The two sides of GamerGate

Michael Koretzky | August 17, 2015


AirPlay is over, and I’m ambivalent.

I mean that in the classic sense of the word: I have strong emotions both ways, not zero emotions either way.

What SPJ does next depends on which AirPlay panel – the morning or the afternoon – represents what most GamerGaters believe.

An illuminating morning

You know a debate kicks ass when the panelists on all sides tell you, “I learned a lot up there.”

I heard words like that from all six in the morning: Derek Smart representing game developers, Ren LaForme and Lynn Walsh representing mainstream journalism, and Allum BokhariMark Ceb, and Ashe Schow representing GamerGate.

Our goal was to “make a good gaming press better, or a bad gaming press good, depending on your outlook.” We concocted some novel yet practical ideas for achieving that – from creating an SPJ award for games journalism to recruiting a games media critic.

It wasn’t even a “debate.” Along with an audience of both gamers and reporters, it was a collaboration. No side “won,” because everyone won.

A strong-arm afternoon

Before lunch ended, the second group of GamerGate panelists met onstage for a sound check in front of a trickling-in audience.

It went wrong before the red light even came on.

Milo Yiannopoulos and Christina Hoff Sommers announced they had a six-minute presentation. That certainly wasn’t what we discussed on a Google Hangout and via email in the weeks leading up to AirPlay.

I looked to the panelists sitting opposite them, and SPJ’s Lynn Walsh politely said, “Six minutes is a long time…”

Yiannopoulos insisted he and Hoff Sommers had a half-dozen points to make, so I negotiated a compromise: Instead of running through all six, why not stop after each one and allow other panelists to comment?

Instead, Yiannopoulos, Hoff Sommers, and Cathy Young talked for exactly 14 minutes straight. (Seriously, check out the video from 4:15 to 18:15.)

At first, I let it go. But then I began interrupting, trying new angles to get them to talk with the other panelists and not at them.

They stuck to their speeches, which were bloody slabs of red meat to GamerGaters but ladles of spam hash to the journalists in the room. At one point, I asked Lynn Walsh what she understood from these speeches, and she struggled to latch onto anything.

Yiannopoulos talked about the “pearl-clutching, hand-wringing, middle-class white guilt about whether or not there are enough women” in the San Francisco startup industry and wanted to comment on “six big ethical failures, transgressions, betrayals from the games press” – even though AirPlay had nothing to do with the former and had already debated the latter.

(That said, Yiannopoulos is an intoxicating speaker. While he was monopolizing the panel, my mind wandered: What if I hosted a feminism-and-media debate with these three on one side? I would totally do that.)

As #shutupkoretzky appeared on Twitter, the audience yelled for me to let the GamerGate panelists talk unchallenged. I reminded them what I had said earlier that day and for the past three months: While AirPlay is about GamerGate, it’s not for GamerGate. It’s for journalists and their readers.

When a bomb threat forced us to evacuate, it was a mercy killing.

Both debates revealed the duality of GamerGate: an honest desire to improve the news they consume, and a take-no-prisoners damn-the-torpedoes word dumping that glazes corneas instead of winning allies.

The first GamerGate seems ready to give some to get more. The other GamerGate seems willing to estrange everyone who doesn’t agree with them on everything.

I don’t have a horse in this race either way. But only one GamerGate is worthy of apres-AirPlay effort from mainstream journalists.

What happens next

In exactly a month, SPJ holds its annual convention, called Excellence in Journalism. (Yes, the name is joke fodder for media haters. We have a sense of humor, too, you know.)

The SPJ national board will meet twice, and I’m thinking twice about mentioning AirPlay.

If I attempt AirPlay’s ideas, will I be investing my time or wasting it? Is it better spent elsewhere?

For instance, over the Labor Day holiday just a few weeks from now, 20 journalists will fly to Orlando – from as far away as Alaska – and spend 36 hours in a homeless shelter, where they’ll take over its street newspaper for one sleepless issue. We call it Will Write For Food, and this is our seventh twisted year.

If you think gamers are snidely stereotyped by mainstream culture, talk to the homeless. Most gamers aren’t sexist serial harassers who live with their parents. Most homeless aren’t lazy scammers who cackle because they guilted you into giving them a dollar for malt liquor. The world is more complicated than that. Thank God.

Today, I fly to Indiana, where I spend a week training student journalists at DePauw University. I look forward to that almost as much as I looked forward to AirPlay. When I return, AirPlay will be a memory, and I’ll decide what to do.

Of course, I’m not God’s gift to journalism, so maybe someone smarter picks up where AirPlay dropped off. If so, I’ll help. If not, well, it was all still worth every warped moment. I almost literally had a blast.


  1. Anonymous · August 16

    Oy m8 you seem butthurt

    • Anonymous · August 16

      Best. Top. Comment.

    • bengch · August 16

      5 tweets under #shutupkoretzky (trending, lol). Man, those people are really going after Koretzky.

      Literally harassment! Triggered! (insert patreon link)

      Mike, whatever happened to courtesy? What have these people done that they deserved being interrupted? Oh, I know, speak their minds on a “no plan, no script” panel.

      Can we stop pretending that Mister “former-jazz-journalist” Koretzky is somehow relevant? He’s never been interested in a discussion outside his own terms. Let him have his 15 minutes of fame and be done with him.

  2. Anonymous · August 16

    “As #shutupkoretzky trended on Twitter, the audience yelled for me to let the GamerGate panelists talk unchallenged. ”

    There was also a large contingent that wanted you to stop monologuing and direct questions or solicit comments from the neutral panel. While you are correct in that the proGG panel spoke a ton, when you interrupted it was to ask your own questions or give your own ideas. You stopped being a moderator who directed the discussion but became your own panel. As someone who is proGG, I was listening in because I wanted to hear from Ren and Lynn and the afternoon panel had very little from them. When holding the debate it is up to the moderator to make sure that panelists have time to respond with comments or questions and many times it seemed you were monopolizing that for yourself. That was my frustration.

    • Anonymous · August 16

      I wholeheartedly agree. Frankly, I thought Koretzky was an awful moderator in the second half. He wants to learn how to report online controversies better in light of GamerGate, but refuses to let the panelists explain what went specifically wrong during GamerGate coverage because they dared to touch upon politics and ideology. How does he expect people to do things better if he doesn’t allow any talk about the actual problem?

      “As #shutupkoretzky trended on Twitter, the audience yelled for me to let the GamerGate panelists talk unchallenged. I reminded them what I had said earlier that day and for the past three months: While AirPlay is about GamerGate, it’s not for GamerGate. It’s for journalists and their readers.”

      Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the audience also consist of journalists and/or journalism students? I find his attitude very patronising, and I think it’s best summed up in this sentence he wrote:

      “I don’t have a horse in this race either way. But only one GamerGate is worthy of apres-AirPlay effort from mainstream journalists.”

      This is a key problem which Derek Smart interjected with because Koretzky was interrupting non-stop: This exact attitude of one only side being ‘worthy’ of attention is why GamerGate got such slanted coverage in the first place.

      The strongest feeling I took away from Koretzky’s moderating is that I wanted Derek Smart to be the moderator instead. When a panelist does a better job of moderating than the moderator, you know they dun goofed. 😛

      • Anonymous · August 16

        Very well put. Koretzky was a really poor moderator for this discussion. Those who had concerns that he wanted to make the story about him probably feel validated, whether it’s true or not.

      • Anonymous · August 16

        I think that the entire premise for the afternoon panel was flawed, the tools to properly cover an online controversy already exist and are fairly obvious, you only need to read Brad Glasgow’s article on GamePolitics. The problem here is not that journalists were incompetent or lacked the tools to cover GamerGate properly, the problem here is that journalists were malicious and deliberately ignored those tools.

        • Actually It's About Bullshit In Gamergate Ethics · August 16

          Brad Glasgow wrote an article describing what Gamergate thinks of itself, not what Gamergate actually is or what it did. Not surprising that GG doesn’t understand the difference between hagiography and journalism.

          • Anonymous · August 16

            Brad Glasgow showed how to speak to a leaderless group. That is all he did, that is all he wanted to do, that is all that was claimed to have been done.
            He also wanted to have aGG as a counterpoint, but they (aGG) did not allow it (and why would they – nothing to gain, everything to loose).
            So do not spin the narrative wheel – Glasgow never claimed to have the end-all-be-all answer to what gamergate is, but an answer to “how do I approach a #”.

            And as we talk about hagiography already – this is indeed more applicable for the way #gamergate has been covered so far:

            “The historical cognitive interest of hagiographical research is less concerned with the authenticity of the manuscript tradition, but with the investigation of the collective memory […] as well as with the social and moral problems of the time.”

            The coverage #gamergate received so far by MSM told the reader more of the zeitgeist than about gamergate.

        • Anonymous · August 16

          No wonder if Milo sounded condescending when he said it along the lines of he/they are not here to tell to journalist how to do their job for them. And that is because it does not take any special tools, skills or people to do it.

          It means mostly that you have to read and use time to study what happened and contact several different people from different sides. Finding those people is of course one of the hardest (time consuming) part. And then checking was their side of the story even remotely true or are there glaring errors (s/he said to have used 9:07 flight to Boston so was there even a flight to Boston at that time etc. etc.).

          So very basic journalism in itself. Not some great trick or secret examination technique. The difference is that there seldom is easy and/or fast way to do it. It just takes time and effort to get deeper when the story is something more complex than a local jogger rescued a cat from a tree.

          And if you don’t have the time and are not willing to put the effort it’s probably better if you leave that story to those who are willing to do the leg work and have resources to do it. Some outlets don’t have the resources or interest to do it and end result is more crappy and untrue news and articles.

          Add bias to that and you get people that publish stories they know are untrue but it does not matter to them because maybe that is something people want to hear. Some could say modern (especially big) media in a nutshell.

          And if you just take the first easiest angle and run with it or just mindlessly repeat what others have said end result is most likely bad journalism.

          What ever Koretzky wishes, in reality some things and news are not easy to get bottom of and you cannot explain everything in five minutes and hope that you or others realized what really happened. As is the case with Gamergate. Even if we wish everything was easy and simple it seldom is.

      • @MAATOHA · August 16

        Both these comments I can get behind. While I am extremely happy that this event happened, I have to say Koretzky did a very poor job as a moderator. It seems to me he mostly just wanted to hear himself talking. And when another big ego entered the room, he started fighting that ego instead of doing his job.

        All the SJW/feminism thing is an extremely important angle on the whole GG story and needs to be discussed in order to show what went wrong with GG coverage. You can never explain it to someone unscathed by this ideology without mentioning it. And how are journalists supposed to improve things if you don’t allow them to learn from past mistakes and wrongdoings?

        I could not watch the entire thing (watched all morning and most of afternoon up to the first bomb threat) but I don’t think the most important thing happened: I did not hear the names of the media outlets and names of journalists who failed in reporting on GG truthfully.

        I take it that SPJ does have at least some authority in the US journalism and having these examples shown to the public as “see? this is shit and we don’t want this” could help other journalists understand clearly that insulting, smearing, lying about and pitching public against a certain group of people is simply not acceptable.

        Rant over.

      • Anonymous · August 16

        Precisely. Koretzky forgot that he was a moderator and not a panelist. Instead of drilling the GG panel for answers because “The others here, they need something else, they can’t work with this!” maybe bloody ASK the non-GG panel if that’s the case? Maybe get them involved in an actual debate instead of speaking for them?

        And if the morning panel had done a better job at explaining what GG is in a concise and accurate manner (which might have required another fifteen minutes or so, shockingly), maybe Walsh and LaForme would’ve already known half of what Koretzky denied them in the second panel.

        • Actually It's About Bullshit In Gamergate Ethics · August 16

          I can explain Gamergate in one minute, and if you need 30 minutes, it’s no surprise real journalists don’t care to listen to you.

          Gamergate in less than a minute: Girls have cooties and so does pink vidya. Ew.

          • Anonymous · August 16

            Cant believe nobody took this bait

    • Luis Eduardo · August 16

      absolutely this

  3. InvisibleJimBSH · August 16

    You did alright Koretsky, it was just difficult to make the second part a ‘discussion’ by the very nature of the topic. I agree with Milo’s point that reporting on something like ‘#GamerGate’ requires immersion. In addition I agree with your point that as the moderator you need discrete learnings to pass from one panel to the other as structured, rationalised and summarised information.

  4. Anonymous · August 16

    ProGG here, and I actually completely agree with you. The first panel is what interested me in GG because I’m a games developer and have strong concerns with how the indie game industry operates for some time, most notably its cronyism tendencies. However, I couldn’t give a damn about SJWs and I just wish GG would do a much better job of ignoring those attention seekers.

    • TL L · August 16

      “mopping the floor with the faucet running ”
      “dry out a flooded room without turning off the taps”

      if only the media would not validate their false claims, poisoning the well, witch hunts

      • Anonymous · August 16


        • Anonymous · August 16

          I think what those unintelligible words were supposed to mean that, in this person’s eye, the problem of cronyism and corruption comes from the SJWs, therefore trying to fix the issue without expelling or exposing the SJWs, “mopping the floor but leaving the faucet running”, just leads to a corruption and cronyism ” a flooded room” again eventually.

    • bryoneill11 · August 16

      WTF are you talking about? The whole problem with journalists is the SJW agenda.

      • Actually It's About Bullshit In Gamergate Ethics · August 16

        The SJW agenda: treating women as if they were people. I can see why you’re so threatened by that.

        • bryoneill11 · August 16

          YOU people are worst than religious extremists. YOU ARE A CULT! If you really believe that you are already indoctrinated and brainwashed. SJW = Tea Party form the left

          • Anonymous · August 16

            You read it right here: This typical GGer said that anyone thinking that women are people is a sign of cult membership. Gamergate is so far up its own backside it thinks the most basic aspect of feminism, that women are human beings, is evidence of cult membership.

  5. Anonymous · August 16

    everyone loves the Milo show, but you weren’t there for the Milo show (unfortunately).
    but the discussion did manage to get on topic a good few times, Cathy Young especially was pretty much always on topic, the interruptions didn’t always help.

  6. Anonymous · August 16

    “As #shutupkoretzky trended on Twitter, the audience yelled for me to let the GamerGate panelists talk unchallenged. ”
    Really? Honestly now mate.
    Five tweets is certainly not enough to get a hashtag trending, c’mon Koretzky that’s exaggeration at best deception at worst. We got SPJAirplay trending though.

    • Dogsplained · August 16

      Was meant to be tongue in cheek. Sometimes the humor is lost.

      • Anonymous · August 16

        If that was his intent, he should have been more clear. It sounds like we were being vindictive or something, when in fact only a handful of people even used that tag.

        • Anonymous · August 16

          Gamergaters vindictive? Naw…

          • Sam M. · August 16

            9 of them.

    • Luis Eduardo · August 16

      im so proud, my tweet with 3 retweets alone were able to trend a hashtag!

    • Anonymous · August 16

      My guess is that he wrote it as a joke and didn’t realize the hashtag was actually real.

      • @GG_SunTzu · August 16

        Are you suggesting a journalist wrote something without fact checking? That could never happen!

        • Anonymous · August 16

          Are you suggesting that he have to fact check a joke? This isn’t a journalistic article either, this is a blog. Bloggers aren’t held to SPJ’s code of ethics.

  7. Anonymous · August 16

    Thank you Michael for taking that extra look into the flooded hashtag and finding the little gems in the rough. This is something that i think is worth discussing and you put the time in to do just that. Ultimately i think that this will give many journalists a window into how they can prevent a war with their own audience like we’ve seen with Gamergate. I would like to see you revisit this and further the discussion.

  8. ItalyGG · August 16

    SPJ has one merit and one flaw.
    The merit is that you recognize that several journo outlets have hidden agendas and very unethical conducts.
    The flaw is that you refuse to admit that most of Anglosphere’s media is controlled by political agendas (which is what Milo & Co were saying).
    Basically, you recognize the problem, but you’re scared to admit what’s causing it, even in spite of overwhelming evidence, likely because the media would campaign to discredit all SPJ if you did.
    That’s enough for me, I don’t blame you for being scared of going behind the surface. As along as you at least speak out about the corruption, you’re doing something. Cheers, Koretzky.

    • Anonymous · August 16

      But Milo has a political agenda along with CHS, hypocrisy much.

      • reginald · August 16

        Milo has a different agenda than CHS, but I think they both hope that exposing corruption and detailing the issues that cause it will sway people to their way of thinking. That’s not deceitful, like the media, it might be an agenda, but it’s an agenda based on informing people of the truth.

        You’re “hypocrisy much” retort is simple minded and childish, you’re not looking beneath the surface. One side is lying to you to get you to act a certain way and believe certain things, the other side is giving you facts to help stop you form acting like an idiot.

        • Actually It's About Bullshit In Gamergate Ethics · August 16

          Silly boy. Agendas and politics are already in your entertainment. You just happen to agree with it so you think that means there’s no political messages.

          You’re even sillier saying Milo provides facts. He’s a blatant right-wing opinion columnist; the very thing you rail against when it’s left wing opinion in videogame pieces. Christina is a right-wing shill for a right-wing think tank. Tell me again how Gamergate is full of liberals, I need a good chuckle.

          Facts. From Breitbart. Ha!

      • ItalyGG · August 16

        Milo is not a game journalist, so his agenda don’t affect gaming. Same for CHS. I’m not sure you realize that “don’t force agendas into entertainment” is different than “don’t ever talk politics anywhere in the world”, Ghazi.

    • Anon · August 16

      What’s missing is the recognition that objectivity is bullshit- it doesn’t exist, so admit your priors and let the readers make their own judgements.

  9. Circlesea7 · August 16

    Thank you Michael for taking that extra look into the flooded hashtag and finding the little gems in the rough. This is something that i think is worth discussing and you put the time in to do just that. Ultimately i think that this will give many journalists a window into how they can prevent a war with their own audience like we’ve seen with Gamergate. I would like to see you revisit this and further the discussion.

    (My apologies if there is a dupe of this comment)

  10. Manny N. · August 16

    You’ll get a few negative comments be it trolls or actual GG supporters, regardless I want to thank you for hearing our side and putting this on. I hope it was fruitful enough to show there are ethical problems we’re trying to face in the gaming industry and that we aren’t some hate group as we’ve been slandered to be.

    The afternoon panel was a definite hotbed but I was able to see the points all around, we like to refer to Milo as an asshole, but he’s our asshole 🙂

  11. Scarlet · August 16

    Personally I think you did great. I had many doubts on the panel that came out at the end and while there was a few surprises (all in the morning panel) the PM panel came out pretty much as I expected.
    I think you should probably extrapolate what was on topic in the day which is pretty much the morning panel.
    Yes, we have ethical concerns, yes the concerns are legitimate, we have compiled them in a website called
    As you said yourself (and by the way I’m almost 100% in agreement with your moderating style) the PM panel was talking about something that could be interesting, but was also completely out of topic.
    The problems with accepting a panel through popular vote is that you take the person who receives more positives votes (Milo) but you would have found out by running a negative vote that he would be the one taking more negatives too.. that doesn’t make him popular, it makes him divisive and controversial, and you experienced why.

    • Positive Improvement · August 16

      I couldn’t agree more with that last paragraph. Koretsky had panelists chosen based on a popularity contest and seemed shocked that the people chosen were not the most qualified to speak on the topic at hand. Instead of “who should represent #GamerGate” it should have been “who is most qualified to talk about how to cover GamerGate in the future?”. Those two questions would produce very different results. Would anyone really have picked CHS in answer to that second question? I think not.

  12. BeerandSticks · August 16

    I agree with you that the morning panel went far better than the afternoon one did. However, part of why it did was both side were speaking the same language. The afternoon panel perhaps had the wrong people in it. If you wanted to just discuss how to report it going forward, Milo may not have been the best choice. He’s an expert in exactly what he talked about.

    I do however think that a point Milo made is true. These journalists didn’t wake up one day and decide to be unethical. They pushed the boundaries to push an agenda. Take Leigh Alexander’s speech from XOXO Festival where she admits she’s biased because she has a position to do so. Looking at WHY they broke the rules is worth noting.

    Is it something you or the SPJ could fix? No. But, the other panel had members that intentionally knew nothing about GG and explaining all this to them was to a degree, necessary.

    However, I feel that the debate was beginning to find strides about an hour into the afternoon panel. They may not have been completely on point, but they were beginning to speak the same language as both sides began to understand what the other was putting forward. You say the bomb threat was a mercy-killing. I wish we got that last half an hour to see if a conclusion was reached.

  13. Anonymous · August 16

    Your entire concept of the second panel was bullshit. You wanted to talk about how journalists should report about online consumer revolts like GamerGate, but you wouldn’t allow anyone to bring up any past examples of journalists doing it wrong.

    You need to look at past mistakes to see how to do it right. Every good teacher knows this. Just letting people memorize pre-packaged methods will ultimately lead to failure because the people who are supposed to utilize the methods don’t understand why they are doing what they are doing.

    I assume you did this because you don’t want to get into politically incorrect topics like ideologues who are just in the field to push their agenda instead of informing the public like a real journalist, because that would be bad PR for the SPJ, which is understandable but ultimately not the fault of the panelists.

    You wanted dumbed-down rules to follow, the panelists wanted to give you the tools to make your own rules.

    Even more remarkable that the panel was able to adjust themselves to your narrow-minded view of what they were supposed to educate you about. They gave you those pre-packaged methods that you wanted. But apparently they still weren’t easy enough for you. Like Milo said you have to “do your work”. You have to invest a week or so like Cathy Young, you can’t just interview Brianna Wu and then get the gamergate version of her to give you a counter-statement. That’s not how it works.

  14. Kevlarkent · August 16

    You have to understand though that GamerGate hasn’t had a public or mainstream-accepted platform to talk about the hate and misrepresentation that games journalism and mainstream journalism has directed towards them.
    So when we finally get one, even though that’s not the topic, were desperate to talk about it.

    • Anonymous · August 16

      Milo buys his ink by the gallon, so to speak. Why would he be desperate now and fuck it up so hard? uggggh

      • Kevlarkent · August 16

        i didnt get that, why wouldnt he be desperate? i dont think breitbart is a mainstream publication?

  15. AsatorPrime · August 16

    As someone who is pro GG and who is fed up with the poor quality of game journalism I quite enjoyed the first panel and wish it went on much longer. The second one did nothing for me, I don’t care about the sjw debate (although I do enjoy hearing Milo talk as well).

    Thanks for your efforts

  16. Mingo · August 16

    I think the issue is that the second panel really could have used more moderate voices for the topic you chose, Milo is a heavy hitter with great charisma but I don’t think the topic required that. That being said, when we chose panelists the topics and timeline were different.

    Either way, thanks for taking the time to give us a shot.

  17. Anonymous · August 16

    Let me suggest doing a cooking show, using the afternoon panel as a guide.

    K: Welcome to our show! We’re all chefs, but today we’ll discuss how to make omelets with four eggs instead of three.

    M: I just use an extra egg.

    K: Hold on, we’re talking about omelets, not eggs.

    W: I’m confused. Are there eggs in omelets with four eggs, too?

    M: Okay, back to the basics?

    K: Back to the basics.

    M: Right. To make an omelet, you start with eggs, and

    K(interrupting): We’re talking about omelets, not eggs!

    M(interrupting): But you sort of have to break the eggs first, and then

    K(interrupting): Look. You can have that. I’m no vegan, I don’t fight for the justice for eggs. Go ahead and break some eggs, you eggophobe. But can we please start talking about making omelets?

    M: I am talking about making omelets. This is the basics of making omelets, darling. Now, when we have our broken eggs in a bowl, we can start stirring

    K(interrupting): Look, harming eggs or using them to smear a bowl isn’t the issue. Can’t we make omelets?

    M: Never mind, I’ll go to a furry convention instead.

    • spjairplay · August 16

      This is funny, although it went on a little too long. Like an Saturday Night Live skit.

      • Anonymous · August 16

        and now I kind of want to see Milo at a furry convention.
        He’d get so much tail.

    • Saiyo · August 16

      brilliant resume!

  18. Anonymous · August 16

    Bud, I only give you grief because I want it to succeed.

    The reason Sommers, Yiannapolis & Young were bringing up everything they did because it explained how Games “Journalists” justified their own damn-the-torpedoes approach to “reporting” on GamerGate. The thing I’d want people to take away from their tidbits, is that you have to drop your biases, which most print journalists (and a fair amount of TV Journalists) do. At this point, it would seem that the two panels should have been reversed, though you wouldn’t have heard about Kotaku then. I also wonder if the morning panelists would have been able to provide better details for how to report on a “leaderless movement”. As it stands you had two journalists saying “Just do what I did” and then proceeded to explain what they did. It would have been better served if Milo & Cathy had sat down and explained how they did in an instructional manner, rather than trying to get it out of them in a “debate”.

    Unfortunately even today, we have places like The Independent, The Guardian, etc, using a narrative to justify printing their opinions as news.
    (The Independent did a good job of that today with this one for instance: )

    It makes sense if you’re used to the “Trial by Court of Public Opinion” that seems to be done by routine in the online media at this point.

    I do sympathize with the “while #shutupkoretzky was trending” being a bad thing, the main reason why it kept being said (even by me), was because it didn’t seem like you were redirecting, but rather repeating the same words again and again.

    I maintain that you were “too close” to the issue, as the more you learned about it, the harder it became to separate your opinion on GamerGate from the event. It was your job to keep things on track, and I won’t deny that you tried to.

    • Anonymous · August 16

      >tells people to drop their biases
      >doesn’t understand that milo shamelessly writes with his own bias

      • Anonymous · August 16

        >tells people to drop their biases
        >Doesn’t care that Milo “shamelessly writes with his own bias”, because most of his shit appears to be opinion.

        But, by all means, ignore the part where most of online journalism is pissing on the “drop your bias”. Nuance, how does it work?

        You’re right, we should devolve to infighting and go after Milo instead of getting the game journalists to write without a bias. Or, you know, disclose _at time of publishing_ (rather than hours later) any conflicts of interest. Or not jump to conclusions before all the details are out so that they can call words like “biased” an “inventive term”. Oh no, we can’t have that shitshow.

        Please do, continue to berate me with the maymay arroes. :^)

  19. Somewhere in between · August 16

    I really enjoyed this debate, and your moderation. I’ve been following this controversy for quite some time and I’m intrigued by animosity between the opposing sides sides. It would’ve enriched the debate to have members of the “anti-gamergate” side, who I agree with to some degree, there but I guess you can only do so much.

    In addition, I think you make a good point concerning the relevance and importance of this story. Sure, gamergators (?) might have been treated unfairly (let’s not forget about the abuse their opponents, Sarkeesian and Quinn, consistently suffered – not necessarily at their hands) but it wouldn’t surprise me that there were more pressing issues to address in the journalism profession.

    A lot of what was discussed reminded me of the media’s repetition of statements in 2001, and how quickly the war narrative was spun. It’s the matter of narrative-building, and the copy-paste nature of much of modern journalism which this story speaks to, more than the trolling, feminism, misogyny and harassment. The narrative can be built around anything.

    Since the rules concerning these issues already exist, it’s enforcement that needs to be promoted, and that requires cultural change, which requires that there’s always someone there to call out (perceived) poor journalism.

    Very interested in how this debacle will be viewed after the hashtag inevitably dies.
    Anyway, thanks again for the debate. Ramble over.

  20. Tyler LaRiviere · August 16

    As a student in journalism, and as a photographer, designer, and writer for my schools newspaper (this is common amongst school newspapers) I was interested from the onset with #GamerGate. Due to in part me being a “gamer” and also someone who is learning to become a journalist themselves.

    So I tracked it the minute I heard about it, didn’t get much involved just was a silent observer. When I heard about airplay I got excited to see what lessons and ideas would be created or thought of.

    Now Mr. Koretzky I think your being a little too hard on the afternoon panelists, because even thought they were a little long winded, they did have some good ideas that I and hopefully other students/journalist/both took away. And that is that though they current and proven and established infrastructure for journalism is great and works 9/10 times when it comes to stories like #GamerGate or #BlackLivesMatter or #NextHashTagMovement maybe the infrastructure needs to change in order to cover these events.

    I may get some hate for this but #GamerGate isn’t anything new when it comes to a confusing online movement. For example #BlackLivesMatter here where I live and cover it (Chicago) is just as confusing, where there are multiple seperate groups and ideas that rally under the same Hashtag. So pinning down a singular goal/idea/ideology is hard especially when we have groups that have been advocating the same talking points longer then the current #BlackLivesMatter campaign. (Chicago has a long history of racial issues) my point in bringing this up is that the Chicago market (CBS Chicago, ABC 7, Chicago Sun-Times, Chicago Tribune, DnA Info, Chicagoist and my publication THE HERALD) still cover their events, still work to find out their story and report it as fairly as possible. Now my question to you Mr. Koretzky is that if the Chicago Market can cover a confusing online movement fairly, then why A) is it difficult for Main Stream publications to do the same for #GamerGate, B) Why during AirPlay you and your fellow journalists make it seem like it would be a lofty goal to do so?

    Finally Mr. Yiannopoulos has a point that it should be standard practice especially with something as complex as #GamerGate to do some homework and if possible…to dive into that community (but not so much so that you become part of the story itself of course) as a photographer (myself) this is standard practice when we are at events or working with subjects we have to dive into the community we have to do homework so we don’t waste our time shooting things that don’t matter.

    • Anonymous · August 16

      One point about BLM is that the local chapters all organize autonomously but each of those chapters has people willing to speak and do PR and such. It is kind of like Occupy in that regard, iirc.
      GG doesn’t have local chapter organizations with folks willing to go on record, do the PR, do lots of local activism, etc.

      • @GG_SunTzu · August 16

        GG can’t have local chapters or PR reps. The bomb threat called into AirPlay is evidence as to why. The creator of #NotYourShield got fired from his job thanks to online mobs as another example. We even saw Polygon’s Ben Kuchera try very, very, hard to get a man fired form a sporting goods store for disagreeing with him on twitter. And when I say disagree, I mean disagree. No threats were issued, just simple disagreement.

        This is why the movement is leaderless and, mostly, anonymous. With the mainstream media choosing to paint all of GamerGate as evil, this means going after anyone who claims to be a representative of GamerGate is fair game in the eyes of the public.

        As MovieBob said, “No wrong tactics. Just wrong targets.”

        Even Derek Smart said, on the panel, that if he came out as Pro-GG he would have to live with a massive backlash.

        Until the media starts calling out those who endorse threats from the aGG side, then it isn’t safe to have GG representatives.

        • Anonymous · August 16

          Was just pointing out why the example of BLM really does not work for GG.

  21. derram · August 16

    And we’re back to Koreztky playing the victim.

    You invited them to talk and then decided what they’d talk about and so you interrupted them constantly when they went astray of your chosen path.

    And let’s not forget, you already threatened them with removal if they got too uppity.

    Yet, they’re strong-arming you? Because they wanted to talk about what they came here to talk about instead of what you decided they should?

    There’s a reason we chose these people, they all represent different elements of GG.

    All this talk did was make it damn clear that journalism has become a joke. A joke you laughed at repeatedly throughout the talk.

    “HAHA, yeah, gawker is terrible and I can’t believe actual journalists are quoting them! Buy hey, journalists don’t have licenses so there’s nothing we can do! It’s in the past, just move on! What would Lynn Walsh do?”

  22. Little K · August 16

    The afternoon panel should not have been unstructured. People going on for a long time off prepared points is going to happen when you say “we have no plans. Just gonna wing it.”

    Regardless, it was disappointing that the afternoon panel was cut short.

    Really enjoyed watching the streams, it looks like everyone there had a great time too, and everyone involved did really well in making it work.

    Thanks for giving us a chance and sticking with this, Koretzky.

  23. Walt · August 16

    I think the first panel went very well, a bit of a rough start.

    The 2nd part I think you were just dead wrong about one fact: the failures of the past show how the SPJ can do better in the future and hopefully get the MSM to do better (not likely).

    This is what most people were frustrated about in the 2nd part is Milo, CHS, and Cathy wanted to show how NOT to report on leaderless movements which was leading into HOW to report on them. Milo was finally able to touch on this after all the interruptions by you.

    With that said, I don’t think you had any kind of agenda (except for liking the sound of your voice, but Milo had you beat there) we appreciate you putting this on and I think it was a good step for GG.

  24. Cherry's touch (@tastenotouch) · August 16

    Koretzky: “We got no script and no plan. What we’re going to do, is we’re going to let our new gamergate panel talk about whatever they want to talk about.”

    In hindsight, maybe you needed more structure as people had suggested. You portrayed it to panelists that they had a freedom to riff on things but in practice you did not really offer this freedom. There’s nothing wrong with a focused debate.

    But if you advertise it to panelists that they have a certain kind of freedom and then keep interrupting discussion as it progresses, then you’ve directed people in a wrong direction.

    I’ve supported airplay from the beginning and I’ve made sure as many people possibly would know about it and I was looking forward to learn more about journalism and how to be more media and journalism aware.

    It seems to me that Koretzky has not yet fully understood how it’s exactly a kind of feminist activism that leads people to write these slanted stories in the mainstream about gamergate.

    I know this because when I ask people around me what they know of gamergate some gamers know nothing, but the ones that do are all fully clued in gamergate supporters. When I ask the feminists around me they’ve all heard about gamergate and they think it’s white male dudebro’s harassing women and that women aren’t welcome in the games industry.

    And it pains me to write this, because I am a feminist and my girlfriend runs a feminist book store. It seriously sucks, because both feminism, gamers and gamergate supporters all come out worse as a result of this.

    Yet, somehow, people are unwilling to examine the reason why the mainstream wrote as cathy young said “with authority” about what gamergate is and as milo yiannopoulos pointed out accurately, you have to understand why this happens if you want to address the problem.

    I would have loved to hear in particular what Lynne Walsh would have advised to people that support gamergate and want a fair coverage and how to address unfair coverage.

    It also surprises me how much trouble journalists have in researching a story like this. It sounds to me like there is an invisible technological barrier, something that gamergate supporters easily master and Koretzky or Walsh would have trouble with.

    I get the same sense of explanation necessary as when I am asked to fix a computer and then in particular when someone asks after it’s fixed: “Well what was wrong? What did I do wrong?” which is sometimes clear but often is unclear; you run a virusscan, you update drivers, or reinstall windows and it fixes most problems. Sometimes you discover what caused it, sometimes you don’t.

    Maybe there’s also a media awareness barrier that puts us at opposite sides of that situation when it comes to media, reporting and journalism. Maybe there are things we gamergate supporters do not fully understand or appreciate as to how good reporting and media develops. I was looking forward to learn about that.

    Unfortunately either I’m really stupid when it comes to media, or a very poor job was done in informing how people in gamergate should have act or have acted differently in regards to journalistic reporting. I was very much looking forward to be educated, but there was little of substance brought by the journalists.\

    Sorry to say.

    I have a feeling that there are fundamental problems as a result of the economic situation of journalism in the internet age that koretzky and lynne walsh are not fully understanding or addressing yet.

    At least this will set them thinking and hopefully will help start a reform in maybe 5 years time when another 5 or 6 huge gamergate-like scandals have erupted.

    Regardless, I want to thank everyone involved for their courage in tackling this, particularly Koretzky. I think the moderating was done in good faith, if in poor quality. It’s not that there were interruptions that’s bad, or that you wanted to redirect conversation, all that’s good stuff, but at some point you became entrenched, you stopped listening and started interrupting everything, which made sure that nothing productive could happen.

  25. M · August 16

    I appreciate your willingness to discuss the topic and withhold judgment, but I thought the design of the second panel (a discussion of GamerGate without discussing GamerGate) was rather terrible.

    The second panel reached the only conclusion it really could: it’s important to speak to both sides of a controversy. That’s just about the first thing you learn in j-school. The problem is, a gaggle of mainstream outlets ignored this bedrock principle to produce the GamerGate coverage that is available today.

    When faced with such a fundamental breakdown of proper reporting, motive becomes important. So “talk to both sides” is meaningless without understanding why some journalists don’t: laziness, ideology and ignorance. Without that understanding, any attempt at a remedy is foolhardy.

  26. Jaime (@KingFrostFive) · August 16

    I agree the first accomplished more but on the second it really seemed more like clashing heads but not of the panelists with each other, but primarily Milo and you. When Derek Smart had to repeatedly tell you to calm down, that was a big hint that you were pushing from moderator to preacher. Instead of speaking for them when claiming that nothing is helpful, why not let them express it to see what that can get? That, I didn’t understand. It sounded more like you were speaking for the opposite panel. Personally, of the Pro-GG side, I wanted to hear more out of Cathy Young. Yeah, Milo has a silver tongue and way to get more air than anyone else but she seemed to be more in line to what you seemed to be after. Establishing a better link between her and Lynn seems like a better use of time and energy than fighting with Milo but that couldn’t happen.

    I do need to clarify one point though that seemed to be the most glaring reason why you two kept talking around each other:

    Part of his – and many of ours – exasperation though was that the questions being made by you sounded a lot like “how do I use Twitter?” When Cathy was explaining that she just lurked the tag for a week, found common points, and focused on those points to lead to individual people, you acted like this was something unique. That’s just the same way it is in every large group dynamic: When looking for the everyman opinion, you look to whom the audience’s gives respect to then make your selections. You observe the group and proceed to pick people. That’s a basic point of “how do I do interviews” and it needing to be explained was weird to anyone experienced with social media. How you specifically choose to outline who to pick out (like your example of a spreadsheet) is something that each person can determine for themselves, there’s no “one best way” for that. At the very least you observe and pick names out to see who to go with. Any generalist should at least have basic social media skills under their belt, otherwise they’re just a bad fit for the job. Twitter, Tumblr, Facebook, Reddit – these are must-know basics today. If the problem is that there are outlets with people who don’t know how to use the platforms then what you’re expressing is an education issue within journalism and one that can’t be helped beyond ‘learn where people are communicating and adapt.” If you don’t want to target Twitter but Reddit instead, you’ve an easier time since there’s admins and mods. 8chan, you’ve board owners. If you don’t know who they are you can just ask on either place and the people will tell you who they are.

    To me, the question being asked sounded a lot like “how do I do interviews,” so Milo’s response of “you do your homework, you do your job” makes sense. This of course gets you stuck in a loop because the problem, to you, is some can’t. The problem, to me, is that you *should* be able to and if you can’t then maybe you shouldn’t be doing this at all. If you can’t figure out the everyman in the masses you can go find other journalists who did (another point by Milo) and see what they did/who they contacted. Alternatively, you can look for people who already HAVE given their identity up for prior media appearances/interviews, make a list, see who’s still active with whatever contact info is available (ask if necessary), and use them. This wasn’t a point raised in the debate but I’m not sure why it would have to as it, like the other two, seem like basic techniques to find a source.

    I don’t know if this was cleared up at any point but if not, there you go.
    If you guys still have interest in us, there’s a much bigger audience out there than you think, some anonymous and some not. Just dig a bit, we’ll even help. Hell, we did it to pick the panelists, didn’t we?

  27. Rhoark · August 16

    Thanks for making this happen.

  28. Ernest · August 16

    Mr. Koretzky, thanks very much for doing what you did. For someone like me who doesn’t have much faith in journalism anymore, it means a lot to know there’s someone who is willing to create a platform on a divisive topic where people can come together and debate their side. Up until this point the media has slandered and ignored GamerGate; being able to see an attempt at level-headed discussion from an outside party is refreshing.

  29. Anonymous · August 16

    You don’t get enough thanks. The effort that you’ve put forth over the past months is by default worth at least a MITE of ever gamer’s gratitude; then the level of gratitude rises or remains the same depending on how well people think you did at moderating 😉

    I for one saw in your moderation the intention to keep the discussion focused and oriented around a format that would benefit the journalists -BUT, as you are human, you made the mistake of sometimes coming off as heavy handed, at one point preventing the panelist from explaining the context and cause of the problem so that, once defined, the discussion could transition into how to go about solving it.

    Airplay was overall, a nice success.

    Thank you, Michael Koretzky

    – random online gg guy

    • Anonymous · August 16

      I agree with this comment the most.

  30. Red Morgan · August 16

    Some people won’t be happy with your moderation or your style, but I’m very grateful for what you did. You took a big risk and you opened up a dialogue that many had given up on. Whatever sins you may or may not have committed, making Airplay happen, by far, outweighs all of them.

    You did a great service to the public, to journalism and to most well-intentioned people involved in this debate. I know that you don’t like to receive thanks, so, instead, I’ll just say that I hope you continue to exercise good and ethical journalism.

    Also, thanks. :^)

  31. Anonymous · August 16

    I personally think that the second panel was a bad choice for gamergate, why milo and CH sommers? I would have preferred Sargon and Oliver Campbell who know the ins and outs of the ethics violations. Milo and sommers are big names, but they don’t know all the small details as well as those two.

    other than that it was great 🙂

    • bryoneill11 · August 16

      The second panel was a great choice. Three good debaters. Oliver and Sargon are not good debaters. Sargon is improving a lot. But this panel needed to talk about the real issues here. The SJW agenda, the GJP, the GGblocks, the censorship, the harrasment, and the blacklists. The thing is that Koretzky didnt let them. He was very brave for doing Airplay happen but a very bad moderator.

  32. rotekz · August 16

    The way I see things you messed up the afternoon panel by not allowing the panellists to outline the real issues. You thought you knew better. You were wrong.

  33. Anonymous · August 16

    Overall I thought it was a good event. I learned a lot about how journalists operate. I don’t think it’ll make me more sympathetic, but I did get a lot out of it.

    My issues are that I THOUGHT it was a journalists job to do some leg work. I don’t see what the problem is with posting, “Hey, what’s #GamerGate all about?”, on twitter, wait for responses to roll in, take an aggregate of those responses and follow up with some more in dept investigation. Ask who are the best people to talk to, where to go for questions, ask for sources. It just doesn’t seem that hard to me, but when hearing journalists talk about it, it really felt like we were talking about a 10 year long application development project.

    This is **BASIC** stuff **I** do as part of requirements gathering as a software developer.

    1) Client creates a delivery request, a very general outline of what software they want for management types.

    2) Management types approves, denies or ask for clarification on delivery request

    3) If approved, it’s handed to me and it’s up to me to recommend alternatives, flesh out the requirements, determine risks, provide estimates of effort, recommend technologies and coordinate teams for development.

    Part of fleshing out the requirements is identifying stake holders, which is something I always thought journalists were suppose to be really good at and was a pretty basic part of their job along with fact checking. It just seems to me like the internet should make this a piece of cake.

  34. Sutter Cane · August 16

    Michael, let me just start off by thanking you for putting this whole thing together and making this whole thing happen, and for, on the whole, being a damn good moderator for the debate. I will say, however that I think you’re mistaken on the reason why the afternoon panel went far less smoothly than the morning panel is that the pro GG panel were rather confused about the type on answers you wanted from them.

    It seemed to me that when posed with the question “how can journalists improve the way they cover online movements.” tghe panelists formed their answers as “Journalists are currently doing X when they should be doing Y.” An example of this that showed up in the panel would be “journalists when covering gamergate seemingly aren’t contacting any gamergate supporters before going ahead with their articles. We feel they should be attempting to contact gamergate supporters and including their persepctive when they are writing a story about it.”

    Based on my observation, the reason the Afternoon panel went poorly as compared to the morning panel was that the panelists would get to the “journalists are currently doing x” part of their answer, and then they’d get cut off and told to disregard how the journalists have covered gamergate in the past. It felt to me like this left the panelests frustrated and confused on how they should proceed as the second half of the answers aren’t particularly enlightening or informative without the context of the first half (as they’d essentially boil down to things like “if you interview someone for your article that opposed gamergate, you should also interview someone who supports gamergate,” and ” when writing an article about a contoverst, journalists should attempt to represent both sides of the argument”). My takeaway from all this is not that the difference between the morning and afternoon pales represented two opposing “sides” of gamergate, but rather that it represented the difference between a group that understood how to answer the questions that were asked of them in a way that was expected of them within the confines of their panel, and a group that didn’t.

  35. GlenCompton (@GlenCompton) · August 16

    I preferred the first panel as it seems like that was actually productive.

    The second panel, while all outspoken and amazing orators, I don’t think were an appropriate choice for the types of discussions you wanted to have (with the exception of Cathy Young.)
    There was a time that they were the more appropriate choice, and that would be on the topic of harassment, but that subject hardly was discussed. Also these individuals would have served as the big guns in a debate format, and a debate was FAR from what we actually had there.
    Ultimately we resulted in that trash fire that was the first 50 minutes or so of the afternoon panel, because what was intended to be free form discussion was redirected after the panelists proceeded with their long form diatribes.
    I blame the lack of structure, because the last 20 or so minutes things started coming together… just before the evacuations.

    I would be surprised that ANYONE preferred the afternoon panel honestly.

    Now, all that said, I agree with Milo that ethical issues ARE inseparable from the SJW driven elements in the press, but you were still ABSOLUTELY right that adding those elements only work to complicate an already confusing issue.

    Also I would like to see what you envisioned as a “a feminism-and-media debate with these three on one side”. I think that would be constructive to the issues people see surrounding GG, but also elevate a broader discussions on the subject, without forcing it to be conflated with the more humble goals or history behind #GamerGate.

    More than anything, THANK YOU! Thank you for putting your reputation on the line, and spending so much of your own time talking to GG and aGG, a tedium that I can only imagine being analogous to herding cats, just to put together a discussion about a topic that most would consider trivial but somehow warrants bomb and death threats. Most people would doubt that ANY of this was worth it, but I am thankful you persisted, even if only out spite.

  36. Anonymous · August 16

    I’m not a writer so i’ll keep it short and simple.

    The first panel represented everything that compels me to support Gamergate and what has been the driving force for the past year, pretty much everything that was said felt relevant.

    The Second panel represented everything that has made me want to throw in the towel and deem it a lost cause many times during the last six months or so, i expected it to be less fruitful but Nero exceeded my expectations by a landslide and not in a good way.

    I personally think that you did nothing wrong in interrupting, i rarely find these arguments to be relevant when discussing ethics, i know they would like you to believe it is but i think their take on Gamergate is a different issue altogether.

    Anyway, thank you for having done this, to me the first debate made it well worth the wait and suspense.

    • oldmanbees · August 16

      Your problem is the same as Koretzky’s problem–You want to hear about what you want to hear about, to the point where if you can, you stop people from talking about anything else. You’d ask questions and then try to dictate the terms of what you’ll accept as a response. There was a group of panelists who were perfectly capable of interjecting, had they felt it necessary. Instead, they were listening, which is what Mike should’ve been doing rather than unnecessarily speaking on behalf of the panel. More than anything, it appeared the word “Feminism/Feminist” triggered him into a barking response, and the frequent interruptions just made everything take longer and come out more confusing. When an opposition/neutral panel has to reign in the supposed moderator, that’s not a red flag–that’s a 500-foot, flaming crimson hot air balloon.

      • Anonymous · August 16

        They had a long introduction where nothing relevant really got said, if you ask me it became pretty apparent this wasn’t gonna go anywhere unless he guided them on the right path.

        Having been with GG from the very start (before it adopted the tag to distance itself from Zoe as to avoid controversy) i have dabbled in the anti-SJW side, at first i was fine with it but it changed a lot over a few months, haveing not seen any topics on ethics for a long time i decided to take a step back and look at it objectively, and what i saw reminded me too much of the arguments i hear from right wing xenophobes talking to each other in their forums for me to be comfortable with supporting such rhetoric.

        I really hope they are mostly trolls trying to stir shit up but considering the only major outlets has been right wing media i wouldn’t be surprised if they are honest opinions, in the end i blame this development on the left wing media for not giving us fair coverage.

        I can’t support such argumentation tactics even if they might have a point if you look beyond the hyperbole, so i have decided to ignore it and focus only on ethics, i have no sympathy for such ideology, when i bring points like this up i get a lot of hate but i know i’m not alone, i wish more people would speak up but i’m afraid they might have left already.

        And don’t tell me it all ties together SJW and Ethics, the most vocal anti-SJW has no interest in Ethics, for them we are just a means to an end.


        • bryoneill11 · August 16

          you are not a real GamerGater

    • bryoneill11 · August 16

      SJW agenda is why 90% of us are in GamerGate. Look what happened to KIA. Ethics only GamerGaters are like 5% of GamerGate. Even KIA understood the importance of letting us talk about SJW agenda. This is the real issue here. Journalists wants to go with a political narrative and dont letting and any opposition is harrasment, rape, misogyny, etc. THATS WHY GAMERGATE IS SO BIG AND SUCCESSFUL. WE ARE ALL AGAINST THIS. The minute you want to talk about ethics only you will be happy, but you will lose all the support and people. We are here because they journalists are unethical pushing a narrative and insulting gamers. GamerGate = Ethics + SJW Agenda

  37. Anonymous · August 16

    You said you had complaints that the first panel was a little unstructured (I thought it was ok but never mind that). You then went into the 2nd panel in an even more unstructured way anyway, even though you want specific things addressed.

    You also stopped people using GamerGate as an example in the second half to focus on how to report better on similar things in the future. But pointing out where they went wrong with GamerGate and how to not do that seems a good way to tackle the future.

    As for not mentioning it, it was a first attempt at this and there is plenty to learn from it and mistakes to iron out, but that’s not a reason to give up on these sorts of things. Look on the bright side, at least nothing blew up.

  38. brighthand · August 16

    You don’t get enough thanks. The effort that you’ve put forth over the past months is by default worth at least a MITE of ever gamer’s gratitude; then the level of gratitude rises or remains the same depending on how well people think you did at moderating 😉

    I for one saw in your moderation the intention to keep the discussion focused and oriented around a format that would benefit the journalists -BUT, as you are human, you made the mistake of sometimes coming off as heavy handed, at one point preventing the panelist from explaining the context and cause of the problem so that, once defined, the discussion could transition into how to go about solving it.

    Airplay was overall, a nice success.

    Thank you, Michael Koretzky

    – random online gg guy

    p.s. didn’t see my post, so I’m posting again, just in case.

  39. brabrabra · August 16

    While I agree with people on you gurgling on antenna time, I don’t think it deserves a firing squad (we still could go with one for teh lulz).
    Cant be a perfect host for everybody, for many reasons, what we got from this panel was worth it and for that I thank you.

    I think people are a bit paranoid after all we went trough with journos, when people see a fuckup they now translate it as intentional manipulation but sometimes it just that, a fuckup and nothing more.


  40. Anonymous · August 16

    I agree that the first panel was constructive and the second seemed to be a bit crazy. It came across to me like the people on the second panel came prepared to discuss one topic, and then at the last minute were told, actually you are going to be talking about something different to what you thought, and it all ended up a bit confused.

    I think what you may have overlooked is, that this is possibly the first time that the pro-GamerGate side has had the opportunity to speak their side on a controversy that has endured for 12 months, and when you finally give them that opportunity, there is going to be a lot to say in a short amount of time because who knows if, and when, this will present itself again?

    The other thing that harmed the other side, was the lack of an opposition, a dedicated “anti-GamerGate”. It seemed like we had one side saying “this is how badly it was reported on in the first place” and the other side saying “well, we would never report and such an event like that in the first place”, in this way, there was no room for discussion. One side felt misrepresented, and the other side agreed that it was handled poorly. Because of that, it was always going to be a bit of a mess, and the absence of a “defendant” spoke volumes.

    So, I would just like to say thank you Michael Koretzky for giving GamerGate an opportunity. Now lets just see how we move on from here.

  41. Chríss · August 16

    Actually Lynn Walsh said words to the effect of ‘I still don’t understand what Gamergate is about’.

    Well, here’s the thing, Koretzky. She’d understand it even less if you had had your way. In those opening statement you seem to dislike so much, our afternoon panelists did an excellent job of explaining:

    Why they were involved in Gamergate.

    Who Gamergate has an issue with.

    How it relates to journalistic ethics.

    How and why the media misrepresented the movement.

    Following up on this, Ren LaForme, who ended the first panel by saying he was still deeply skeptical of Gamergate, would have had the opportunity to challenge the panelists on any aspect of the situation he wished. And this would have provided a springboard into how to avoid these perceived failings in covering online movements. You instead adopted a hostile position toward the panel.

    The panel was supposed to be about how to cover online movements. You had an absolutely unique opportunity. Three very well known and prominent people within their fields, who have been as deep in an online movement as you can go, for around about a year, were sat there and willing to give you a detailed de facto case study of how it operated and how the media misreported it. For some *bizzare* reason, you decided to hobble them by ruling out anything that had occurred before AirPlay.

    Why you would want to give up the opportunity to learn from their near unique experiences, and how you expected them to pontificate on how to adequately cover these movements without any reference to anything that had happened is frankly beyond me.

    You make a big deal in this post about their lengthy opening statements, exclaiming they spoke for 14 minutes! How long did you speak for, Koretzky? Because, for a moderator, you seemed to be talking an awful lot. I saw a suggestion that you pull up a chair and declare yourself a third panel. At some point, it seemed like you had invited the panelists down to give them a lecture on how you think things should be done.

    Perhaps you should have allowed our panelists to continue explaining, in their terms, what they think is wrong with how the media covers these stories and why, allowing them to use their personal experience – after all, it’s because of that personal experience that they are there; as Milo remarked, they aren’t journalism professors – as the focal point of the discussion. This should have been the platform used to engage LaForme and Walsh. If you had moderated in this manner, you would have maintained the relevance of Gamergate, would have drawn on the unique experience of the panel, and would have allowed for solutions to be found.

    You say the bomb threat was a ‘mercy killing’, but if anyone was put out of their misery, it was you, Koretzky. Because even with the crippling restrictions you put on our panel (I’m not sure if you even allowed Cathy Young to complete a single sentence), they still rose to the challenge, and like good sports, did their best to participate.

    This is pointed criticism, Koretzky. The kind you requested from us a long time ago. But I don’t want to seem ungrateful to you. I think, all things considered, you did an excellent job organising AirPlay, and I have no doubt you had to sacrifice a lot of your time and a lot of your energy for something that didn’t even seem like it was worth it at times. Thank you for sticking with it, thank you for running with it, and thank you for being one of the most dedicated mainstream journalists to take any interest in Gamergate.

    • wormsby · August 16

      Actually the problem, Chris, is that you have no idea what the role of a moderator is.

      • NotChris · August 16

        You’re right. The role of a moderator is to keep people on topic. Which he did reasonably well. The problem was in this instance that the topic was defined in a poorly thought out manner that made it impossible for meaningful discussion to take place. As the person who defined the topic, it’s still his fault the entire thing was the clusterfuck that it was.

    • bryoneill11 · August 16

      You said everything I wanted to say. Good Job

      And also, Thank You Koretzky!

  42. Tallyrand · August 16


  43. brabrabra · August 16

    Again, thank you for YOUR TIME you spent on getting in touch with a very colourful crowd.
    Thank you for seeing it trough to the end and not dropping it all somewhere halfway the road.
    Thank you for not fishing for BS that you could trade later for sympathy points with SJW crowd.
    I wont touch in this post on any complaints I might have because I want this post to be just it, a THANK YOU post.

  44. SJWSlayer · August 16

    I’m ambivalent about the event too. That said your motivations seems genuine, you seem to want to contribute to the world, so for that I want to thank you. I can imagine how difficult it must have been to get pressured from many sides (GG, anti, other) for doing this event.

    – GamerGate supporter

  45. @A_Man_In_Tomato · August 16

    I just found it bizarre that you, every time the topic of Feminism was brought up ever so slightly in the first half, said it would be talked about in the second half.
    In the second half however, you refused to let people talk about it at all.

    I for my part am going to get SPJAirplay some fair coverage in Germany, and if it means that I have to call every single journalist in the country, so be it!

  46. Anonymous · August 16

    “the audience yelled for me to let the GamerGate panelists talk unchallenged”

    No, ONE audience member told you to stop interrupting one of the panelists you kept interrupting every time she talked, and every time you did it mid-sentence. And this after you scolded Milo for interrupting Lynn Walsh even though his “interruption” was at the end of Lynn’s sentence and sounded like she had finished saying what ever she said. At which point you claimed that interrupting Lynn made Milo look sexist. Some claim you were joking, but whether you were or not it illustrated the problem of people injecting these remarks to silence people and then doing whatever they were trying to stop themselves to the people they wish to.

    #Shutupkoretzky was clearly about you thinking that as a moderator, who is supposedly trying to get information from groupA to groupB about what groupA wants to tell groupB, it is in any way appropriate for you to constantly interrupt groupA and direct groupA in their narative and speaking for more than 50% of the time. Your grandstanding is obvious, especially when you came back and tried to give your little speech after you were allowed back in to the place, which you got cut off from saying thankfully.

  47. NotEnoughSand · August 16

    Regarding the 2nd panel, I think we’re actually seeing another result of the same problem that caused some of the earlier ugly drama that prompted a panelist to drop out. Specifically, I’m talking about the “moving target” and how changes are communicated.

    To be fair, the agenda was published in advance, which means the afternoon panelists should have been aware. They bear primary responsibility for being caught somewhat off-guard about how narrow the topic was.

    I still empathize with them, though, because even though I followed the updates, I was caught off-guard too. Originally, the afternoon panel was supposed to be the more open-ended of the two and would cover some of the broader issues beyond the ethics debate. But eventually Koretsky got a hard-on for this “how can the media even cover this?” angle and that became the topic for the afternoon. And it turned out that this was a very, very narrow topic. I think people knew this would be part of the discussion, but got tripped up on the level of focus.

    Lesson learned: when there is a change made, don’t just change it on the schedule. Announce it, draw attention to it, explain it, explain what’s different.

    Lesson 2 learned: As was also learned with the earlier drama (I hope), it’s better to consult with the panelists before making a change in the agenda. It’s obvious that had the speakers stayed on topic the whole time, the subject would have been exhausted well short of the time allotted. If Koretsky had actually talked to someone about the change in advance, that point might have been made to him.

    Criticism aside, thank you Koretsky for doing this. It was definitely worthwhile and I think the participants and viewers have come away from this with a better understanding of the issues. (And yes, we in GG got a bit of the public validation we were looking for, which wasn’t your intention but we thank you anyways)

  48. @AmazingSully · August 16

    The second panel was a shit show. Part of it was because of the panelists chosen, so many of us knew this was going to happen before it did, and the committee really fucked up on that one. I believe the another reason may have been because of miscommunication between the panelists about what they were supposed to be talking about, but I’m not sure what you guys spoke about beforehand. But I think the biggest reason was because there was no structure to the second half, like there was the first. You have a mouthpiece like Milo and say, oh hey, we’re just going to talk… well… Milo talks an awful lot.

    As for the audience and the shut up koretzky tag… you gotta realize we really wanted to discuss what happened to us… to explain that the mainstream media completely failed, that we’ve been labelled harassers when that is just not true. We wanted the other panel to acknowledge this, and when you were saying “we’ll let’s assume we’re giving you that, let’s talk about what journalists can do in the future”, that was infuriating to a lot of people, including myself. I really wanted you guys to acknowledge it, and say… ya, this is unethical, this is wrong.

    That being said, you did an amazing job Koretzky… fuck the haters, you kept the second panel on task, and I am so glad you did. I loved your idea about awards for games journalists… the carrot and the stick… I loved Lynn Walsh, but at the same time was so infuriated. She would talk and say, well this is how I would cover it… and I was just thinking… “yes, but you’re a good journalist, the VAST majority aren’t, and that’s not what’s been happening for us”. I really wished we could have talked about how a subject of this style of reporting can address it, how when you are accused again and again to the point where it’s just accepted fact and many journalists don’t even sight any sources when calling GG a hate movement, how do you combat that? I wanted someone to shout at Ren and Lynn when they said it was Gawker, and nobody should be sourcing them, nobody trusts them… well guess what… people do source them, Pulitzer Prize winning organizations source them, the general public listens to them. Wikipedia (who I know isn’t credible, but the vast majority of the general public doesn’t) sources them.

    Please Koretzky, do another Airplay at some point. Perhaps aGG will join this one. Perhaps the committee to choose the panel will choose better… seriously, whoever thought Milo was going to be a good choice was an idiot… Sargon wasn’t even considered and would have done so much better. Milo writes for Breitbart for fucks sake… they have their own ethical failings. And Koretzky… thank you so much for calling out Milo on that.

    • @AmazingSully · August 16

      I just want to point out my Breitbart comment was maybe a bit flippant… I mean Allum is a really level headed individual, and he was clearly a good choice… but fuck… Milo definitely wasn’t, and so many people said so.

      • NotEnoughSand · August 16

        Definitely. Milo is a great advocate on the culture war side of things, but when one of the points you’re trying to make is that gaming media is being unethical by letting political agendas determine its reporting, bringing Milo to the table is conspicuously ironic.

        • Anonymous · August 16

          This whole thing was for reporters to talk about gamergate though, why did the “Culture War” stuff need to be there?

          • NotEnoughSand · August 16

            I’m not sure that it did. It depends on how open-ended the 2nd panel was really meant to be. As it turned out it wasn’t very open-ended at all, so no there really wasn’t a place for that.

          • bryoneill11 · August 16

            95% of GamerGaters are here because of the culture war and the SJW journalists agenda. This is the main issue

    • James May · August 16

      Sargon will say the same thing: a hate group of anti-male, anti-heterosexual, anti-white gender feminists mainstreaming hate speech as social justice. One does not “critique” entire groups of millions of people based on their race and sex. That is group defamation, the same thing which created GLAAD and the ADL.

  49. Eleanor · August 16

    There seemed to be a fundamental misunderstanding where you believe the game journalists were just making mistakes and just need a little advice to do better. This isnt the case, they deliberately, willfully and conciously ignore facts and evidence. They attacked with the intent to destroy, it’s not that they havent stuck firmly to principles like limiting harm, it’s that they have an active desire to cause as much harm as possible.

    The most promising thing I heard all day was that the mainstream media shouldnt get their info from game journalists. But the problems extend into mainstream media too, there’s no longer any sense of “this person is a good, trustworthy journalist” in the mainstream media, just “this person is my friend” “this person is on my side, part of my tribe”. The point was made yesterday that corrections never travel as far as the original lies, nowhere is that more evident than here.

    Gamergate is certainly willing to make efforts but when its opposition refuses to even acknowledge a bomb threat because it hurts their position it’s pretty clear who isnt willing to budge.

  50. Anonymous · August 16

    >When a bomb threat forced us to evacuate, it was a mercy killing.

    In praise of a bomb threat? Somebody is taking “journoterrorist” a little seriously, don’t you think?

  51. Anonymous · August 16

    I missed most of the evening panel because I had to work, its unfortunate that it didn’t turn out as planned, then the explosive threat happened, whoever did it is coward and wants to silence people under threat of violence, I just wanted to thank you sir for your effort at organizing this event, and more convinced that you value free speech and open debate because you allow anonymous comments on this site, thank you

  52. Anonymous · August 16

    my main issue is that you make a comment to Milo about being sexist for interrupting a lady on the other panel, while you did the same thing to Cathy which prompted the audience to yell for you to let her finish. It’s not about gamergate controlling the conversation, it’s the double standard on display.

  53. wormsby · August 16

    They send two Breitbart reporters to make a claim that biased, politicized reporting is bad. One Breitbart reporter literally has sex with gamergaters and writes about it. The other one was planning ops with gamergate in IRC channels while writing reportage about gamergate as “an issue with two sides.” And this is a movement that believes writing about one’s roommate should be punished with crucifixion.

    Is it any wonder Yiannopoulos shit the bed when he couldn’t get up there and bloviate unopposed about the evils of feminism? He can’t talk intelligibly about journalism beyond vague platitudes about “putting in the work,” because he’s a hack’s hack who cuts and pastes from Encyclopaedia Dramatica and slaps together lazy clickbait shitposts about liberals.

    Honestly it was amazing watching Milo shit the bed when stripped of his only ammunition. An empty, churlish shock of bad hair so angry he could barely look at Koretzky.

    The bomb threat was a mercy killing for him, indeed.

    • Anonymous · August 16

      It’s all very well for you to criticize Milo but where were you when Koretzky was looking to fill an opposition panel? Seems like that would have been a great opportunity for you if you really believe GG has no relevant concerns.

      • wormsby · August 16

        Show me on the doll where I said it has no relevant concerns.

        GG has uncovered some modest examples of unethical behavior in games press. And it has completely ignored other, larger ones. Shadow of Mordor paying YouTubers for good coverage was probably the biggest story in gaming journalism ethics and GG couldn’t care less about it. The journalism issues that GG *has* focused on are simply not significant enough to warrant the massive year-long diaper pooping that GG has been on.

        I’m a lawyer, and not appropriate for a panel on journalism. Even if I was I am not and was not interested in paying my own way to Florida for a chance at sitting on a stage with Yiannopoulos and Bokhari from Breitbart trying to tell me that politicized, biased journalism is bad. Moreover, I knew, and was proven to be right in knowing, that Yiannopoulos would fall on his face without any opposition, which is exactly what happened.

        • Anonymous · August 16

          “And it has completely ignored other, larger ones. Shadow of Mordor paying YouTubers for good coverage was probably the biggest story in gaming journalism ethics and GG couldn’t care less about it. ”

          That is false. It was discussed in GG-friendly forums and so was stuff like Nintendo demanding a cut from “for-profit” youtubers. But you are free to listen and believe to whatever you want, and as long enough people believe such things the “diaper pooping” will continue.

          • wormsby · August 16

            The biggest ethics story in gaming journalism — pay for play by a massive publisher — and not one of the examples raised at SPJ, not even an entry on deepfreeze.

            This is among the many reasons GG can’t be taken seriously, and emblematic of why even deepfreeze doesn’t want to be responsible for covering ethics comprehensively. You guys just want to go after SJWs and people who say mean shit about GG.

        • Anonymous · August 16
        • Anonymous · August 16

          For a laywer, you sure didn’t do your research on your main criticism. Foot in mouth? How do you win cases?

        • Anonymous · August 16

          Since I’m unable to reply to your reply. So I’ll answer here. You make the assumption that I’m pro-GG. I’m not… I’ve given up on GG. I would consider myself neutral on the matter now. Because it is going to be endless shit-slinging between those who have been gullible to the sophistry and those who defend their identity against the gullible. I’ve seen the deterioration and want no part of that fight.

          But it would be nice if games journalists calls out on PR firms shenanigans instead of youtubers with huge followings. Because that is what happened with Shadows of Mordor. As I see it: It is a non-issue is that the games journalists actually reported on it, they did their job and that is why it is not mentioned.

        • bryoneill11 · August 16

          you must be a really bad lawyer. People like you should never be judges.

  54. Anonymous · August 16

    Firstly, thank you for your work on this issue, Mr Koretsky. For some reason you took on the challenge (and i can only imagine how challenging it has been) and brought it off with relative success. I have disagree with your handling and characterisation of the afternoon panel. I’m a former journalist, and Milo is absolutely right when he says it isn’t that difficult to cover GG fairly. What you did, perhaps unintentonally, was presuppose that the reason for the shoddy coverage was the difficulty of covering online movements. This is an assumption on your part, yet you treated it like gospel and sought to spank the GG panelists from deviating from that assumption. What they were trying to say – which you seemed hostile to – is that the problem wasn’t so much difficulty in covering the issue as it was bias. Cathy Young tried to say it (though you cut her off), it was the most extreme case of media bias she had ever seen. I have to agree. And I have studied media criticism. I have read Manufacturing Consent, Our Unfree Press, etc, etc. The level of bias in the coverage of GG is astounding. When they were not uncritically accepting one side’s opinion, they were running open hit pieces on whoever they chose to interview from the other side (read the Boston Magazine piece on Eron Gjoni).

    A discussion on how to cover GG better without any look at the underlying reasons for the poor coverage is as pedestrian as saying control your biases, listen to both sides, check your sources, do not editorialise in news pieces. Simple, basic journalism 101. Is there really a need for an event to discuss something as basic as that? No, the meat is in the “why”. Why did this happen? What forces led to journalists (both gaming and mainstream) covering GG so poorly. This is what news organisations routinely do after their coverage has shown to be lacking. Rollingstone did it after the UVA rape fiasco. The NY Times did it after their Iraq war coverage. Yet you don’t want a why? In fact, you already settled on a why – online movements are hard to cover. This is actually quite mystifying. If anything, I think the afternoon panelists showed enormous grace and restraint.

  55. @GBlastr · August 16

    Eh, I think the second panel was a perfect representation of what #GamerGate is about: a lot of agitated people talking past each other despite having a lot in common. Milo and Sommers came with a prepared speech and you were correct to cut that short, it wasn’t a #GamerGate presentation, it was supposed to be a debate.

    The biggest issue was that the panel didn’t match the topic at hand, Milo has a habit of dominating every discussion and going off topic, Sommers is a feminist, what the fuck was she supposed to talk about if not feminism? I really wish it had been Erik Kain or David Auerbach on that panel.

    The panel was not a failure tho, it got back on track and the bomb threat cut it short just as it was getting good, what mercy killing are you talking about? I think the most illuminating comment came from @itsren: “when a journalist has to cover a field they don’t know then they will contact (a fellow journalist) who does know that field.” This sums up all the MSM coverage of #Gamergate: they contacted game journalists who are SUPPOSED to be experts in their field and then didn’t doubt what these journos told them. This is fucking it. I have no idea how to fix that either cos most of the time that approach is a pretty good idea. Journos don’t have time to waste to study the field for weeks on their own when (probably correct) answers are just a phone call away.

    In essence this is a flaw that will manifest itself again when another beat press gets accused of cronyism/corruption by its readership: MSM will contact the journos that are being accused instead of trying to contact the largely anonymous people doing the accusing.

    Altogether both of these panels were educational. Thank you for putting this event together.

    PS. A voice from the public shouted “let her speak” and instead of ignoring it you paused and took time to address it and explain your reasoning on why you were interrupting the panelists. To me this is a sign of a good moderator.

  56. Anonymous · August 16

    Well, I had a decidedly good blast. So I wrote about it.

  57. Anonymous · August 16

    Thank you for this trash fire of hilarity! Watching Milo poop himself was incredible.

  58. Anonymous · August 16

    “Allies”? really, that is what you think this was all about. I thank you for the work you’ve done but I honestly hope you never have anything to do with GG again.

  59. Positive Improvement · August 16

    So only one GamerGate panel is worth listening to. Hm.. what is the difference between the morning panel and the afternoon one. The first panel is made up mostly of GamerGate supporters who aren’t particularly famous. The second panel is made up of people who are already well-known for other things and GamerGate is just one thing they talk about. Perhaps if you want to talk to GamerGate, you should talk to people whose primary interest is GamerGate. If you talk to people whose primary interest is gender politics, *surprise surprise*, they’re going to want to talk about gender politics.

    You may say that GamerGate chose these representatives, and while you’re technically correct, they were chosen based on essentially a popularity contest where the voters didn’t really know what the representatives would be expected to talk about. Heck, the representatives *themselves* clearly didn’t know what was expected of them seeing that they came prepared with “irrelevant” speeches. You ran a popularity contest and you got the most popular people -not the most qualified – the most popular.

    Koretsky organized this. He planned it. He was in charge. If things didn’t go the way he wanted, the blame falls first and foremost on him.

    All that being said, I feel this was mostly a positive event. Progress was made, and for pretty much the first time ever, members of the general mainstream media were actually listening to what GamerGate supporters had to say. That alone is worth celebrating.

  60. zealcub · August 16

    I am also pretty unhappy how the afternoon panel went. Partially, this truly was the fault of the panelists but partially it was also Koretzky’s fault. I am certain his insistence on paraphrased “moving ahead” was well-meant but in the end a huge part of the question “how should media cover online movements?” can be summed up as:

    “Avoid the mistakes made with #GamerGate.”

    I think if the panel had been a bit more concise in the beginning (e.g. name one mistake without elaborating too much on it, then describe how to avoid it) and then moved to new ideas of coverage, the panel would have been a lot better. Personally, I would like future discussions the go down that route.

    Preferably without personalities like Milo’s and Koretzky’s clashing. You two should really have worked together better and a more precise panel structure would probably have been helpful in that.

    On the plus side, I quite like LeoThePirate’s cut of the whole event:
    He really managed to get most of substance out of the afternoon debate. Yes, it is catering to GG sensibilities but without aGG people and without the structure mentioned above that’s how it works out.

    • zealcub · August 16

      Correction: Not just discuss one mistake but discuss a few one after another in a short manner. I think this would also help Koretzki because his focus seems to have been on concise advice on how to do it better.

      Also, even if the afternoon debate wasn’t as good as it could have been: Thank you to all the panelists, attendants, organizers and most of all Koretzky for making this possible!

  61. Pingback: SPJAirPlay GamerGate Debate | Smart Speak
  62. Anonymous · August 16

    great job with all this and thanks

  63. Anonymous · August 16

    Michael Koretzky Proudly Presents Michael Koretzky’s Airplay Starring Michael Koretzky would have been an even bigger success if it weren’t for those pesky panelists!

    • Anonymous · August 16

      GG ran this show from the start. Koretzky moderation was doomed to fail. It didn’t matter at all.

  64. Lepito · August 16

    Regardless of how I feel about your moderating, I’d like to thank you for giving #GamerGate a platform in the mainstream media where no one else would. Really, thank you.

  65. Tony Stark · August 16

    “I almost literally had a blast.”
    Glad to know that you haven’t lost your sense of humor, Koretzky. Once again, thank you for hosting this event.

    In the afternoon panel on how a reporter would cover an online movement/revolt like GamerGate, I would suggest going in with the mindset of covering a protest.
    In a protest, there are people content with carrying signs and chanting. Then there are some people that want to block entrances and not budge, least of all the police. And if a reporter is lucky (or if the protesters are unlucky), there will be the paid provocateurs and the easily agitated. You will find that these people will be smashing windows and throwing Molotov cocktails at properties. The mainstream media covers the violence and the original message of the protest is left out in the cold.

    Another example that GamerGate is often compared to: Occupy Wall Street. Some wanted the financial institutions and bankers to be accountable, some wanted government abolition of student loans, and there the faux progressives that made it all about a stack of “oppressed voices”. These were the fringe loonbins that made a protest about financial bailouts into a protest against privileged gender identities. The million dollar question is, what does the reporter focus on?

    Does the reporter focus on the controversial parts of the protest? I would say more often than not the reporter has to. Controversy sells papers and clicks after all. However, it is the duty of the reporter to present the moderate side of the group and the message the protest was originally about. Which is why the history of GamerGate has to be known for the truth to be known. Not telling you on how to do your job, since journalists have various reporting styles and different editorial directions to adhere to.

    Journalism is about reporting the facts as they happen, not how you want them to be. Unfortunately, too many news outlets are pursuing the latter option these days.

  66. Anonymous · August 16

    The cause is worthy (ethical journalism). Those that genuinely desire to change the industry will be forever hampered by the #gamergate hashtag. They should dump it and then pursue some of the various ideas suggested in the ‘debates’. (i kinda hesitate calling it a debate as there really was only one side being presented).

    • Lunar Archivist · August 16

      Enough of this tired old “change the hashtag” BS. #GamerGate is the THIRD DAMN HASHTAG related to this. The previous two changes didn’t help.

      And here’s what happened when we tried changing the hashtag for one day as a joke:

      Get this through your thick skulls once and for all: If we change our hashtags to anything, we will ALWAYS be “The Hashtag Formerly Known As GamerGate”. IT WILL NOT HELP.

      • Anonymous · August 16

        Why do you need a hashtag?

        • Tony Stark · August 16

          It’s a form of disseminating information.

          • Anonymous · August 16

            What information are you trying to disseminate? If you have issues with the gaming press, take it to the source. You don’t need a hashtag. Your unwillingness to give up gg is pretty strong evidence of how badly you want ethics vs how badly you want to stifle the progressive voice in gaming.

          • NotEnoughSand · August 16

            Talking about journalism on a hashtag does literally nothing to stifle anyone’s voice.

        • Lunar Archivist · August 16

          “What information are you trying to disseminate? If you have issues with the gaming press, take it to the source.”

          We did that remember? The end result was “nothing to see here, folks” and a one-year-long smear campaign accusing the gamers who called them out of being sexist and misogynistic.

          “Your unwillingness to give up gg is pretty strong evidence of how badly you want ethics vs how badly you want to stifle the progressive voice in gaming.”

          You and your cronies aren’t the progressive voice in gaming. You never have been and never will be. It’s time for this farce to end.

  67. Lunar Archivist · August 16

    I made my suggested plans of action to you, Ms. Walsh, and Mr. LaForme after SPJ AirPlay was disrupted about how to proceed from here on out via Twitter. It’s up to you to take me up on my offer:

    How the mainstream media can report on GamerGate properly from now on:

    What the problem between GamerGate and the mainstream media boils down to:

    If you want to contact me about more fleshed-out versions of both, you know where to find me. I’ll be waiting.

  68. AVoiceInDeadpoolsHead · August 16

    Here is why the afternoon went south. At 32:40 in the afternoon panel Lynn Walsh says “When you’re citing and talking about the New York Times and talking about someone else doing it wrong, I don’t know even what they did that is wrong. So, I guess that me not knowing that, I can’t respond, I can’t say maybe this is how they should have done it differently or anything like that cause I don’t really know even what they did.”

    Subsequently, any attempt to *tell* her what they did wrong was shut down.

    Also, if she came out of the morning panel still saying the above, then just how successful could the morning panel have really been?

  69. Anon · August 16

    Thank you, Michael Koretzky.

    It wasn’t perfect, but you managed to at least try to form something that MSM-journalist failed miserably with, and you were willing to understand, and listen.

    Shitposters will always shitpost.

  70. Mario Cooper · August 16

    It is what it is.

    I think a lot could have been accomplished if you’d allowed the second panel to have a conversation. That would be my critique.

    I will again thank you for giving people involved in the #GamerGate controversy an opportunity to speak.

    • Mario Cooper · August 16

      Oh, and I feel the need to add: Derek Smart was a brilliant choice as a 3rd ‘neutral.’

      I thought he was the star of the show.

  71. G H · August 16

    Koretzky, do me a favor, go to Milo and Sommers’ notes on, and search the page for the following words: “journalist”, “media”, “press”, “narrative”, “facts”.

    Now tell me why a roomful of journalists seems to be unable to hear those parts of it, and all they heard was “feminism”, yourself included.

    It could be because you’re not willing to hear it.

  72. Anonymous · August 16

    What about that outdoor panel you held where Oliver Cambell showed up? Im interested to know how that went as well.

  73. @GG_SunTzu · August 16

    “The SPJ national board will meet twice, and I’m thinking twice about mentioning AirPlay.

    If I attempt AirPlay’s ideas, will I be investing my time or wasting it? Is it better spent elsewhere?”

    There’s a lot of crying in this update but I find the quoted text here to be most disturbing.

    Has nothing clicked for you during this whole thing? If AirPlay demonstrated one thing absolutely it’s this: Mainstream journalist is NOT equipped to handle the future of communication.

    You think GamerGate and BlackLivesMatter are the end of these hashtag movements? This is the beginning. This time next year I guarantee a dozen more of these movements will have sprung up. Tell me, how will you report on them? Can you report on them? Cause during Airplay you seemed very adamant that GamerGate alone required too much time and effort to report on at all.

    This is the future of movements and communication going forward. The thousands involved in future hashtag based movements aren’t going to format themselves into pretty packages so your life is easier. That’s not the focus nor motivation behind online movements. It’s 2015 and I can’t believe I have to explain any of this.

    So, again, when several dozen of these online movements are occurring simultaneously, what are you and other journalists going to do? Will you:
    1. Cry that it’s too hard and ignore all of them?
    2. Pick one side out of a hat and focus on that exclusively(like what has happened with GamerGate)?
    3. Or will you evolve to meet the challenges of the future?

    Sadly, based on what I’ve seen so far, my money is on 1 and 2.

    I’ll end this rant with this. Yes. AirPlay IS worth your time because it demonstrates how unprepared for the future journalists are. You need to evolve new tools and techniques to cover things like this adequately.

    One last thing:
    “As #shutupkoretzky appeared on Twitter”
    I see you’ve changed “trending” to “appeared” after someone provided proof that it was never trending nor popular to begin with. Maybe you should stop name searching yourself so much? I’m sure that eats up a lot of time. You know, that precious time you don’t have enough of to fully cover online hashtag movements. Just a thought.

  74. PG85 · August 16

    Thanks for all the work you’ve put into this mr.K, Even if AirPlay didn’t provide the clear-cut answers and “how-to” guide for investigating and reporting on online movements I’m sure it will be the starting point for a larger discussion. The benefit of AirPlay is two-fold, journalists may start thinking about how they should handle online culture and online culture now has a better perspective on what journalists experience and aim to do. The questions I suppose we will be asking are not just “how should journalists cover X” and “how should we present ourselves to journalists” but also “what do we and what can we really EXPECT from contemporary journalists/journalism”? And if it turns out that that is not enough to meet the needs of our communities then I’m sure that inevitably we’ll draw our conclusions and evolve even more innovative mediums of communication until we can meet those needs. The internet and its communities keep evolving every day.

    So in any case, one day far, far in the future we may have a semi-civilized internet but at the moment we’re still a bunch of fun-loving, marauding barbarians. So just for old times sake, could you post one more inflammatory update that pisses everybody off? I’m going to miss those!

  75. Niklas · August 16

    I think SPJ Airplay went pretty well. First session really nailed in a whole lot of good points. One point missed that I would have liked to see discussed is ethical dilemma around the recent trend of crowdfunding. What should the guidelines be regarding covering kickstarters, gofundme and patreons you have pitched in to?

    I sort of agree the afternoon session was perhaps not the best for educate “normies”. We GGers are so use to talk to each other, where time is no limit, we will continue until we are finished. I most certainly understand how hard it is to introduce outsiders in to the root of the problem. The problem which sadly Milo, Christina and Cathy are the experts on: The ethical problem when journalist hide facts, twist words and even blatantly lie in order to push a political narrative. This problem stretches far beyond video games and across the political spectrum. So, what responsibility does the journalist and editors have in regards of at least trying to be objective when reporting?

  76. Anymoose · August 16

    I dunno. You do understand, Micheal, that the gaming trade press are journalists like a kid who pumps gas at a Shell in New Jersey is on a NASCAR pit crew, right? I can count on one hand the members of the trade press with schooling or journalism experience outside of it and still comfortably hold a taco in that hand.

    When you have two EICs of publications with large market shares explicitly stating that objectivity is not something they strive for then it’s difficult to talk about them without bringing up the ideology that comes first whenever they sit down at the keyboard.

    Is being a hack unethical? I don’t know. It ain’t good though. You have to understand that for those of us with the dimmest capability of understanding the problem isn’t the radical feminism but is rather the inability to write to their audience when they’re doing reviews, attending press conferences and determining which games in the indie scene (to which they very much act as gatekeepers in terms of press access) to cover. I don’t have to agree with anything anyone writes, but if they’re going to heavily inject their subjective ideology into their work I reserve the right to bitch and moan as loudly as I wish.
    None of this would ever have happened if they took jobs writing gaming stories for Jezebel rather than writing feminist stories for Polygon.

  77. Saiyo · August 16

    “What if I hosted a feminism-and-media debate with these three on one side? I would totally do that.” yes please! but are you aware in that debate the Gamergate subject will appear?, cause both subjects are so closely tied.

    Anyway #thankYouKoretsky you did a great effort, people appreciate it. I’m looking forward to the feminism-and-media debate i hope feminists appear this time and don’t bomb threat the meeting

  78. Anonymous · August 16

    Just one piece of advice to journalists looking to write about us from lord Gaben:

    You have to stop thinking that you’re in charge and start thinking that you’re having a dance. We used to think we’re smart […] but nobody is smarter than the internet. […] One of the things we learned pretty early on is ‘Don’t ever, ever try to lie to the internet – because they will catch you. They will de-construct your spin. They will remember everything you ever say for eternity.’
    You can see really old school companies really struggle with that. They think they can still be in control of the message. […] So yeah, the internet (in aggregate) is scary smart. The sooner people accept that and start to trust that that’s the case, the better they’re gonna be in interacting with them.

    • Mario Cooper · August 16

      “The internet is forever.”

      – Our lord and savior, Gaben.

  79. Anon · August 16

    The afternoon session was primarily ruined by bad moderation (yes that is you Koretzky) not allowing the pro panel to complete a sentence or build a proper argument. Maybe a neutral next time? you wasted the time of everyone.

    Anyway the bomb threats and mass shooting threats were ridiculous, who wants to silence a discussion on gamergate and ethics in journalism that badly? Fuck them. I really wanted to hear what the Milo, BasedMom and Cathy panel had to say.

  80. Anon · August 16

    Koretzky == moderator failure.
    Koretzky == event organizer success.

  81. Anonymous · August 16

    Even these comments appear to show the duality of GG.

    I’m not on board with those who claim Koretzky did a poor job.
    Instead I watched him struggle to get Milo to STFU so there could actually be a discussion.

    Milo’s and Sommer’s introductions were just the same tired old preaching they do every time they are invited to comment on something. I don’t disagree with their opinion but we’ve heard it before and it shows their beef with SJW’s.

    Frankly, that’s not what we needed here.
    Airplay wasn’t about the games press. It was about normal press.
    The press that copy & pasted the games press on their “gamers are evil” narrative.

    And I get it. It’s frustrating for Milo to tell them they should be a bit more skeptical and should try to actually talk to people.

    But, they were trying to figure out how to break out of their comfort zone of being able to simply contact a leader. Working with them at that point I’d think is more important to win people over I’d think.

    • Positive Improvement · August 16

      Clearly though, the GG panelists did not have a good understanding of Koretsky’s expectations for the discussion. He knew in advance that all three have a major focus on gender politics in their professional lives, and if he didn’t want them to talk about gender politics he should have made that *extremely* clear to them well in advance. He clearly did not do that.

      The GG panelists showed up and did “the same tired old preaching they do every time they are invited to comment on something.” It should never be surprising when someone does something they always do. That’s on Koretsky.

    • James May · August 16

      It’s not the same tired old preaching, it’s the same accurate analysis. If you have a short attention span and are not goal-oriented, yes, that will be a problem. The goal is to win, not attack something else just for the sake of it.

  82. anonymous · August 16

    You’re a full sick cunt m8.

  83. Anonymous · August 16

    Hey Korezky,

    Thanks for arranging SPJAirplay. I missed the first session, but I’ll probably check it later.

    Here is hopefully some constructive criticism. I think you worried too much, that possibly the panel discussion could be taken over by agendas that some have. It’s like a boxing match, if the referee interrupts too much, it will mess up the fight. There were no serious fouls, and still you interrupted too much. Further Milo, CHS, and Cathy weren’t going of on a tangent, they were coming in on one, and you stopped them before they could make their points. This is how you made the discussion worthy of a “mercy kill” as you put it.

    What else can I ramble on about? I’m not going to say anything about the bomb threats, that you don’t know for yourself.

    “a take-no-prisoners damn-the-torpedoes word dumping that glazes corneas instead of winning allies” This hits the nail on the head. You see the Fourth Estate as a political power that can make political deals, gather people into a cliques and so on. I think I can say here “we” are not partisan. If you want someone to agree with you on any issue, why not make a compelling argument for it. Instead of this “agree with me on this, or I wont be your ally”. But then again, if someone agrees with you just of the merits of your argument, and not because of you personally, what power do you actually have?

    In between you moderating out any examples of journalistic malpractice, by the panelist, and asking them how can journalists report on online movement without actually doing the legwork. You only have to read between the lines to see how useless journalists are to their audience. Actually most journos are worse then useless. You only have to look at the narratives spun out of whole cloth on gamergate; harassing, doxing, and threating women in tech, and the bomb threats you received (likely made by some of the white knights fighting the misogynist patriarchy.)

    On the whole I think this was a net positive for GG

  84. my name · August 16

    i watched the afternoon debate. and you and milo both spoke a ton it was a bit like you were arguing with each other. dont get me wrong you made some good points,(especially when you asked milo about his own “opinion mix pieces”) but i am not sure it is a good idea for a moderator to get drawn into the discussion like this.

    and yeah i think it was a bit hard to get the ball rolling if the topic is “how to get in contact with GG?” its a question that should be answerable in 30 minutes although most suggestions did not seem to your/their likeing

  85. Anonymous · August 16

    Plenty of people in GG think Milo sucks too, but you can’t say it anywhere without his fanboys coming after you.

  86. Anonymous · August 16

    Oh man, I was going to talk about GG, but now I’m really interested about what you have to say about the homeless. It’s one of my favorite subjects, and an old hobby of mine was talking with them about their lives and plans for the future. They’re really the sweetest people. I’ve gotten a bit jaded lately after being duped, threatened, and swindled lately, but I love them nonetheless. Do you have any more details on the topic?

  87. James May · August 16

    Any talk of gamegate which doesn’t start off with “gender feminism” is flawed. The paradigm is simple: it is hate speech and the group defamation of whites and men masquerading as “social justice.” Debate was censored. End of story.

  88. Dustin geels · August 16

    This is why I and many others didn’t want to send Milo we knew Milo was going to try and make everything about himself it’s what he does.

    • Positive Improvement · August 16

      When you decide panelists with a popularity contest you’re going to end up with people who work very hard to be popular. The whole panel selection process was poorly done.

  89. Anonymous · August 16

    I remember the afternoon panel being labeled as “anything goes”… when did that change? The sad fact of how journalists believe they are the superheroes pushing the ignorant masses towards their version of utopia is part of the reason they are willing to collude and poorly research or outright dismiss and ignore opposing viewpoints. It is part of the problem and you should not be telling them they cannot talk about it.

  90. Andrew · August 16

    I hardly got to hear both panels, and it seems to me it was more because of you took it upon yourself to argue with the GamerGate panel rather than allow the two panels to interact with each other and MODERATE THEM. As I said on Twitter, this was the worst moderating I’ve seen for a debate and believe me I’ve seen some bad moderators.

  91. Some wanker · August 16

    You’re a good dude Koretzky. It’d be good to see another event like this that’s a little more restrictive and set in format. Busting out a six minute presentation was a foolish idea. Like Walsh said, that’s a long time for a debate-starting presentation.

    I must admit I found it infuriating to see you hijacking the conversation the first few times, but then I thought about why you had to and it made sense. Conversations like this need heavy moderation, maybe even heavier than you were doing.

    I think a lot of people viewed this entire idea as a pro-gamergate wank-a-thon, which was never the intention. The intention was for the press to learn, and for gamergaters to learn from the press. For experienced and ethical journos to weigh in on things that inexperienced, unethical journos have been waving away as a set of non-issues.

    Thanks for doing it, man. You’re a dude.

  92. Andrew · August 16

    Claiming you wanted the other panel’s opinion more often would make sense if you actually let them give up. You interrupted Derek Smart several times, and prevented the panels from interacting at every turn. You should be facilitating interactions between the two panels not arguing with Milo, that’s what the audience was upset with, they wanted to you to moderate. Remember moderating? Your job in that discussion.

    • Andrew · August 16

      *give it

      not give up >.>

  93. Positive Improvement · August 16

    In the hope that a mainstream journalist actually reads these comments, I’ll give my take on answering what Koretsky wanted to gain from the afternoon panel – how to cover online movements like GamerGate:

    The first step is to find a guru – someone who knows about internet culture and has been following GamerGate – and ask them who would be good people to talk to. Then you find those people, talk to them, and ask those people for suggestions on who to talk to and what to ask them about. Eventually every suggestion will lead you to someone you’ve already spoken to (or has refused to speak to you). At that point you’ve reached saturation and you can be reasonably confident that you’ve spoken with a sufficient number of people to understand GamerGate properly.

    So in a relatively short time, over the course of maybe a dozen or two conversations, you could quite easily get all the information and enough quotable sources to write a very good article or news story about GamerGate. The beauty of this system is you really don’t need to know anything ahead of time. If there’s a concept (chan culture for example) that you don’t understand, simply include a question about chan culture in your list of interview questions. The people involved in GamerGate should all be capable of explaining all the little details of the world they inhabit. All the reporter has to be able to do is ask intelligent questions.

    • I will add to this · August 16

      The other thing that mainstream media needs to learn to do, if they are going to source their stories from smaller blogs/enthusiast or specialist press is be able to figure out when those minor sources have been compromised by ideology or are being manipulated by their sources.

      • Positive Improvement · August 16

        I don’t even think that’s necessary. As long as you talk to people on both sides, you’re going to hear all the accusations of bias/corruption/whatever and you can look at the evidence yourself. The key is to actually take the time and effort to talk to both sides and examine the evidence each side presents. That hard part is doing that without letting your own bias get in the way.

  94. Anonymous · August 16

    Regarding your point on the duality of gamergate. You’re missing an important fact: This was the first time pro-GG profesionals were allowed to speak in a public forum – first time in a year! You opened the floodgates – so of course you’ll be drowned out for the first while… for there is so much to catch up on.

    And honestly, the radical feminism angle is legit: Its part of the underlying ideology that informs the behavior of the corrupt gaming journalists and bloggers – youmust understand the motivation of these people if you are to understand why they produce such lie-filled media content.

  95. EVE (@EveilCharm) · August 16

    Your Problem is the same problem right now with the rest of the “Main Stream Journalists” You want to cover #Gamergate, or any other big online movement, on your own time. They aren’t stories you can spend a night researching and have belted out by morning, it’s something you literally have to get immersed in for weeks, maybe months.

    Again it’s not a question of how to cover it, You got the right people willing to come up and talk about airplay and have a debate, it just took you months to get it together. The Question becomes is it worth covering. Journalists cover Movies, Music, Tv, no problem, It might be easy, but Wake up call time, Gaming is a bigger industry with more money in it then all of them combined right now on a yearly basis.

    Right now gaming coverage is left to a specialist media that gamers are all to unhappy with for reasons even soon by you, being unethical and whenever a mainstream site touches it it’s the butt of an agenda like “Women harassed in Gaming and Tech”

    You have an audience that doesn’t know good media right now so they think all media is shit. Right now I’d ask Breitbart’s Nero What Their sites traffic has been like since they started covering gaming and Gamergate. Hell Nero himself is basically a celebrity right now.

    You have this Audience, which a lot are the younger generation with a distaste for main stream media. They aren’t going to watch their shows, See their ads, Talk about them to their friends, or even give of shit when that media goes away.

    As an ex games Journo said, “Gamers don’t have to be your audience.” My Question to you is, Do gamers have to be your audience? Because if mainstream Journalists won’t even attempt to cover a 118 billion dollar industry, What the Fuck are they covering?

  96. Anonymous · August 16

    Thanks anyway, Koretzky. I think you did a terrible job and for probably all the wrong reasons yet I applaud you for sticking this thing out. Hope you stick around the hashtag and maybe show up on some GG livestreams; like it or not you’re an “eceleb” now, at least among dead gamers.


    • Mario Cooper · August 16

      Koretzky E-Celeb Status: CONFIRMED

      Let’s get this man a youtube channel and a patreon. Embrace the chaos, Michael.


  97. Anonymous · August 16

    While I don-t agree with your sentiment, I think both GamerGates should be covered, and also the anti side. I disagree too with the people that are criticising you. While you could have handed it better, you were quite good on the first part, and I-m sure the second one was not an easy one to take.

    Anyone saying that GG should have spoken freely must understand that it was a debate, not a monologue. And while Milo was cool and all, and Sommers as lovely as always, I can understand not having 15 minutes for their subject.

    That aside, you definetely had 15 minutes for them, and if you had allowed them Koretzy, you wouldn-t have lost so many time on interruptions later. However, you had no ability to know or predict the future, so, I think it wasn-t your fault either.

    Thanks for doing some hard work. Even if we disagree on a lot of stuff, I feel that you did what you thought it was right, at least to some extent, and we wouldn-t be here if more people had done like you.

  98. Anonymous · August 16

    Mr. Koretzky, you here seemed to exemplify the problems in journalism.

    6 minutes is long? Adequately explaining what was going on would take HOURS, 6 minutes is a super-condensed note. And it IS necessary. One cannot discuss complex subjects without understanding it, to prepare for the future ones HAS to know history and learn from the failures and past events. And even though you brought in journalists that know nothing on GamerGate, you insisted on not needing an introduction… redicolous

    Alas, Mainstream Media seems completely incapable of handling complex subjects or subjects requiring long research anymore. News has to be cut down in bite-sized pieces and simplified, as if your audience is children. Furthermore, editors decide what is “news worthy”, but their criteria seems to boil down to “what will catch most attention”, rather than “this is something the public should be informed about”. This is also why the narrative is so strong…because the fictional story sells newspapers better than the truth.

    • Anonymous · August 16

      So the take-away from this is that, Koretzky is a dope, msm is ALL corrupt and incompetent, SJWs are evil (still), Anita lies and GG are a bunch of nice, socially adept, but misunderstood young folk that were simply minding their own business and playing their games when they were brutally attacked by Zoe Quinn and her Depression game.

      As if we haven’t heard all this before…..

  99. Mitthrawnuruodo1337 · August 16

    The first panel was great, but even as a GG supporter I shared Micheal’s frustration on the second. I thought right at the beginning, “this is a great panel… but the wrong topic for them.”

    The second panel did not get to (and no doubt Micheal wanted them to) one very, very important matter, of course: what falls in the realm of verifiable fact. They started to with the matter of online interactions, but never mentioned the veracity of future grievances as they had discussed that morning as reportable. A journalist approaching GG should, after any interviews, really start by seeing if anything brought up is verifiable. Did so-and-so really get harassed? Did that journalist really write such-and-such? This seems pretty basic, but really belaboring the degree of veracity of claims more than you’d think is necessary would, imo, improve communication. It would help prevent GGers from going off half-cocked at unverifiable claims that they perceive to be presented as fact when the author did not intend that. Reporting on what GGers want is ultimately just an exercise in anecdotes… reporting on what happened is news.

    Also, along the lines of improving reporting on GG reporting, one really must consider the political alignments of the group. As any journalist can tell you, cognitive bias is really insidious stuff. That is, even a journalist who is neutral on games journalism will, if they are progressive-leftist feminist, find themselves aligned ideologically with anti-GG groups (and visa versa for the right). This doesn’t have direct bearing on their stated purpose of the piece, but it should be considered as they are assessing the groups for how they tone the piece. Editors should check for that.

    • Mitthrawnuruodo1337 · August 16

      I can’t edit, so I guess I should add that I haven’t found the audio to what was discussed after the bomb threat yet, so if they talked about that… sorry.

  100. Anonymous · August 16

    It’s worth remembering that the afternoon panelists were picking when it was assumed there was to be a debate with opposition to GamerGate, not just a discussion with neutrals. If we knew (even though we guessed) that this would have been the format, maybe different panelists would have been sent?

  101. Director Arketer · August 16

    Thank you for running Airplay, Mr. Koretzky. I highly doubt anyone will pick up where you let off, but even as flawed as it may all have been it was still indeed the best coverage offered yet.

    They actually went through with the Bomb Threats eh? How terrified some people are of narrative violations.

  102. Gary · August 16

    The afternoon session really just seemed to be a breakdown in communication.
    I think even then, your expectations for it were unrealistic Michael. You said it was about what journalists should do going forward. That seemed to make the assumption that what journalists had done in the past had been somehow a methodological failing of some kind. I think the point the gamergate panel were trying to hit back with is that there’s been no such failing, there’s been a deliberate ideologically driven agenda, which is why the Rolling Stone example was brought up. It’s the exact same thing, and the exact same agenda.
    The answer for what to do going forward consists of nothing more than “just do your job properly”. For saying his ego struggled to fit into the room, Milo really did say the most important thing in the afternoon session: “It wasn’t that hard, I just did the work.”. Erik Kain did the same. David Pakman did the same. You frankly shouldn’t have set up a panel to just tell you something for 2 hours that you already know: how to do journalism.

    • Gary · August 16

      I should’ve also added something I wished one of the afternoon panel had said to you when you kept asking “how should journalists do this?”: YOU managed to do it Michael. YOU did a better job than the BBC, the NY Times, The Guardian, CNN, etc etc.

  103. Anon · August 16

    Mr Koretzky,

    During the second debate you (repeatedly) asked the “GamerGate” panel to outline an approach that “mainstream reporters” could follow to ensure they accurately report issues relating to leaderless online movements in the future.

    I have one question for you: have you ever seen a competent teacher give a lesson on a complex topic WITHOUT using any examples of the topic in application? Anyone who went to school should know that evaluating the failures of the past is the one of best ways to learn a successful approach for the future. Your decision to ban discussion of prior GamerGate articles was incredibly counter-productive and directly responsible for the second debate’s total lack of focus. It’s unfair to blame the debate’s failure on the panellists when your own rule sabotaged any chance of success.

  104. Anonymous · August 16

    Perhaps having a larger event about feminism-and-media more generally with an extended panel on #Gamergate might have been able to cover this topic better. The reason I say this is because the two are inextricably linked, and #Gamergate is a facet of the feminist/progressive culture war, not the other way around.

    Feminism and progressive politics were the link between the otherwise unrelated games journalists and mainstream journalists. They speak the same political language, they have every reason to feel an in-group comradery. Without it, there almost certainly would not have been a #Gamergate, or at least not one that was televised anywhere.

    A point that I don’t think was quite made, but was being approached by Cathy Young, was that moving forward there is a dire need for the currently lacking counter-points to anti-GG already present in the mainstream media. These counter-points need to include the events of #Gamergate thus far because this slanted coverage is among the list of grievances by #Gamergate.

    • Edit · August 16

      I can’t edit the comment, but I left out that it wasn’t Fox News or other right-leaning outlets that covered #Gamergate so poorly, it was outlets with left-leaning tendencies.

      • Sam M. · August 16

        Yeah. Now gamers are getting gangbanged from the right and the left. Good times.

  105. Sam M. · August 16

    Reading this, I can see what you were attempting to do. But you ended up talking more than the panelists, and butted in a lot. And not just with Milo and CHS. It just turned into your monologue.
    If you want to do this again, and I would hope you would…do keep people on topic, but don’t ramble on forever. It was kind of bizarre.
    Oliver and Sargon would have been great. It would be even more great if antiGG showed up. But I don’t think they would, due to them not having a leg to stand on. You think GG went on and on? Wait until you get those jokers out there!
    And unfortunately, the SJW/feminism thing is tied directly to GG. That’s why the journalists are doing what they do. They have an agenda, and will blacklist other journos, and push around developers to get their way. This is just how it is. Don’t ask me why. But it’s the reality.
    I don’t think you could get any of them there though. If you got some of the journos that wrote the “gamers are dead” articles, that would be massive.
    And if you had Sarkeesian there, she’d be 10 time worse than Milo. And I thought Milo was willing to adapt a bit, before the bomb threat came in.
    You SHOULD try to get a debate about feminism with Milo and Sommers. That would be wonderful.

  106. New_Versailles · August 16

    The format of the morning panel was more illuminating and practical for journalists present, but the GamerGate panelists themselves failed miserably in presenting concrete ethical lapses by the gaming press and soliciting comment from the experts. Ashe Schow was particularly vapid (unsurprising, being a model who seems to get by largely on looks) and wasted an astonishing amount of time on controversies like the UVA rape case and Cards Against Humanity, which were only tangentially related to GamerGate or video games journalism. As a result, there was no time left to delve into actual GamerGate ethical grievances like GameJournalPros. Further, given the amount of time the panelists had to prepare and rehearse succinct summaries of GamerGate, they often lapsed into irrelevances and incoherence and the journalists present were left confused and still wondering what the salient details of the controversy were. I was cheering when the afternoon panelists attempted to pick up the slack, but I agree with Koretzky the feminism tangents were inappropriate for the venue, even if I agree with them conceptually.

  107. chicken soup · August 16

    Sorry if this is an outdated question, I haven’t been following gamergate for a while.
    but does everyone still hate leigh alexander? Beacause I do.

    • Edit · August 16

      Yeah, but even she’s disclosing relationships now so she’s less worth talking about.

      • chicken soup · August 16

        I mostly hate her because she’s sexist, racist, and agest(thats a thing). she said all gamers are young(agest), white(racist) males(sexist). that’s just as offensive to woman, adults, and people of all races who consider themselves gamers. I have no idea how she was labeled a “feminist”. I’m a male feminist and I know saying something like that is very offensive to woman.

  108. Anonymous · August 16

    Thank you for hosting Airplay and the time and energy invested. I belief it was a win/win for both sides. I am disappointed that you also receive so much negativity.

    It took a year to get heard and some people cannot get enough, are unable to look at context. E.g. the difference between the morning and the afternoon panel.

    You couldn´t know this beforehand. I am not sure if another Journalist will attempt such a costly endeavour.

  109. Vicky Caramel · August 16

    I don’t understand the question. It seemed that you really wanted to explore how journalists could cover online movements and hashtags, you did that. Now you want to help gamergate? Then give them a voice.

    Airplay discussed the problems encountered by gamergate but only touched on the cause.

    It is my belief that the cause is that progressives, SJWs and feminists have infiltrated the gaming media, and owners like this because the click bait articles bring in more clicks from their obsessive hoards scanning the comments sections than they ever could get from gamers.

    This is a much bigger problem than just ethics in journalism as they have deliberately thrown the rule book out of the window. The pressure from gamergate has forced them to do a better impression of real journalists but they seem unrepentant and determined to follow their business model. So what is their to discuss?

    Obviously gamergate can discuss these matters for hours, days and months and I am sure they would be happy to contribute to any topic you suggest. But you made it clear in part one that Airplay is for the benefit of journalists. It’s your show.

  110. AceofSpades · August 16

    Ahem….I KNEW IT. Having watched both sessions, I can say I knew what was up. I was right. You tried to ambush GG. I don’t know why, doesn’t matter.

    Koretzky, you acted like a total ass…and still are. But it doesn’t matter how you spin it: GamerGate wins. Our case has been made, end of story. The harassment narrative is dead, and the people who smeared us must now do damage control. They must admit that GG is not a hate group, and address the ethics failures that led to the consumer revolt we call GamerGate. Boom. Narrative, bombed.

    St. Augustine once said,”The truth doesn’t need to be defended. Set it free, and it will defend itself like a lion.” The truth is out there, for anyone to see, and truth is something that cannot be argued with, cannot be denied, and doing so only makes you look bad. GamerGate is on the side of the truth. We needed only freedom to tell it. And you gave us that. Bravo. You also looked like a douche, interrupting not only the GG panel but the journalists as well, like Lynn Walsh Should’ve let her talk, m8. Double bravo for looking like a jackass.

    • Spax · August 16

      Hi Jim.

  111. James May · August 16

    Lynn Walsh is probably right about gamergate never having traction with the general public and mainstream media. First of all, even gamergaters don’t agree what the problem is. However there is a general consensus it’s really nothing more than hate speech from a feminist cult of the late ’60s that’s had new life breathed into it. One can easily come to that dual conclusion about the 10,000th time one hears “privileged white cisnormative males” used in the pejorative sense 100% of the time. That repetition works fine for propaganda but has the opposite effect with the general public; they get bored.

    The second problem is opposite to the first: due to radical third wave feminism co-opting terms like “feminism” and “sexism,” there is confusion with the more rational equal rights feminism, but the difference is stark. For example, I support equal rights feminism 100%. I reject gender feminism as nothing more than a racist supremacist cult. It’s no coincidence this cult has falsely presented itself as being a natural continuation of the fight against Jim Crow and for women’s rights.

    The problem with making such distinctions is this: who’s heard of Mary Daly, Robin Morgan, Charlotte Bunch and Kate Millet. Answer: no one. And yet their ideology is the fundamental basis for all the gripe and hokum attacking comics, SFF and gaming. Rape culture, white male privilege, patriarchy, heterosexuality as an oppressive ideology, the Bechdel Test, the gender binary as “sexism,” endemic misogyny, “toxic masculinity” all have only one single source – the lesbian feminism which later added on the racialized “third wave.” All are obsessively featured in the rhetoric of Anita Sarkeesian, Brianna Wu and all the rest.

    This mainstreaming of hate speech over a fifty year period into something actually noble and “social justice” is simply too nuanced for journalists to present and the public to care about or adequately grasp. Were that not true, you wouldn’t have so many well-meaning people suckered into believing in this con game. It is also precisely why hate speech is so dangerous; it has that surface plausibility that if left unexamined, can exert a powerful influence on the weak-minded or naive.

    • James May · August 16

      That should’ve read “when repetitively analyzed” after “…the general public” in the first paragraph.

  112. Pingback: Bomb Threats Tilt GamerGate Event | Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists
  113. Pingback: “TRAITS THAT SUGGEST THE COMMISSION OF A HOAX” – Laird Wilcox, ‘Crying Wolf’ (1994) | grey lining
  114. Anonymous · August 16

    shut up Koretzky

  115. Cb · August 16

    The first panel went well but the problem was that it was just a dulled down version of some basic problems in the journalism industry. They never really had a chance to get into the real issues regarding GG. The second panel started off by trying to explain these issues but weren’t given a chance.

    If there were a simple solution to how mainstream media should cover GG it could be summed up in one word. “Ethically”. The journalist panel were complete professionals and this goes without saying to them. The really big issue is that despite being covered in dozens of different (even mainstream) outlets, this hasn’t been the case. That is the issue.

    This whole thing felt like the GG side saying “just cover the topic fairly, from both sides” and the journalist side responding “well, duh!”

    There needed to be some background, some explanation of what this whole thing is about and I felt like that’s what the second panel was trying to do but they never got the chance. This whole thing goes much deeper than simply understanding how should work and if you can’t gain a clear understanding of the underlying issues than a debate is pointless.

    I think that is why the second panel was struggling with this. The expectation was to explain to professional journalists how to do their job when they already know how to do their job. They aren’t the issue, and the issue wasn’t allowed to be discussed

  116. Lee · August 16

    I had a much longer reply written previously but it apparently didn’t make it. Here’s the condensed version (about the afternoon panel) which is much better anyway:
    Journalists should cover Twitter hashtags as an opinion, summarizing piece that doesn’t cover any real news (like threats). They should cover real news (like threats) after the veil of anonymity has been lifted (e.g. police investigators filed charges against PersonA for making threats against PersonB on Twitter). These real news pieces shouldn’t talk about hashtag movements, and instead, should link to the opinion piece that explains the broader debate/movement. That way people don’t associate the movement with the deviants and the public can still be well informed about what the movements are about.

    That’s the best that I could come up with for how journalists can improve on covering hashtag movements. They are opinion and they are fact; journalist needs to try to draw a line between the two as well as possible and then cross-connect them where relevant.

    The morning panel and ideas for improving ethics in game journalism was spot on.

  117. Pingback: Attack On Gaming | Why do people think we're journalists?The SPJ AirPlay Aftermath |
  118. Joshua · August 16

    I really enjoyed your SPJ Airplay event, good panel guests.

  119. Pingback: #GamerGate, Anita Sarkeesian und UN-Women | Alles Evolution
  120. Pingback: Kunkel Awards Created | File 770
  121. terriblejob · August 16

    I hope you never ever moderate a discussion again

  122. Pingback: Laird Wilcox and hate hoaxing part 1
  123. Pingback: Laird Wilcox and hate hoaxing part 2
  124. WilliamCom · 21 Days Ago

    Magnificent job!