Regarding "What, the New York Times wasn't objective enough for you?":
You really don't understand (or pretend you don't understand) how
modern newspapers work.
1. Newspapers have ideological bias. In terms of domestic news, it's a
liberal newspaper, so would automatically add a sexist anti-male
spin.
2. Journalists are under heavy deadline pressure and badly
paid. Typically most stories in a newspaper like the NYT are
slightly edited press releases from some PR agency. The corrupt
games journalists who are trying to cover up their wrong doings
know this and produce press releases that smear GG, knowing that
mainstream news outlets like the NYT will uncritically print them.
You only need to look at the Wikipedia article for Chelsea Van
Valkenburg (who currently calls herself Zoe Quinn) to see a prime
example of a PR-agency hit-piece. Having worked in PR and
journalism, I can smell the PR-style writing from a million miles.
3. Newspapers like the NYT are doing financially very badly and are
desparate for page-views. And the damsel-in-distress narrative
reliably generates such page-views. That's why the likes of
Sarkeesian, Chelsea Van Valkenburg (aka Zoe Quinn) and John Walker
Flynt (aka Brianna Wu) use them, and that's why the NYTs of this
world print them.
Rest assured that the NYT writer responsible for editing the press
release you linked to has done no fact-checking of substance.
As to "because of the way that GamerGate works": I'm afraid it's the other way round. Since there is no organisation, no formal membership, everybody can claim to be GG; moreover, Sarkeesian, Chelsea Van Valkenburg (aka Zoe Quinn) and John Walker
Flynt (aka Brianna Wu) et al and their friends have strong financial incentives to run false flag operations, see their Kickstarters and Patreons and media adulation. So the only reasonable default assumption must be that they are running false flags. This default assumption should only be reversed in the presence of concrete, actionable evidence that would work in a court of law. So far none of this has been forthcoming.
I would also like to point out that the police clearly doesn't take these claims seriously, for otherwise we'd probably have seen some people being arrested or charged. After all anonymity on the internet is hard these days, and beyond the abilities of most.
You really don't understand (or pretend you don't understand) how modern newspapers work.
1. Newspapers have ideological bias. In terms of domestic news, it's a liberal newspaper, so would automatically add a sexist anti-male spin.
2. Journalists are under heavy deadline pressure and badly paid. Typically most stories in a newspaper like the NYT are slightly edited press releases from some PR agency. The corrupt games journalists who are trying to cover up their wrong doings know this and produce press releases that smear GG, knowing that mainstream news outlets like the NYT will uncritically print them. You only need to look at the Wikipedia article for Chelsea Van Valkenburg (who currently calls herself Zoe Quinn) to see a prime example of a PR-agency hit-piece. Having worked in PR and journalism, I can smell the PR-style writing from a million miles.
3. Newspapers like the NYT are doing financially very badly and are desparate for page-views. And the damsel-in-distress narrative reliably generates such page-views. That's why the likes of Sarkeesian, Chelsea Van Valkenburg (aka Zoe Quinn) and John Walker Flynt (aka Brianna Wu) use them, and that's why the NYTs of this world print them.
Rest assured that the NYT writer responsible for editing the press release you linked to has done no fact-checking of substance.
As to "because of the way that GamerGate works": I'm afraid it's the other way round. Since there is no organisation, no formal membership, everybody can claim to be GG; moreover, Sarkeesian, Chelsea Van Valkenburg (aka Zoe Quinn) and John Walker Flynt (aka Brianna Wu) et al and their friends have strong financial incentives to run false flag operations, see their Kickstarters and Patreons and media adulation. So the only reasonable default assumption must be that they are running false flags. This default assumption should only be reversed in the presence of concrete, actionable evidence that would work in a court of law. So far none of this has been forthcoming.
I would also like to point out that the police clearly doesn't take these claims seriously, for otherwise we'd probably have seen some people being arrested or charged. After all anonymity on the internet is hard these days, and beyond the abilities of most.