let me tell you, there are no resources to change. Yes, it would be nice, but there just isn't a way to change right now. Not because journalists are lazy, but because behind every media company there are shareholders and the publicists of any given media company have to justify their changes to them. Change to better quality means less revenue, because it means less readers and at the same time it means more man hours. It's simply not going to work. And yes, it's absolutely absurd that journalism as the fourth estate has to be financially viable, but at the moment there's no alternative model. I'm not trying to say that everything media companies do is good and meaningful, but there are reasons behind it. Every journalist I've ever met wishes to change journalism, but it's not happening and it's not their fault because their hands are tied.

 

(Also saying games journalism is corrupt is a bit of a stretch, corruption simply is different and those people who are corrupt aren't journalists but blinded fans who happen to write about games)

 

No offense, but the crowd that cries "games are art111" are just not very educated about art. When I was talking about the 60s I was mainly referring to art (and especially literary) criticism that has greatly influenced literary studies since then. At least in Europe. As for aesthetic value - the only reason why Michelangelo's David exists is because of politics. Just saying.

[Namutree]

 

 

Check the video again, the Dan Golding's article is referenced in several of the "Gamers are dead" articles.

 

This is the part I liked. 

 

 

 

For forced diversity, check David Vavra's treatment of not including minorities in his game Kingdom Come:Deliverence: https://archive.today/KWpAH

 

I honestly don't see this as forced diversity. If I read it correctly at least. Maybe you noticed something I didn't, but I never read any part saying there should be POC in the game.

[SophosTheWise]

 

The main problem with the crowd that demands better journalism basically is that they ask games journalism to make a change that not even big media can. As long as games journalism is product-focussed  there will always be a worrisome closeness between PR and journalists. The second problem is people demanding objective reporting AND art criticism at the same time (or at least they demand games to be taken as seriously as art) which is absolutely ridiculous. Art was and is always, or at least most of the time, extremely political (besides not considering politics is also politics, you cannot be unpolitical) and art criticism was always subjective, at least since the 60s. 

 

What journalists can do in my opinion is explain how their publication works, what dynamics are at play, how decisions get made. I'm a journalist and I cycle through readers comments a few times per day and what I see most is people not really understanding how journalism works, sometimes to an astounding degree. Same goes with the gamergate crowd.

 

Every journalist in the world knows that his profession is in danger, every journalist wishes he had more time, every journalist wishes he could act more independently, but considering the state of media economically, there's no chance in hell we're going back to the 60-90s where journalism probably has had its best time. A few weeks ago I had an argument with a guy who basically deemed every cliffhanger title to be clickbait. Then he proceeded to rant about journalism. When I asked him if he supported really good journalism and named some local sites he said no - he reads the clickbait sites. When I told him that he could do away with bad journalism by supporting good journalism, he simply said it's not his responsibility. And let me tell you, yes it's your responsibility, because journalists are dependant on you, dependant on their readers. I see it every day - the good articles, the relevant and truly inspiring articles are surpassed by factor 10 or more by more "popular" stuff like pop stars, half-naked women and scandal stories. Why? Not because journalists are evil and lure their readers into bad articles, but because you read it and that makes journalists (who, compared to other jobs) be able to pay their rent and eat - because we don't make a decent living (and I imagine games journalists making a LOT less).

 

Media acts as a mirror to society in some cases. If you want to change media, change your attitude towards it.

 

I rather have game journalists reviewing games than giving them critique. Modern art (and its subequent critics) is so horrendously bland, pretentious and just generally **** to begin with, that you have swim through a sea of **** to find something not insulting to your senses. 

 

 

 

First of all I think you're wrongly  generalizing modern art. Just try to be open and go to a modern art museum and just let it affect you. There are lots of ways of interpreting and appreciating art. Also, art criticism is not only "modern art" as in paintings and sculptures, it's also literary criticism. I feel as if there's a big anti-intellectual (as in humane sciences) movement at the moment, which I find saddening. If there are people who can appreciate these writings, why don't you let them? You don't have to read it, you don't have to react to it. People are free in the ways they are reviewing and critiquing stuff. I like this direction and I feel as if it gives games a bit more weight as a cultural artifact, much like film, literature or theatre.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

highly subjective movements that spawned in the 60's like Dada, Expressionism, Abstraction and so on.

 

 

Please don't consider a career in art history 

[Namutree]

I just want art that's pleasant to look at. I remember this one artist who used to be on public tv (he died of aids sadly ) would draw beautiful pictures in like ten minuets. That guy was awesome... No more happy trees to drawn by him now that he's dead...

[Malcador]

Heh, not liking humanities is anti-intellectual, that was a good one

[Orogun01]

First of all, TB is not a journalist and if he was, he's not a good journalist. He's an entertainer who knows what people want to hear. That's of course a valuable skill, but it doesn't make him a journalist.

 

No, "everybody's doing it" is not a good justification, but it is a reason. It's easy saying people should change when you're not in an existential crisis. I work for one of the biggest newspapers in my country and let me tell you, there are no resources to change. Yes, it would be nice, but there just isn't a way to change right now. Not because journalists are lazy, but because behind every media company there are shareholders and the publicists of any given media company have to justify their changes to them. Change to better quality means less revenue, because it means less readers and at the same time it means more man hours. It's simply not going to work. And yes, it's absolutely absurd that journalism as the fourth estate has to be financially viable, but at the moment there's no alternative model. I'm not trying to say that everything media companies do is good and meaningful, but there are reasons behind it. Every journalist I've ever met wishes to change journalism, but it's not happening and it's not their fault because their hands are tied.

 

(Also saying games journalism is corrupt is a bit of a stretch, corruption simply is different and those people who are corrupt aren't journalists but blinded fans who happen to write about games)

 

No offense, but the crowd that cries "games are art111" are just not very educated about art. When I was talking about the 60s I was mainly referring to art (and especially literary) criticism that has greatly influenced literary studies since then. At least in Europe. As for aesthetic value - the only reason why Michelangelo's David exists is because of politics. Just saying.

I didn't say that he was a journalist just someone who advertises himself as ethical and relies on it for legitimacy.

 

On a free market you could just go your own way and develop your own company, if you have a good idea of how to lower publishing costs and create a dynamic model for journalism that it is custom made for how people consume news online. I feel that a lot of journalism is still sticking to the old model, probably because we are entering new grounds when it comes to online. But you probably have a better idea of what the situation is.

 

The beauty of representational art is that you don't have to know about you just have to look at it and see that its beautiful. A lot of times knowing just ruins things, like someone I knew that couldn't enjoy Wagner because he was an Anti-Semite (which was a common thing back then due to the rise of Jews to prominent positions and the continuation of globalization, but I digress)

[Orogun01]

 

 

highly subjective movements that spawned in the 60's like Dada, Expressionism, Abstraction and so on.

 

 

Please don't consider a career in art history 

 

Right,  Bauhaus to the post world war 2 depression crap.

I don't know why I tend to frame it as happening in the 60's, probably because that's the period I associate with Modernism.

 

 

[Meshugger]

 

 

For forced diversity, check David Vavra's treatment of not including minorities in his game Kingdom Come:Deliverence: https://archive.today/KWpAH

 

 

...I've read the article.

 

Then I ctrl+f-d it for mentions of "vavra", just in case I missed something.

 

It literally makes no mention of the gentleman in question. What "treatment" are we actually talking about?

 

 

Vavra is the creator and producer of the game in question. He was essentially black-listed for coverage until late last year after telling people on twitter that they are wrong about thinking that black people existing in Bohemia in the 11th century. 

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Heh, not liking humanities is anti-intellectual, that was a good one

 

An intellectual is a person who engages in critical study, thought, and reflection about the reality of society, proposes solutions for the normative problems of society, and by such discourse in the public sphere gains authority from public opinion.[1][2] Coming from the world of culture, either as a creator or as a mediator, the intellectual participates in politics, either to defend a concrete proposition or to denounce an injustice, usually by producing or by extending an ideology, and by defending one or another system of values.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

 

For forced diversity, check David Vavra's treatment of not including minorities in his game Kingdom Come:Deliverence: https://archive.today/KWpAH

 

 

...I've read the article.

 

Then I ctrl+f-d it for mentions of "vavra", just in case I missed something.

 

It literally makes no mention of the gentleman in question. What "treatment" are we actually talking about?

 

 

Vavra is the creator and producer of the game in question. He was essentially black-listed for coverage until late last year after telling people on twitter that they are wrong about thinking that black people existing in Bohemia in the 11th century. 

 

 

I'm trying my damnedest to phrase this in a manner that doesn't sound hostile and/or overly flippant, but maybe in the future you could consider... erm... linking to sources that actually have a bearing on the point you're trying to make?

 

 

Anyway, to be more constructive, do you have any proof of this blacklisting?

Edited March 7, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid