Escapist's Own Andy Chalk Called-Out By Game Heroes.

[Thaius]

The Bill O'Rielly comment at the end was out of line, but that's it.

I agree with the rest of your post, but I had to reply to this part. I don't think there's anything you can say about Bill O'Liar that's out of line. The man is a consummate bullshit-artist, and he has devoted his public life to demonising everything his corporate masters have decided they don't like, or might get ratings for. He is scum, pure and simple, and I am ashamed to share a planet with the likes of him.

I don't really have an opinion about him: Fox News is screwed up enough that I haven't bothered to pay attention to its specific personalities. Regardless of your opinion of the man, however, the comment about him in that article was entirely out of nowhere. It had nothing to do with the article at all. Thus, it was out of line. But yeah, everything else about the article was perfectly fine.

 

[joebthegreat]

Just because the person who called you a hypocrite is a hypocrite, doesn't mean he was wrong about your being a hypocrite.

 

[Ultrajoe]

Rather than dwelling on the particular journalistic faux-pas of both Fox and Mr Chalk, is anybody else confused as to why this article flagged the interest of a production which, we would hope, largely has better things to do? I don't watch their content, but barring a serious disagreement with Chalk over the legitimacy of Fox News... I can't see a reason why this is the article they target.

I mean no offence to Andy when I say this might not have been his finest headline, but the article was hardly even approaching the southern side of the internet waterline for bad games journalism. I mean no offence to the Escapist in general, again, when I say they have in the past published content which wasn't exactly impartial, informative or particularly well spelled (Stuff falls through cracks, but you're 99% gilded truffles!I love you!)... but this article is suddenly objectionable because it's title makes a rather safe inference?

I don't even begin to fathom the motives, but are Game Heroes having a slow news day or what? Does anybody with a wider knowledge base of Game Heroes have an insight into what exactly happened to get them so... mad?

 

[Silva]

I think that The Escapist more resembles an opinion magazine or industry mouthpiece than a "journalistic" centre of objective reportage.

I do think it could be clearer that opinion is being carried across, and not simply objective information, in articles like Chalk's. This could benefit the credentials of the magazine itself, particularly in the eyes of people who also read more traditional fact-by-fact hard news articles like those written by the BBC.

An "Opinion" section that's separate from the news could be more appropriate than an opinion piece attached to news. And Chalk's was definitely an opinion piece. In light of this, I'd say that Blistered Thumbs was really making fun of some bias which is natural to an opinion piece, but without really acknowledging that the piece was intended to put a view forward directly.

It's true that it is naive to assume that Fox News was objective in covering Bulletstorm just because it quoted people on either side of the argument. It can easily select who talks on its show and do a background check on those people to find out what they're going to say before letting them go on television. So, I personally agree with Mr Chalk's view that that that particular news corporation has earned fiery reaction pieces to remind it that people are noticing its biases and publicly ridiculing them.

At the same time, I believe that The Escapist can learn from this reaction from Blistered Thumbs. It can respond to it in two ways: one, ramp up the bias and the frequency of opinion pieces per issue in order to get itself more views through the responses from other sites, or two, become less of an industry mouthpiece and more of an objective observer where news itself is concerned. There's always a spot for an opinion page in a newspaper; there's no reason why The Escapist can't dedicate a portion of its time to opinions.

The Escapist just can't truly have it both ways. It is either objective for the most part, or it is not. Right now, I'd say that in the end, it's not. There are just too many feature articles per issue to really make such a claim. And that's actually okay for the goals that the magazine appears to aim for. It's just worth reassessing for the designers behind the site if that's what they really want it to be. Or could they push forward and create a real paragon of objective journalism on the subject matter? Well, either way, some change could make things interesting.

 

[Something Amyss]

I don't care for Benzaie either. He is JUST french enough that it's difficult to understand him, and he tends to treat everything with a seriousness that makes it difficult for me to take an interest.

Heck yeah someone dropped the ad hominem bomb

I watch Ben sometimes just because the subs help me brush up on French. How funny is that? Like, I'm not even interested in a lot of his videos, but....

Though GTYMDK is a good concept.

 

[Brad Shepard]

Look, this is how i view it, Fox news dident say it, that lady said it, So saying fox news says your a rapist was wrong, flame on people, i can take it.

 

[felixader]

I'll make the point after touchdown here by giving the example that Yahtzee Croshaw, in his Minecraft review, suggested that all Americans are stupid racists who use illegal Mexican immigrants as slave labor.

Care to explain how that's any different or any less insulting?

Yes, Yatzee doesn't claim to be an serious news Channel. ^.^

And how does that excuse accusations of slavery?

It's called dark humor. If you don't like that you probably shouldn't watch Yatzees show.

 

[Rutskarn]

I see how they made this mistake, but they have to understand that this is The Escapist. We know where it's at; titles like that don't make us go, "OH MY GOD TEH VIDJAGAMES RAPE CAUSE," we go, "Oh, look, Chalk's trollin' again."

 

[godofallu]

I think what Andy did was reasonable, and these "heroes" guys seem very unprofessional/lackwitted.

No wonder I have never heard of them till now.

 

[Delusibeta]

I read the quotes and didn't watch the video, but GH has a really good point. It's irresponsible to put out an article attacking Fox News for something a guest said, regardless of your views of Fox.

Why is that the case though? Even Carole Lieberman claimed she had been mis-quoted by Fox news, to set a clear agenda, and as Chalk pointed out Fox news did not choose their guests with a clear sense of discussing the issue - they held a very clear agenda and chose people they believed would be best to exploit to get that story, and that quote. Fox news is as much to blame as anyone, for giving the people in question a platform from which to preach without a clear, fair discussion about the matter. If they advertised the show as it is it wouldn't be so bad, but to many these discussions are, in the eyes of the public, "unbiased", that's why journalists such as Chalk and RPS should be applauded for stating the obvious on these issues.

Do have to point out that Rock Paper Shotgun then went ahead and deconstructed that claim [http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/02/15/bulletstormgate-lieberman-offers-evidence/], along with the whole of her position.

Also, a link to the three [http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/02/09/will-bulletstorm-murder-your-children-no/] other [http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/02/09/churnalism-fox-news-selective-quoting/] articles [http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/02/10/the-fox-news-debacle-techsavvy-update/], which are fine pieces of journalism.

 

[D_987]

Do have to point out that Rock Paper Shotgun then went ahead and deconstructed that claim, along with the whole of her position.

Not really no, seeing as how that has nothing to do with the ultimate point being made... -_-

 

[Atmos Duality]

My issue with this sort of journalism is, and always has been, the over-reliance on secondary sources, or (re)interpretation of a primary source. There's nothing wrong with commenting on a segment or providing one's opinion as long as you can back it up.

There have been instances where either Blistered Thumbs or The Escapist have caused me to doubt or question the validity of a story/review. However, there are also genuinely good articles/reviews from either of the forementioned.

On one hand, we have Game Heroes trying to call Andy Chalk out for propagating sensationalism...while they are doing that very same thing. *sigh*

This whole thing is turning into one of those "Who Watches the Watchers" moments.
"Who Criticizes the Critics."

 

[Cheesepower5]

"Some guy on a gaming forum mistakenly used a channel to refer to one of it's commentators! This is a job for... THE INTERNET POLICE!"

Fucking retards.

 

[Jumpingbean3]

There really is no hope for this site.

Then why don't you just leave?

 

[Jumpingbean3]

I'll make the point after touchdown here by giving the example that Yahtzee Croshaw, in his Minecraft review, suggested that all Americans are stupid racists who use illegal Mexican immigrants as slave labor.

Care to explain how that's any different or any less insulting?

Yes, Yatzee doesn't claim to be an serious news Channel. ^.^

And how does that excuse accusations of slavery?

1) It was done in jest (I think, it's hard to tell with Yahtzee).

2) He never made accusations of outright slavery or racism. He simply stated that some Americans tend to exploit immigrants which they do and if you don't believe me look up Coyotes (no, not the animal) and Human Trafficking and before you say it, just because the exploited person signs an agreement does not mean they are not being exploited.

 

[Squarez]

I'll make the point after touchdown here by giving the example that Yahtzee Croshaw, in his Minecraft review, suggested that all Americans are stupid racists who use illegal Mexican immigrants as slave labor.

Care to explain how that's any different or any less insulting?

The difference being that Andy Chalk is supposedly a respectable video game journalist and Yahtzee is an internet comedian who often makes dick jokes (emphasis on the word 'jokes').

 

[SomeBoredGuy]

Well, who knows. Maybe they have a...

*checks Blistered Thumbs website*

*sees they rated Magicka 5/10*

Yeah, to hell with them! Go Team Chalk!

EDIT:

And they have nothing on the Escapist in terms of hilarious Captchas.

Spoiler

The hell is that?

 

[MiracleOfSound]

Those two guys in the video are insanely irritating. Who watches these shows?

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Here's the thing, dudes - and I explained this in the original thread but I don't mind repeating here, briefly. The Fox News article was pure, unadulterated bullshit. The anti-gaming side of the argument was presented by "experts," psychologists and authors and so forth, while the pro-gaming side was presented by Hal Halpin - a guy who quite clearly has a vested interest in supporting the game industry. Is that balanced? Why does the anti-gaming side get "experts" while the pro-gaming side gets a guy who's essentially employed by the industry?

Other sites, particularly Rock Paper Shotgun, have already utterly demolished Lieberman's position and evidence, so I won't even get into that here except to mention that she's one of the more obvious and repulsive media whores I've run into in recent years.

Fox gets the blame for saying "games cause rape" because it provided a platform for this kind of nonsense. It sought out Lieberman and the rest, it got them to say idiotic things (probably not much work required there) and then it spread them all over the net, in the guise of news. That's on them. They bear the responsibility for that, and I called them out on it. Is that unfair? I don't think so, and I'm not about to give Fox credit for presenting both sides of the issue when it quite obviously did not do so.

No one is defending Lieberman's position. But Lieberman does not work for FOX News, she was interviewed by them. Like I said, FOX doesn't handle this issue properly. But responding to hypocritical rhetoric with more hypocritical rhetoric hardly seems fair or balanced. (ZING!)

The segmented was presented in such a way (on Fox) where, even though it is not a Fox employee saying these things, it is clear (intentional or not) that this is a position Fox supports. If I get the trashiest most ignorant racist I can find to write some awful thing on a poster board and then I go and present this poster board in the busiest intersection, I think the fine distinction between speaker and messenger would be ignored.

What's more, as a news organization, their explicit responsibility is to verify information before reporting it as often as is humanly possible. It is perfectly fine to air this segment but when bold assertions are made it does wonders for credibility when pointed questions are asked (for example, how you justify an assertion that violent rape is on the rise when publicly available statistics indicate the opposite).

Just because the information came from elsewhere means little. As the news organization reporting on the subject, Fox is responsible for, whenever possible, verifying the information. Because if a news organization does not do this most crucial of tasks they cease to be a news organization. If the stories one runs are based on lies and half truths and these are left unchallenged all you really have is fiction presented as though it were fact.

This is my problem with Fox. It isn't that they have a bias but rather that they so regularly fail to offer any means to distinguish between fact and fiction unless the viewer goes out and does their own research. And if I need to do research to find this out after supposedly being informed, why would I bother watching in the first place?