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

[Shamanic Rhythm]

I agree entirely, half of the news stories on here are just sensationalist bullshit, which is somehow okay with a left-wing bias instead of a right-wing one.

This site really does not have any political leanings what-so-ever. They're simply pro-gaming, and therefore they oppose people who use their political clout to attack their hobby. The political spectrum doesn't even enter into it: if you were to have a competition for who gets the most flak for anti-videogame sentiments it would be a dead heat between Fox News, an organisation with very obvious right-wing sympathies, and the former South Australian Attorney-General Michael Atkinson, who belonged to the Australian Labor Party - the traditional left-wing of Australian politics.
It sounds more like you want to imagine that this site has a left wing bias so that you can fuel your minority complex by loudly trumpeting your political views. Meanwhile, everyone else comes here to talk about games and to confer that anyone who suggests that their hobby makes them a rapist is a prick with an agenda - and that goes whether they are right or left wing.

 

[boholikeu]

There a big difference between The Escapist posting an article like this and a national news channel (whose own motto is "fair and balanced") running a story that claims games cause rape.

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.

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!)

If you ever take a journalism/mass comm class on bias, one of the first things they teach you is that how you choose your sources plays a big part in the slant of your article. If you quote someone it is akin to you saying it yourself because you are giving that person a voice. In other words, Fox News is giving a forum to some bonkers lady that thinks games cause rape, so it is similar to them saying it themselves (especially since much of the tone of the article hinges around that quote).

A truly neutral article would probably just find another quote. Barring that, they would at least note the factual inaccuracies of that lady's claim: "FBI studies indicate a drop in the number of rapes of the last 20 years".

What's more, the Fox article reeks of sensationalist journalism. They are trying to make a news story where there is none. If there already is a public outcry (IE in the case of GTA) it's a different story, but here they are clearly trying to drum up concern about the game.

I agree entirely, half of the news stories on here are just sensationalist bullshit, which is somehow okay with a left-wing bias instead of a right-wing one.

The news stories here are written with a gamer bias, not a left wing one. There are plenty of articles mocking the creator of that CA anti-video game law, who is a Democrat.

In other words, the only political bias here is the one if your own mind.

 

[Outright Villainy]

I'm in two minds over the whole thing. On the one hand, I don't think chalk's article was that bad really, though he really should have made it clearer that Fox news was asking an outsider, and not directly saying it themselves. There's no reason that shouldn't have been made abundantly clear; whilst giving her the platform does indeed make them complicit, it seems to get in the way of a catchy headline if you have to explain that technicality, instead of putting the words in their mouth instead.

this is less about the article or the game and more about The Left VS The Right, but that's just me.

Hardly. I don't like Fox News at all but I don't really like the way The Escapist heavily editorialises its news articles either. In my opinion no Escapist news article should have misleading, jokey headlines silly comments at the end or "opinion" mixed in with the actual news, and the exchange you've quoted is a classic example of the sort of shit-fight that can result from such practices. I hate to admit it but they actually have a point.

Also, this. I don't really like seeing opinion in news pieces. That's what editorials are for.

All that said, the guys who attacked him didn't really do themselves any favours by acting so astoundingly childish. Any sembleance of a point is lost on me if they have to resort to name calling.

 

[boholikeu]

Interestingly, there's a new comments [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/107896-Fox-News-Blogger-Continues-Bulletstorm-Attack] about the earlier escapist article

 

[Celtic_Kerr]

-snipper doodle- get it? Snicker doodle...? No...? -sigh-

So Andy can't turn around and say that someone on fox news that fox news FEATURED ON THEIR SHOW therefore making it fox news' story is saying that certain video games cause rape, but they can personally bash him, tell him to be a real man, and call his article a piece of shit?

Yes Fox... Yes you classy mother fuckers. You keep professional and classy, ya hear?

 

[Ancientgamer]

I tend to agree with these people. The news posts on the escapist (and most other gaming sites)tend to have a very present bias, one that boarders on threating the actual accuracy of the article. Then again, this is hardly a new issue in gaming press or the escapist, and hardly Andy's problem, but they take advantage of gamers as much as anyone else. I used to ***** about this a fair amount when I first signed up, but I guess it took someone with a platform...


And before anyone starts, no I'm not defending fox news. The article was obviously full of bullshit, but you should never respond in kind. Throw it factual inaccuracies and snarky comments, and the bullshit just gets bigger. What the hell was up with that comment about Bill O'reilly anyway?

 

[geizr]

I was going to say something else, but after watching the full video, the guys on Game Heroes are typical of those who spin themselves up into self-righteous indignation that their favorite hobby/toy could possibly have a negative side. Their comments against Andy are, in my opinion, completely unwarranted. From what I could see, Andy was merely paraphrasing the Fox News report and added nothing of his own opinion or made any attempt to steer people's opinion. Numerous other parts of their logic completely break down in the real world, so I see these guys as typical internet knuckleheads.

Addendum: It is starting to really perturb me greatly that there is this growing current in the gaming community that the favorite hobby of video games is somehow immune to criticism, responsibility, or accountability. Basically, the gaming community seems to think it exists in some kind of vacuum where responsibility and accountibility don't exist. Unfortunately, reality presents the situation as otherwise. It takes a community to raise a child, and every action has consequences that extend beyond the moment of the action and affect more than just the person committing the action. It is pure BS to assume that video games no effect on the development of a child. While I will grant that the media over-sensationalized those effects, I feel the gaming community is far too dismissive of the effects, however, it's also interesting that the gaming community is quick to parade reports of positive effects as true but equally quick to derogatorily chide reports of negative effects as untrue. This is a very insular, immature mindset and is a component into why video games are not taken seriously by the real world.

Video gaming(the hobby, as opposed to any particular game) does not exist separated from reality. It exists embedded within reality and, consequently, is subject to the same rules of social etiquette, responsibility, and cause-effect as the real world.

 

[Trivun]

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.

Although it's not the same thing, my student union, which I'm running for election to at the moment, has had this issue with other controversial topics. Last year, the BNP (racist right-wing UK political party) were in our city, Leeds, to do a stint on the show Question Time. And a massive amount of Leeds students, from our own union, were up in arms against it. But I, and many others, supported them being allowed on the show to air their views, and here's the thing, the BNP shot themselves in the foot. They tried to show their opinions and views off, but because they had a platform where both sides were presented equally, the opposition were able to logically and fairly dismantle their statements on national television. Now, there's a big issue facing our student union about inviting the BNP, and other controversial groups, to campus for debates. And again, I support it, because it's the best way to show these people's opinions are a load of crap, and in a fair setting too, but sadly not everyone agrees on that.

With Fox News, the anti-game lobby, and the whole 'videogames cause rape/murder/whatever' side of things, the exact same situation holds true. We should support allowing these people to have their say. If not, then they can easily turn around and claim we're trying to silence their opinions, and use that against us. But here's the big thing. It needs to be in a fair and equal setting. Both sides need to be able to have people, on both sides of the debate, come forward and give their views and comments in an equal scenario where neither side has an advantage, and moderated by people with no bias whatsoever. Fox News is not the place to do that. I'd be all for people like Lieberman giving their opinions on national TV or whatever, provided it was in an unbiased setting, and that the pro-videogame lobby were also able to give their opinions, in an equally fair setting, and with people who aren't obviously vesting an interest in the industry.

Fair debate is the only way we can hope to progress with this sot of thing. Give controversial speakers a platform, and dismantle their arguments using logic and common sense. Otherwise we just play right into their hands, and further promote their views. The way we do things now, we're just shooting ourselves in the foot, and letting people like Fox News win. And that does no good for anyone in the end.

[small]EDIT: In case of any misconception on readers' parts, I'm basically saying I support Andy with this. And giving a wider view of my opinion. Simples.[/small]

 

[Shadow_Kid]

"And what's the deal attacking Bill O'Rielly, isn't sure where the moon came from? What does that have to do with anything?"

 

[geizr]

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.

Although it's not the same thing, my student union, which I'm running for election to at the moment, has had this issue with other controversial topics. Last year, the BNP (racist right-wing UK political party) were in our city, Leeds, to do a stint on the show Question Time. And a massive amount of Leeds students, from our own union, were up in arms against it. But I, and many others, supported them being allowed on the show to air their views, and here's the thing, the BNP shot themselves in the foot. They tried to show their opinions and views off, but because they had a platform where both sides were presented equally, the opposition were able to logically and fairly dismantle their statements on national television. Now, there's a big issue facing our student union about inviting the BNP, and other controversial groups, to campus for debates. And again, I support it, because it's the best way to show these people's opinions are a load of crap, and in a fair setting too, but sadly not everyone agrees on that.

With Fox News, the anti-game lobby, and the whole 'videogames cause rape/murder/whatever' side of things, the exact same situation holds true. We should support allowing these people to have their say. If not, then they can easily turn around and claim we're trying to silence their opinions, and use that against us. But here's the big thing. It needs to be in a fair and equal setting. Both sides need to be able to have people, on both sides of the debate, come forward and give their views and comments in an equal scenario where neither side has an advantage, and moderated by people with no bias whatsoever. Fox News is not the place to do that. I'd be all for people like Lieberman giving their opinions on national TV or whatever, provided it was in an unbiased setting, and that the pro-videogame lobby were also able to give their opinions, in an equally fair setting, and with people who aren't obviously vesting an interest in the industry.

Fair debate is the only way we can hope to progress with this sot of thing. Give controversial speakers a platform, and dismantle their arguments using logic and common sense. Otherwise we just play right into their hands, and further promote their views. The way we do things now, we're just shooting ourselves in the foot, and letting people like Fox News win. And that does no good for anyone in the end.

[small]EDIT: In case of any misconception on readers' parts, I'm basically saying I support Andy with this. And giving a wider view of my opinion. Simples.[/small]

100% agreement. And I applaud you and your group for having the maturity to allow others who have reprehensible views with which you strongly disagree still have the open forum to be able to present their views and be fairly debated. That is the true spirit of free speech.