1

Leigh Alexander “Sexism, Lies and Video Games: The Culture War Nobody Is Winning”

Review drafted by: The Sentinel

TRUTH 5 | AVOIDANCE OF HARM 21 | INDEPENDENCE 20 | TRANSPARENCY 0

46/100

Seek Truth and Report It

3 out of 15 Goals Achieved. 5/25 Points awarded.

“Take responsibility for the accuracy of their work. Verify information before releasing it. Use original sources whenever possible.”

● Cites Ars Technica article authored by Andrew Groen as a source on claim; “It used to be that to make

video games you needed some kind of computer degree and a career track at the sort of game

production mega-corporation that would go on to fame for their brutal working practices and high

turnover.” This is a secondary source.

● Cites The New Inquiry article authored by herself as source on claim; “But even game creation tools are

becoming more accessible, welcoming an entirely new community of creators, voices and formats to the

fan community.” This is a secondary source.

● Cites The Verge article authored by Adi Robertson as source on claim; “Prominent feminist critique —

present in every other relevant medium, but new to games — has elicited massive backlash and threats

to women working in the field.” This is a secondary source.

● Cites VICE article authored by Fruzsina Eördögh as source on claim; “A female developer who created a

text game about depression has been in the midst of weeks of online attacks over a salacious blog post

published by a jilted ex who alleges she slept with a game journalist in exchange for a favorable review.”

This is a secondary source.

2

● Cites independent article authored by L. Rhodes as source on claim; “Others still seem alarmed to see

the games writing community so defensive about the inquest — unaware that writers on games have

endured the frustration of labor within a product-driven system for years, and that subjectivity is their

solution, something L. Rhodes aimed to explain to petitioners who don’t seem to realize that the

“standards” they expect are somewhat at odds with the actual environment they wish for.” This is an

original source.

● Cites Midnight Resistance article authored by Owen Grieve as source on claim; “Stranger still is that

beyond the fact this all looks suspiciously like an excuse to hound women’s voices out of the growing

game industry …” This is a secondary source.

● Cites Unwinnable article authored by Jenn Frank as source on claim; “Independent writers frequently

publish personal pieces about the indie games that have inspired them— ...” This is an original source.

● Cites Gamasutra article authored by herself as source on claim; “... [gamers] may no longer be a defined

“demographic” who must be catered to explicitly …” This is a secondary source.

● Cites Infinite Lives article authored by Jenn Frank as source on claim; “The GamerGate crusaders leap to

employ legal terminology like fancy weapons they are clearly confused about how to wield.” This is an

original source.

-- Alexander’s article uses only two original sources out of nine sources. Also

of those nine sources, two of them are essays or op-eds by Alexander,

herself. None of the secondary sources are examined for their veracity. Each

source is listed as confirmation of the claim made by Alexander.

This Goal was Not Achieved.

– “Remember that neither speed nor format excuses inaccuracy.”

-- Lack of review of Alexander’s sources within the work makes determination

of its veracity impossible. While it is possible none of the sources are

faulty, her lack of attention to that verification is clear.

This Goal was Not Achieved.

– “Provide context. Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or

summarizing a story.”

-- Alexander in her work represents two sides on the issue of gaming. One

side is amenable to the idea of “Video games and the way we write and talk

about them are growing up.” The other side are “old-school fans” and strongly

oppose this idea. Alexander mainly addresses the concerns of the “old-school

fans” in the following text:

3

“A female developer who created a text game about depression has been in the midst of weeks of online

attacks over a salacious blog post published by a jilted ex who alleges she slept with a game journalist in

exchange for a favorable review.

Despite the fact the journalist in question did not ‘review’ the game and wasn’t found to have allocated it any

particular special treatment, the misogynistic “scandal” — and fans’ fear of women “censoring” their

medium by seeking more positive and diverse portrayals — has launched an ‘ethical inquiry’ by fans

campaigning to unearth evidence of corruption and collusion among people who they feel are too close to

the games and developers they write about.

Their inquiry, passed around Twitter under the deeply sincere hashtag “#GamerGate”, alleges that writing

op-eds about colleagues and peers is unethical, that a list of people who attended an academic

conference together is proof of a conspiracy, and that any critic who pursues creators and projects that

interest them is cynically promoting their friends. Some of them admit they’re afraid that “social justice

warriors” will ruin video games.

Others still seem alarmed to see the games writing community so defensive about the inquest — unaware

that writers on games have endured the frustration of labor within a product-driven system for years, and

that subjectivity is their solution, something L. Rhodes aimed to explain to petitioners who don’t seem to

realize that the “standards” they expect are somewhat at odds with the actual environment they wish for.”

The text does not include or detail any sources from this “side” that more

specifically represent their point-of-view. The two sources included in this

section detail the event surrounding the “… female developer who ...

[allegedly] slept with a game journalist in exchange for a favorable review.”

This is a secondary source, and does not quote any of the persons about whom

she is representing in her work. The second source is an article from L.

Rhodes, and her response to the group #GamerGate who is part of the “old-

school fans” as mentioned in her article. L. Rhodes is speaking critically of

#GamerGate. There is no response from #GamerGate included in this passage or

article. Neither full context, nor fair representation can be gathered

without some response from both sides being represented.

This Goal was considered a Total Failure.

4

– “Gather, update and correct information throughout the life of a news story.”

-- No updates, quotes from #GamerGate or other sources from that side of the

two sides represented have not been added, and the veracity of her secondary

sources have not been confirmed.

This Goal was considered a Total Failure.

– “Be cautious when making promises, but keep the promises they make.”

-- Alexander claims “Someone should tell the internet conspiracy theorists

they can relax — we’ll absolutely, definitely have [both ‘“games as product”’

and ‘“games as culture.”’]” This has yet to be confirmed or denied.

This category will be removed from scoring.

– “Identify sources clearly. The public is entitled to as much information as possible to judge the reliability

and motivations of sources.”

-- No review or explanation of sources are included. No quotes or

attributions are included.

This Goal was considered a Total Failure.

– “Consider sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Reserve anonymity for sources who may face

danger, retribution or other harm, and have information that cannot be obtained elsewhere. Explain why

anonymity was granted.”

-- No anonymous sources included.

This category will be removed from scoring.

– “Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of

wrongdoing.”

-- As previously stated, although Alexander purports to represent the

concerns of #GamerGate, she did not recruit them to respond to her work’s

assertions, including “The GamerGate crusaders leap to employ legal

terminology like fancy weapons they are clearly confused about how to wield.”

This Goal was considered a Total Failure.

– “Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information unless traditional, open

methods will not yield information vital to the public.”

-- The obvious majority of Alexander’s information comes from other widely-

available articles written on this and similar topics.

This Goal was Achieved.

5

– “Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable. Give voice to the voiceless.”

-- Alexander writes about the disturbance of a status quo, from the “old-

school fans” of gaming to persons embracing the idea of “[v]ideo games …

growing up.” She represents the views of those disturbing the status quo

completely in her article.

This Goal was considered an Exceptional Success.

– “Support the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.”

-- Alexander does not feature significant, open detail on views of #GamerGate

or other “old-school fans.”

This Goal was considered a Total Failure.

– “Recognize a special obligation to serve as watchdogs over public affairs and government. Seek to ensure

that the public’s business is conducted in the open, and that public records are open to all.”

-- There is nothing in this article or topic that is relevant to this

criteria.

It will be removed from scoring.

– “Provide access to source material when it is relevant and appropriate.”

-- All source material is readily available and easy to access.

This Goal was considered an Exceptional Success.

– “Boldly tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience. Seek sources whose voices

we seldom hear.”

-- A focus in the article are female game developers. None are directly

quoted or significantly featured in the article, other than the brief mention

of a female developer who was not named in the article. Lack of response or

detail about varying viewpoints on the topic of the article is also noted.

This Goal was considered a Total Failure.

– “Avoid stereotyping. Journalists should examine the ways their values and experiences may shape their

reporting.”

-- Alexander labeled the scandal that triggered the inquiries of #GamerGate

into the personal relationship between a game developer and games journalist

as misogynistic, due to the nature of the attacks the game developer

received. Calling the source of inquiries misogynistic colours the inquiries

themselves as being based in misogyny. The lack of response to these claims

by #GamerGate or the persons who participated in the initial outrage allows

reinforcement of the idea of this “side” being based in misogyny.

This Goal was considered a Total Failure.

6

– “Label advocacy and commentary.”

-- Alexander does not reveal her feminist bias, (her identification as a

feminist can be confirmed here: http://i.imgur.com/uOABTyu.png) nor does she

label her work as a subjective analysis of the situation surrounding this

cultural conflict.

This Goal was considered a Total Failure.

– “Never deliberately distort facts or context, including visual information. Clearly label illustrations and re-

enactments.”

-- Alexander does not distort facts, however, her failure to include any

response or additional detail from one side of the exchange by default

distorts the context of the situation.

This Goal was Not Achieved.

– “Never plagiarize. Always attribute.”

-- Alexander did not plagiarize her work. However, she did not attribute any

of her sources, excepting one.

This Goal was Not Achieved.

7

Minimize Harm

5 out of 6 Goals Achieved. 21/25 Points awarded.

“Ethical journalism treats sources, subjects, colleagues and members of the public as human beings deserving of respect.”

“Balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a

license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness.”

-- Alexander seems very careful to protect the subjects of the groups in which

she is referring. In her writing, she does not name the women that were

harassed, nor does she attempt to identify her harassers, or members of

GamerGate.

This Goal was Achieved.

“Show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage. Use heightened sensitivity when

dealing with juveniles, victims of sex crimes, and sources or subjects who are inexperienced or unable to

give consent. Consider cultural differences in approach and treatment.”

-- Like said above, Alexander is careful in naming subjects of harassment, the

harassers, and other groups who may be subject to abuse, due to the article.

This Goal was Achieved.

“Recognize that legal access to information differs from an ethical justification to publish or broadcast.”

-- There is no reason to believe Alexander published controversial information

that may not have been ethical to share.

This Goal was Achieved.

“Realize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than public figures

and others who seek power, influence or attention. Weigh the consequences of publishing or

broadcasting personal information.”

-- Alexander does not publish or link to private information of any of her

subjects in this work. She does however mention allegations of infidelity and

corruption, along with a refutation of such allegations.

This Goal was Achieved.

“Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity, even if others do.”

-- This piece is in response to a social movement that originated with a sex

scandal. Alexander avoids details of this scandal and focuses on its fallout.

This Goal was Achieved.

8

“Balance a suspect’s right to a fair trial with the public’s right to know. Consider the implications of identifying

criminal suspects before they face legal charges.”

-- This story does not feature legal proceedings.

It will be removed from scoring.

“Consider the long-term implications of the extended reach and permanence of publication. Provide updated

and more complete information as appropriate.”

-- The article states that the so-called “Old-school fans” of video games have

taken a “... misogynistic ‘“scandal”’ ... ” and coupled with “ ... fans’ fear

of women ‘“censoring”’ their medium by seeking more positive and diverse

portrayals … ” have created an “ … ‘ethical inquiry’ by [those same] fans

campaigning to unearth evidence of corruption and collusion among people who

they feel are too close to the games and developers they write about.” This

presupposes that the original scandal was misogynistic in its intent and

delivery, the subsequent ‘ethical inquiry’ as defined in the article was

based on a misogynistic scandal, and presupposes the purpose of that inquiry.

None of these points have any evidence cited to demonstrate their veracity.

Stating the persons involved in this inquiry are participating in misogynist

activities is serious accusation, with far-reaching consequences. However,

Alexander does not provide proof of this alleged misogyny, nor has she made

any attempt to update this section to reflect any new evidence on that status

and origins of this incident or the subsequent inquiry.

This Goal was Not Achieved.

9

Act Independently

4 out of 5 Goals Achieved. 20/25 points awarded.

“The highest and primary obligation of ethical journalism is to serve the public.”

– Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Disclose unavoidable conflicts.

-- Alexander is a feminist, and did not disclose that bias in her article.

Proof of that identity is provided earlier in this research.

This Goal was Not Achieved.

– Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and avoid political and other outside activities

that may compromise integrity or impartiality, or may damage credibility.

-- There is no evidence that Alexander participated in any of these actions, in

the creation of this article.

This Goal was Achieved.

– Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; do not pay for access to news. Identify

content provided by outside sources, whether paid or not.

-- There is no evidence that Alexander participated in any of these actions, in

the creation of this article.

This Goal was Achieved.

– Deny favored treatment to advertisers, donors or any other special interests, and resist internal and

external pressure to influence coverage.

-- There is no evidence that Alexander participated in any of these actions, in

the creation of this article.

This Goal was Achieved.

– Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two. Prominently label

sponsored content.

-- There is no evidence that Alexander participated in any of these actions, in

the creation of this article.

This Goal was Achieved.

10

Be Accountable and Transparent

0 out of 5 Goals Achieved. 0/25 points awarded.

“Ethical journalism means taking responsibility for one’s work and explaining one’s decisions to the public.”

0 out of 5 Goals Achieved. 0/25 points awarded.

– * Explain ethical choices and processes to audiences. Encourage a civil dialogue with the public about

journalistic practices, coverage and news content.

-- Alexander has historically failed to explain ethical choices and processes

with her audience, or to encourage dialogue about her journalistic practices

and news content. On her website, she explains that she disables comments

sections on her own sites because she expects readers to have come to “ …

enjoy [her] work, instead of reading in preparation to give a response.” In

addition she claims “[g]enerally the sites that publish [her] have comments

enabled, so go use those.” And, “[She] probably won’t read them.” She has

also actively punished readers who have questioned her ethics and the

veracity of her claims in writing. For example, when she received an e-mail

from a reader criticising her choice to close comments on an article, and

asking for an civil and public discussion about the article, she “doxxed” the

reader.

This Goal was considered a Colossal Failure.

– * Respond quickly to questions about accuracy, clarity and fairness.

-- Please see the above.

This Goal was considered a Colossal Failure.

– Acknowledge mistakes and correct them promptly and prominently. Explain corrections and clarifications

carefully and clearly.

-- Alexander has yet to address the concerns made about her article, or include

#GamerGate in her sources.

This Goal was Not Achieved.

11

– * Expose unethical conduct in journalism, including within their organizations.

-- On the concept of ethics in journalism, Alexander had this to say: “In the

name of objectivity, the consumer-facing games press largely releases

material on a mutually-agreed upon set of terms and schedules dictated by

game companies. It routinely accepts travel arrangements to tour studios and

look at in-development games on financial obligation to those game companies

and on those companies’ terms. Attempting to subvert this process by

inserting personal opinion is viewed as ‘bias’.

In many of the above cases even when disclosure is obligated and made,

disclosure does little to purify the overall effect on the climate and its

perspectives.

Despite this, only the games press exists to question these ethical problems

and attempt to inform the consumer. No one would care otherwise.” This does

not attempt to expose unethical conduct in journalism, but does explain the

nature of heavy subjectivity in game reviews. She does however list potential

biases and conflicts of interest in gaming journalism such as, “independent

game developers’ Patreons, the personal perspectives of game critics, … who

knows who in a close-knit industry …” to be not be current ethical concerns

in gaming.

This Goal was Not Achieved.

– * Abide by the same high standards they expect of others.

-- Having only achieved 61% of the goals in previous categories, Alexander

makes some effort, but does not keep to very high standards in gaming

journalism.

This Goal was Not Achieved.

Each article is judged according to the level of adherence to a code of ethics as provided by the Society of Professional Journalists. Each category presents a goal, and the piece (or in specific cases the author) is judged to have achieved or not achieved the goal, according to a review of evidence as provided by the work or author’s history. The author is considered to have achieved the goal if they or their work adhered to all aspects of the code in that category. The author is considered to have not achieved the goal if any part of the code is not fully adhered to in that category. In instances where the author clearly expended exceptional effort to adhere to the code of ethics they will achieve an exceptional success in a category. In instances where the author fails to achieve any aspect of the code, their efforts will be considered a total failure. In instances where the author grossly violated the code, or showed clear disdain for ethics in their writing or behavior, their efforts will be considered a colossal failure.

12

Disclaimer: It's important to remember that ethics in journalism is a complex issue, and adherence to a single code is not an accurate measure of whether or not a journalist is ethical. That being said, the score given by The Sentinel is a measure of

adherence to the SPJ's code of journalistic ethics. It should be treated as a starting point for greater discussion and accountability, rather than "proof" of unethical behaviour. No part of the Code is enforceable in any legal sense. The Sentinel Wire will never agree to label a journalist as unethical due to a score assigned by it, during review. In addition, The Sentinel

Wire does not encourage or support the taking of negative action against anyone reviewed or mentioned in its writings.

In short, The Sentinel does not care about your petty human drama, and will not participate in it.

* Several comments in the “Transparency” section are in review of the journalist’s overall behavior in response to certain

criteria. Points earned in this section are applied to all articles in the journalist’s selection of works.