Journalism and Bias in the Gaming Industry

[Meshugger]

 

for an explicit example there is a reason why the American military funds billions into the COD or Battlefield series or why the U.S. government dictates how things be presented in superhero movies and whatnot

 

 

Uh? This is /pol/-level of a claim. Care to elaborate?

[Nonek]

 

Yes it is absolute.

 

Well in that case you would be wrong.

 

Everything affects everything. In this instance videogames are subject to the same ideological biases as all media and thus will reinforce certain ideological views, be it consciously or unconsciously (for an explicit example there is a reason why the American military funds billions into the COD or Battlefield series or why the U.S. government dictates how things be presented in superhero movies and whatnot)

 

This of course doesn’t mean videogames are the sole or primary cause of such views but neither are they free from them. Aside from perhaps the age of the average GGer I’m not sure why they get so butthurt about these criticisms, it’s hardly something uniquely targeted at videogames.

 

 

Thus i'm in the same boat as Amentep, in that I can't for the life of me understand why it is so popular, or quoted.

 

Is it? I’ve only actually seen people quote it maybe once or twice since the thing started.

 

It’s popularity, be it positive or negative, is not because of its quality (or lack thereof) but its symbolic value. Like I said before she only really became a thing b/c of the massive backlash against her.

 

 

No, humans can tell reality from the false, even babies are capable of doing this, and actually show disgust for the unreal and are made uncomfortable by it. The virtual does not affect the real.  What a person brings to a medium, that is allready present and cannot be accounted for by that artform, or controlled by it. The individual will choose whether certain information reinforces his point or not, and still nobody can predict this. Thus there is no point to the Tropes vs Women series, it is just cherry picked content reinforcing the idiot McIntosh's biases, and does not apply to anyone but himself.

 

I've seen it quoted numerous times in the crusade against gaming, and McIntosh's sock puppet has leveraged quite some publicity out of her alleged victimhood, and the manufactured false narrative that Gamergate is behind it.

 

Edit: I agree that the backlash against McIntosh's idiocy was one of the only things that gave it prominence, as it certainly holds no scholarly value, that and the game journalists championing it.

Edited June 1, 2015 by Nonek

[Malcador]

Well, I suppose US military members do like the series so it's an indirect funding path. In movies they do tend to state terms for the use of their equipment, which makes some degree of sense, but I doubt the same is for games.

 

In MW3, I am wondering if Remington paid Activision to have their logo displayed so prominently on some guns

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

the American military funds billions into the COD or Battlefield series (...) the U.S. government dictates how things be presented in superhero movies and whatnot)

 

 

...Wait what?

It's a conspiracy theory.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

the American military funds billions into the COD or Battlefield series (...) the U.S. government dictates how things be presented in superhero movies and whatnot)

 

...Wait what?

It's a conspiracy theory.

 

 

It does sound suspiciously like something GG would have you believe. (I mean, the "evil autocratic government forcing feminism into art telling filmmakers how they can portray stuff" part, not the "CoD is funded by the military" part.)

 

Hence my confusion.

Edited June 1, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

 

the American military funds billions into the COD or Battlefield series (...) the U.S. government dictates how things be presented in superhero movies and whatnot)

 

...Wait what?

It's a conspiracy theory.

It does suspiciously sound like something GG would have you believe. (I mean, the "evil autocratic government forcing feminism into art telling filmmakers how they can portray stuff" part, not the "CoD is funded by the military" part.)

 

Hence my confusion.

It's possibly referring to the standards set by an agency(FCC?), but I've seen no proof of either claim.

 

As it is, Disney and Time Warner probably have more power over any regulatory agencies than said agencies have over them. Most decisions made concerning superhero movies are done with profits in mind, not serving a vague social agenda.

Edited June 1, 2015 by KaineParker

[TrashMan]

 

No humans can tell reality from the false, even babies are capable of doing this, and actually show disgust for the unreal and are made uncomfortable by it. The virtual does not affect the real.  What a person brings to a medium, that is allready present and cannot be accounted for by that artform, or controlled by it. The individual will choose whether certain information reinforces his point or not, and still nobody can predict this. Thus there is no point to the Tropes vs Women series, it is just cherry picked content reinforcing the idiot McIntosh's biases, and does not apply to anyone but himself.

 

I've seen it quoted numerous times in the crusade against gaming, and McIntosh's sock puppet has leveraged quite some publicity out of her alleged victimhood, and the manufactured false narrative that Gamergate is behind it.

 

Edit: I agree that the backlash against McIntosh's idiocy was one of the only things that gave it prominence, as it certainly holds no scholarly value, that and the game journalists championing it.

 

 

This.

 

However, plenty of people see problems everywhere.

Reminds me of this:

 

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

No humans can tell reality from the false, even babies are capable of doing this, and actually show disgust for the unreal and are made uncomfortable by it.

 

 

[citation needed]

[Barothmuk]

...Wait what?

Uh? This is /pol/-level of a claim. Care to elaborate?

Oh, wow. Thought this was just something we were all aware of and just went along with.

 

Huge blockbuster actions films will usually get heavy subsidies from the American military so long as the script gets the approval of the government (i.e. the script can be subject to state directed rewrites). Obviously not straight up Stalinist control but it does serve similar ideological functions.

 

No humans can tell reality from the false, even babies are capable of doing this, and actually show disgust for the unreal and are made uncomfortable by it. The virtual does not affect the real. What a person brings to a medium, that is allready present and cannot be accounted for by that artform, or controlled by it.

You would not do well in any humanities course, I'm guessing. Edited June 1, 2015 by Barothmuk

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Huge blockbuster actions films will usually get heavy subsidies from the American military so long as the script gets the approval of the government (i.e. the script can be subject to state directed rewrites). 

 

 

...Could we get a citation for that as well?

[Malcador]

http://www.defense.gov/news/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=516

 

Pretty easy search, even if you get a litany of blog articles on the matter. Not really subsidy but still a degree of influence.

Edited June 1, 2015 by Malcador

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

http://www.defense.gov/news/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=516Pretty easy search, even if you get a litany of blog articles on the matter. Not really subsidy but still a degree of influence.

But that doesn't say anything about US government subsidizing superhero films to support an ideological viewpoint. Last I looked SHIELD isn't anything resembling a military organization at any rate.

[Nonek]

 

 

No, humans can tell reality from the false, even babies are capable of doing this, and actually show disgust for the unreal and are made uncomfortable by it.

 

 

[citation needed]

 

 

The studies I read existed before Gamergate so I don't believe i'm allowed to cite them, however if that is not the case i'm afraid to say I no longer have them on hand, but you're free to look for them.

Edited June 1, 2015 by Nonek

[Barothmuk]

http://www.defense.gov/news/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=516

 

Pretty easy search, even if you get a litany of blog articles on the matter. Not really subsidy but still a degree of influence.

Yeah.

 

If you don't mind something more blog-articley here's a serviceable rundown of the U.S military's attempts to boost enlistment via Superhero films (it takes a pretty neutral position).

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

No humans can tell reality from the false, even babies are capable of doing this, and actually show disgust for the unreal and are made uncomfortable by it.

 

 

[citation needed]

 

 

The studies I read existed before Gamergate so I don't believe i'm allowed to cite them, however if that is not the case i'm afraid to say I no longer have them on hand, but you're free to look for them.

 

 

No Nonek, it is your responsibility to find and link them. Please don't be lazy 

[Malcador]

But that doesn't say anything about US government subsidizing superhero films to support an ideological viewpoint. Last I looked SHIELD isn't anything resembling a military organization at any rate.

Yep, it's not really a subsidy in terms of money - they get to use personnel and equipment to add to authenticity, or what have you and get back PR and recruiting benefits. "Military Entertainment Complex" is a good one from these articles.

 

Thought everyone knew it worked that way since Top Gun - in our time, at least.

Edited June 1, 2015 by Malcador

[Nonek]

 

No Nonek, it is your responsibility to find and link them. Please don't be lazy 

 

 

Please explain this, i'm supposed to find papers I read years ago and no longer have on hand, and why is this my responsibility exactly, am I supposed to serve as an encyclopedia for any subject?

 

Edit: Oh and please don't call me lazy, i'll not be judged by such as you, last warning.

Edited June 1, 2015 by Nonek

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

i'm afraid to say I no longer have them on hand, but you're free to look for them.

 

 

I have, but consistently found that even 5-years-old children have trouble differentiating fantasy from reality, making the claim that even babies know the difference between reality and falsehood, and are furthermore made uncomfortable by the unreal, sound extremely dubious to me.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

 

No humans can tell reality from the false, even babies are capable of doing this, and actually show disgust for the unreal and are made uncomfortable by it.

 

 

[citation needed]

 

 

The studies I read existed before Gamergate so I don't believe i'm allowed to cite them, however if that is not the case i'm afraid to say I no longer have them on hand, but you're free to look for them.

 

 

No Nonek, it is your responsibility to find and link them. Please don't be lazy 

 

 

Please explain this, i'm supposed to find papers I read years ago and no longer have on hand, and why is this my responsibility exactly?

 

Because you are the one who made a contentious point, that I also doubt is true, and now people are questioning the facts behind what you said 

 

You said 

 

" No humans can tell reality from the false, even babies are capable of doing this, and actually show disgust for the unreal and are made uncomfortable by it."  

[kgambit]

 

 

i'm afraid to say I no longer have them on hand, but you're free to look for them.

 

 

I have, but consistently found that even 5-years-old children have trouble differentiating fantasy from reality, making the claim that even babies know the difference between reality and falsehood, and are furthermore made uncomfortable by the unreal, sound extremely dubious to me.

 

 

[citations needed]

Edited June 1, 2015 by kgambit

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

 

i'm afraid to say I no longer have them on hand, but you're free to look for them.

 

 

I have, but consistently found that even 5-years-old children have trouble differentiating fantasy from reality, making the claim that even babies know the difference between reality and falsehood, and are furthermore made uncomfortable by the unreal, sound extremely dubious to me.

 

 

[citations needed]

 

 

 

Our results suggest the following tentative sketch of the possible course of development of the fantasy/reality distinction: The very young child may initially be somewhat unsure about attributing human-like properties to various entities. With experience, children acquire increasing knowledge about everything in their world — both about real entities and their properties, and about such socially supported myths as Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Thus, there is the simultaneous development of beliefs considered correct (e .g. dinosaurs are real) and of beliefs considered incorrect but age-appropriate (e .g. Santa is real). But at the same time, as children believe in the reality of fantasy figures, or are unable to say with certainty that they are pretend, they treat them very differently from real entities in terms of the properties and abilities they are willing to grant. In this way, children seem to place fantastical entities in a separate category—neither unquestionably real nor pretend, but somewhere in between. This category could then form a natural bridge to the adult category of fantastical entities. Thus, rather than having misplaced the boundary between real and fantastical entities, young children are still in the process of actively constructing it.

 

(emphasis mine)

 

Source: Sharon, T. and Woolley, J. D. (2004), Do monsters dream? Young children's understanding of the fantasy/reality distinction. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 22: 293–310.

doi: 10.1348/026151004323044627

 

Happy now?

Edited June 1, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

But that doesn't say anything about US government subsidizing superhero films to support an ideological viewpoint. Last I looked SHIELD isn't anything resembling a military organization at any rate.

Yep, it's not really a subsidy in terms of money - they get to use personnel and equipment to add to authenticity, or what have you and get back PR and recruiting benefits. "Military Entertainment Complex" is a good one from these articles.Thought everyone knew it worked that way since Top Gun - in our time, at least.

It seems quite a leap from a glorified consultant to state directed rewrites and government approval of scripts. Given the blog Bartho linked, X-Men First Class and Man of Steel are the two biggest capes films to get US government support and those don't paint the US military in the best light, FC more so. If this is the US government's strategy to shove in propaganda, it isn't particularly good.

[Malcador]

It seems quite a leap from a glorified consultant to state directed rewrites and government approval of scripts. Given the blog Bartho linked, X-Men First Class and Man of Steel are the two biggest capes films to get US government support and those don't paint the US military in the best light, FC more so. If this is the US government's strategy to shove in propaganda, it isn't particularly good.

For the scripts to be approved (as in just a stamp rather than some process) ? Not really that much of a leap and that is ok, really, you want to use their people and their gear well they can say yes or no based on what your work is. I've never said it was something insidious.

Edited June 1, 2015 by Malcador

[Nonek]

Afraid i've still not got those papers on hand, checked my study and nothing, you'll have to take my word on this or not as you wish.

[BruceVC]

Afraid i've still not got those papers on hand, checked my study and nothing, you'll have to take my word on this or not as you wish.

Nope, sorry your word isn't good enough