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

[XT inc]

I don't know what to say I always think its moronic to attack someone verbally as the basis or your argument. Chalk didn't come out saying this expert is a fucking retard blah blah blah etc, he took their statements and argued against them.

On a side Note I'm sick of the media influencing how M rated games get showcased based off the hundreds of lazy parents out there who take no effort in keeping their kids off of these titles. The R rated movies don't have to put up with pandering to the media as billing a R rated film, but cutting what they want to do back because to many parents will let it slip to their little kids. Seriously the difference in M rated games and movies is huge, throw some naked ladies into a video game for adults and the media shits bricks with "SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN".

 

[Ben Agar]

It's Gameheroes they're mostly disliked by allot of people who go Blistered Thumbs anyway (read their comments section to see what I mean) They're idiots let them ramble, on who cares.

Perhaps if their criticism was at all constructive then they'd be worth listening to but no, they just suck.

 

[Magnesium360]

Fox is criticizing Andy Chalk because they think he took the story out of proportion to pander to an audience? Isn't that all Fox does? Also they're too casually harsh to be simply critiquing his article, it's more likely out of spite.

 

[Triple AD]

I find it very interesting that those two call Andy out for cherry picking sections of an article to prove his point by - surprise, surprise - cherry picking sections of an article to prove their point.

I'm sorry but that has to be the best argument to a particular situation ever

And I have to admit that the Escapist article could've been a bit better structured (Don't ask me how) but how can calling someone an idiot for a small joke put you on the high ground.

So basically: Article could be written better, criticizing video could be made better

 

[Pyode]

Honestly, I didn't have a problem at all with the article at hand. I think Andy did just fine with it. Yea, the title may have been a bit on the pandering side, but as he has explained it's not completely unfair to call Fox out on it because they solicited and printed the opinion.

That being said. There have been articles on this site that did merit this kind of outcry but didn't receive it.

Elizabeth Grunewald wrote an article back in November that I thought was just ridiculously biased and plain flat out stupid. I wish people had said something about that article instead.

Or silly, fluffy, and pointless. Just saying, I'd be more offended if this struck me as any sort of hard journalism, rather than one of those "on the lighter side" articles.

It's not that I think the article was unnecessary. I acknowledge that it wasn't trying to be an example of "hard journalism" and normally I'm fine with that. My problem is the fact that it's completely twisted and misleading.

It's ridiculously obvious that O'Reilly was simply kidding in that clip yet Elizabeth let her bias cloud her judgment so horrendously that she thought he was seriously angry at the Simpsons.

Then of course the Escapist community got involved and made up their minds as soon as they saw O'Reillys name thus turning the entire comments section into a massive knee-jerk convention.

So yea, it was waaaay worse than this article by Andy.

 

[Escapefromwhatever]

I never really liked The Game Heroes, to be honest.

Uh, Game Heroes, you know how you are attacking Andy for making something out of nothing. You, might, uh, you might want to make sure that you're not doing that.

Also, look up the term Ad Hominem.

 

[PrototypeC]

Of course it's an attack, that's not even worth the question mark. They're calling him out, without actually giving him a chance to say what's what. It's a little different because it's video-based, but that isn't enough to not make this needless slander. I'm not really sure what they're saying... I'm not going to say that Andy's feelings about Fox News didn't most definitely seep into his article, and sure it riled up people who already didn't like the Fox News style of reporting, but these "smokers" should be trying to keep personal attacks out of their own videos before slamming others. Saying, "we won't stoop to bashing the Escapist, but you guys are stupid for letting him get away with it, and be a man and a real reporter Chalk" is kind of hypocritical on their part, not Andy's.

Why are they even questioning his journalistic integrity? What's supposed to be wrong about his article? It's true. Was that title a little strong? Maybe. It wasn't leaving room for much leeway, was it? That does not in any way make Andy a bad reporter, he basically told it like it was. The Bill O'Reilly comment wasn't really needed either, but ending each article with a joke is kind of an Escapist thing.

I guess I'll have to be a little unpopular and say that recently I've become more and more aware of the careful wording of every article. These kinds of titles are designed to get our attention, and there's nothing wrong with that per se, but I'm starting to get annoyed by it. Rather than saying "Elder Scrolls V concept art" it says "Skyrim Will Feature Tentacle Bears... Maybe".

 

[ShadowsofHope]

..I had never even heard of The Game Heros before this point.

Now?

Oh, well.. would you look at that? Someone's in the red zone!

Andy surely had some bias within the article against FOX News, however these hypocrites are starting from the standard FOX News level of political rhetoric.

 

[Gaderael]

Fox News has a very spotty track record. Refer to Google, as I'm too lazy to point to examples. I think a news network has to take responsibility when someone who proclaims to be an expert and is invited on to the show or asked for a printable quote starts spouting lies and bullshit. Any responsible network will have an on air or front page retraction due to lack of facts to back up the expert, or at the very least have a follow with another expert to balance the arguement. Unfortunately while Fox News claims that they are fair and balanced, they are anything but.

That lovely little comment from Game Heroes in regards to our good Mr. Chalk is nothing more then the pot calling the kettle black. Not to mention they come out looking far more whiny and foolish when their comment is compared to Andy's article.

 

[A Gent of Villainous Intent]

Fox is criticizing Andy Chalk because they think he took the story out of proportion to pander to an audience? Isn't that all Fox does? Also they're too casually harsh to be simply critiquing his article, it's more likely out of spite.

Um, it's not Fox news, it's another gaming site.

 

[Ensiferum]

The Game Heroes are making an excellent point; Andy Chalk was extremely hypocritical in his article as he twisted words and used poor journalism which is exactly what he accused Fox News of doing. Part of me can't help but feel he used the whole "ZOMG FOX NEWZ HATEZ GAMERZ" type of tag-line just to get views for his article because hating Fox news is "the cool thing to do" among the gaming community.

 

[t3h br0th3r]

Why are people expecting The Escapist to live up to the standards of print journalism? these guys are closer to bloggers, not journalists.

Of course they are going to write with a heavy bias, they know the vast majority of their readers are gamer who would rip them a new one if they even suggested that Fox News might not be evil incarnate.

Still, the crack on old Bill was a bit much.

 

[FallenMessiah88]

All i will say is that even if it has its faults, id take sites like The Escapist and guys like Andy Chalk, over Blistered Thumbs TGWTG any day. Its people like these that make me ashamed to identify myself as a "gamer".

 

[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. ^.^

 

[Choppaduel]

Hey Andy why don't you be a real man and write a real article?

You know people are full of shit when they resort to this kind of thing.

 

[Geo Da Sponge]

Hey Andy why don't you be a real man and write a real article?

You know people are full of shit when they resort to this kind of thing.

I think that's a bit unfair. They aren't just some guys with a computer and an internet connection.

They obviously have a video camera too.

 

[deth2munkies]

I actually had huge problems with the misleading title of the article before, but I didn't think anyone else did so I didn't say anything.

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.

It is, however, acceptable to attack Fox News for their blatant lack of any research into the topics their guests talk about. (See: SeXBOX)

You realize that Fox directly controls their guests. I saw something...I don't recall if it was a game or some other toy, but the anchor made a big deal about saying "X Expert is going to tell us how Y Corrupts the youth", then when the expert got on, he said, "Wait, I didn't say anything like that, in fact there's probably a net positive result due to Y", and halfway through every one of his sentences, he was cut off and accused of being an inconsistent moron by the anchor before being cut off from his own interview.

That was the point where I never watched the channel again.

 

[Zechnophobe]

Honestly, I thought Andy was a bit over sensationalizing the situation... but these 'game heroes' guys seem to be rather over stating things. The only factual thing he maybe mis-implied was that the 'games cause rape' comment came from Fox. But still, unless you have an opinion piece (Billo) all news Organizations can do is question people to get answers. The fact they questioned a total quack isn't like they just randomly picked a Psychiatrist off the list. They screened for that response.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

Having looked into some of the "studies" Lieberman mentioned, I'm backing Andy on this one. Bringing someone on who profoundly discusses extremely flawed reports with a conclusion that actually contradicts the point trying to be made as a key expert is not intelligent newscasting, is pandering. As an analogy, if you bring up an argument of how Doritos are bad for your health, you try to bring on people who are not an obese man with orange stained fingers and someone with an editorial blog printout with a quick and dirty chart on it about the relationship of obese people to people who love Doritos. Lieberman's pathetically erroneous studies most decidedly lacked any semblance of respectability, being less study and more poll of interested parties. On such assumptions knowledge is not gained. For having read those same "studies", I might as well be an identically acclaimed expert for them to use on their show.