There was a post responding to yours which claimed it was 'incontrovertible truth' that Zoe Quinn got favourable coverage from a Kotaku writer she was in a personal relationship with. This is false.
It's now deleted, but I wanted to set the record straight anyways. These kinds of baseless rumours are really annoying because the misinformation is repeated over and over and over again.
"On March 31, Nathan published the only Kotaku article he's written involving Zoe Quinn. It was about Game Jam, a failed reality show that Zoe and other developers were upset about being on. At the time, Nathan and Zoe were professional acquaintances. He quoted blog posts written by Zoe and others involved in the show. Shortly after that, in early April, Nathan and Zoe began a romantic relationship. He has not written about her since. Nathan never reviewed Zoe Quinn's game Depression Quest, let alone gave it a favorable review."
> Gamergate claims to be about journalistic integrity. I hear the names of women, but never the male journalists.
And let's not forget: most of the women who have been attacked have little to nothing to do with journalism. Felicia Day is an actress, for crying out loud!
If you read "journalistic" as "has an opinion in public" and integrity as "is not a woman", then it all makes sense. The victims are women, they had an opinion in public.
Edit: This comment assumes arguendo that the original claims of Gamergate are true. I do not necessarily make or agree with that assumption.
This is the portion of Gamergate that, too me, doesn't fit in with the claims of being entirely about journalistic ethics.
If the situation were a journalist and a developer went out on the town for an evening of fancy drinks paid for by the developer, followed by the journalist writing a positive review for the developer, we would be primarily be upset at the journalist for their breach of ethics.
Similarly, when a congressman takes a bribe, we are mostly mad at the congressman. When a doctor takes compensation to push certain pharmaceuticals, we largely get upset at the doctor.
In this specific instance, the vitriol seems to be directed primarily at the developer, and the journalist is largely ignored. What is the different, in this case, that causes us to fixate on the developer and not the journalist?
> Maybe, but let's not forget what incident started Gamergate: Zoe Quinn; an entitled, unethical, and hypocritical developer (female or otherwise).
You're spreading the same lies.