5 Questions Kotaku Must Answer About Its Involvement In #GamerGate.

Many of #GamerGate's complaints about journalism stem form what is seen as a lack of transparency. In light of this, I felt like this would be an excellent space for Kotaku provide some by responding to some questions from the #GamerGate community.

Gawker Media is an online media company with many dozens of bloggers. There have been several posts written on the Gawker network concerning #GamerGate, none of them positive. Is it a coincidence that literally every person Gawker has had write about the subject is anti-#GamerGate? Did management specifically only choose bloggers who would pursue that particular agenda? If not, do you think it is problematic that the only people you are hiring fall in-line with the beliefs of management, or that those who disagree are afraid to come forward?

(Joel Johnson is the editing director of Gawker Media.)

Given that Stephen Totilo, editor-in-chief of Kotaku does not believe that living with the subject of an article without disclosure is a breach of ethics, what would it take for your employees to receive disciplinary or punishment? It seems that most in the journalism community would think otherwise. What are the standards here at Kotaku since they seem to differ from other outlets?

Of all the articles written on #GamerGate, Kotaku has not made a single mention of #NotYourShield. Not a single word, positive or negative. This would lead readers to believe that you do you not think #NotYourShield, the minority driven movement of #GamerGate is not worth discussion. If this is not the case, how is that Gawker hasn't found the time, even in #GamerGate-related articles to even acknowledge the hashtag? It seems particularly strange considering how quickly you discovered and devoted an article to #StopGamerGate2014.

Advertisement

Update: I've been informed that there was a mention of #NotYourShield in this Deadspin article. Here it is, in its entirety - "an ancillary hashtag, #notyourshield, is hatched by minorities, women, and LGBTQ gamers who agree with Gamergate and disagree with writers who they feel are misrepresenting them;"

Much has been made of comments attributed to those involved with #GamerGate, but none of the sites under the Gawker Media network have posted a single article or mention about death threats and other comments made, not only by proven anti-#GamerGate twitter users, but actual members of the video game press. Wouldn't even one article showcasing the other side be more balanced? I've included a few examples below. I could obviously fill this page with screensheets, but I just chose a few of the most hypocritical.

(Sam Biddle is a writer at Gizmodo, a site under the Gawker Media umbrella.)

(Leigh Alexander is a writer at GamaSutra.)

And lastly, I think everyone would like to know the answer to a more open-ended question: Do you think it is problematic or telling that the gaming journalism establishment has such a monolithic opposition to an anti-establishment movement like #GamerGate?

Advertisement

Thanks for your time. I hope this can be the first step in a continued dialog between Kotaku and #GamerGate supporters.

By @ZebFIGHTING and @BlackPreon, who are #NotYourShield.