The Gamer: defamed, defiled, reviled
Partly a response to Caroline Overton's ill-judged defamation of every single gamer on the planet, but also a look at the way twitter, and the internet in general, enables readers to hold journalists, writers and other publishers of irresponsible and objectionable material to account.
Let's start off with a few choice quotes from award-winning investigative journalist Caroline Overington:
"...anyone over the age of 30 who spends any time deep in some sagging sofa, console in one hand, the other down the front of their pants, imagining themselves to be a combatant in some pretend city, is lame.
...
I know what you're thinking. Gamers, who cares? They don't participate in life in any meaningful way. As a rule, they don't even have jobs."- Caroline Overington, The Australian, February 11, 2010 (source)
You can read the full article by following the link above (or right here if you're just a bit lazy; a gamer, perhaps?). It's not my aim to dissect Overington's article line by line as I'm certain that anyone with even the smallest measure of intelligence can work out where someone might take offence and why. What does bear pointing out is that fact that here we have an award-winning investigative journalist publishing what is quite probably the laziest piece of writing I have ever cast my eyes over. What is equally shocking is that Overington has actually been paid to write this.
Let's try something else:
"I know what you're thinking. Gays, who cares? They don't participate in life in any meaningful way. As a rule, they don't even have jobs."
- (not) Caroline Overington
(Incidentally, you can transplant your minority group of choice, the point still works.) Now, what sort of reaction do you think Overington's article would have provoked if she'd published something like the above? Do you think she'd have even been allowed to publish it at all? Just because gamers don't represent any specific religious or sexual persuasion (hey - gamers come in all colours, religions and sexual preferences - how great is that?) it doesn't make it alright to publish such a gross, inaccurate and offensive generalisation. While Overington is unlikely to fall foul of her media compatriots by pointing her finger at mere gamers you can be sure she's still offended plenty of people - I'm one of them, and I don't even play games that often.
At this point I don't really know whether Overington was merely trolling for publicity (in which case the article has, of course, worked) or whether she was attempting some obtuse form of satire. I must admit I found it necessary to read the article through a few times. On the first pass I kept reading because I really thought she was about to make some sort of ironic comment in defence of gamers. She didn't.
I took a second pass in case I could detect any satire. As it happens, in the strict literal definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/define/satire) Overington's piece does actually qualify as satire. However, in a colloquial sense the term has come to mean something else: we tend to associate satire with something clever, witty or funny, something which often uses its subject's idiosyncrasies in order to poke fun at it. This is something that Overington resolutely fails to do in her article. I'm taking a little time here to define the terms of satire since I wouldn't be surprised if Overington does actually claim her article is satire. By doing so she would effectively be able to disclaim any responsibility for her opinions: "It was just a piece of fun, shouldn't be taken seriously - no offence, etc...". I don't think she should be let off the hook so lightly.
And now a word from our sponsors...
This leads me on to what is really the main point of this post. In the olden days journalists and writers (I refuse to refer to Overington as a journalist in respect of this particular article: it would be demeaning to other journalists) could publish what they wanted without fear of any significant comeback from the public. True you could phone, fax or write to the editor, but I don't imagine an overwhelming number of people did that. Journalists (and writers) would be tempered by the usual standards (i.e. you don't run "The Queen Mother in whorehouse shocker!" because you just know that someone's going to pull you up on that one) but for the most part any reaction from the public at large was silent.
Not so any more. Now people have a multitude of online channels through which to respond, of which Twitter is probably the most immediate. I expect I would have never known about Overington's article (or indeed about Overington herself) were it not for Twitter. Whether you prefer pithy 140 character comments, lengthy blog posts, forum comments, or something else, the internet now gives everyone a place to have their say - and to have it now.
I would imagine this is galling to many journalists who are used to being paid for offering us the privilege of reading their words. Now anyone can publish what they want and potentially have the benefit of a global readership. You can't deny there's a whole lot of content that doesn't deserve to be published, just a quick look at Youtube comments proves that, but that doesn't excuse the handful of articles I've read wherein 'professional' journalists find it necessary to demean their internet counterparts. A popular target, naturally, is twitter, and you'll find countless examples of out-of-touch print journalists dismissing twitter as a tool people use for announcing what they've had for breakfast.
Another popular complaint is that the internet allows people to publish content without having to conform to any standards - in other words, you can say what you want. The problem seems to be that this runs both ways. In their fervour to produce content (remember: content is king!) a lot of media companies seem to have dropped their own standards considerably. Caroline Overington's lazy dismissal of gamers is merely one example. Perhaps equally galling, although for different reasons, is the increasing number of simple typos appearing on the BBC's own news website.
So, to use a broad generalisation of my own, we have a situation where professional writers and journalists can publish objectionable rubbish, but everyone else now has the freedom and, most importantly, the medium with which to complain. If a 'journalist', such as the despicable Jan Moir, publishes something appalling then you can be sure that she can no longer hide behind her masthead - people will take her to task and she will have to respond.
I have to point out that much of the above doesn't apply directly to Caroline Overington, who at the very least seems to 'get' twitter (@overingtonc). As a Murdoch crony she should naturally be viewed with suspicion by any open-minded person, but I pass no judgement on her other works or her character. I do find it interesting that unlike numerous other news sites (including most other Murdoch-owned ones) there is no option to leave comments on her article. In fact as far as I can tell it doesn't look like the public is allowed to leave its opinions on any of the opinionated news stories published by The Australian. Irony indeed.
As an almost-footnote I wonder to what degree Murdoch actually wants you to leave your opinions on his sites. His ideology is to promote his own opinions and dress them up as news, so allowing the public at large the opportunity to dilute his message would surely be counter-productive. We know that Murdoch is planning (hilariously) to start charging for access to his online news resources, and I wonder if part of the reason for that is not so much to make money but to shrink the forum for people who don't agree with his views. After all, if The Australian was behind a pay wall surely you would only pay if you actually thought Murdoch's empire represented decent journalistic standards or had money to throw away? In other words, the sort of person prepared to pay for Murdoch's content is the sort of person least likely to object to it.
If you want to keep up with the aftermath of Caroline Overington's article this twitter search provides a handy (albeit temporary) tool. You can also read these compelling responses from the Interactive Games and Electronics Association and journalism blog Crikey.
