John Kelly published a post earlier in which he heavily criticized the SPJ Airplay event. I think he makes a lot of good points about the event and the SPJ in general. Here is the post if you want to read it: http://jkellyblog.com/airplay-vs-fair-play/
Here are the main points he made:
The panel consists primarily of pundits, not people who are well versed in journalism or gaming.
GamerGate had almost no input into who was chosen for the committee (and as thus the panel). The only elected committee member was Milo Yiannopoulis.
Allum Bokhari is both a committee member and a panelist, representing a conflict of interest.
Allum Bokhari and Milo Yiannopoulis are friends, representing a conflict of interesting.
The selection process could have been much better. Kelly suggests that the committee should have allowed anyone to apply to be on the panel, then held interviews with the applicants to find the best candidates.
GamerGate isn't a movement, it's far too diverse to be a movement.
The SPJ's crowdfunding campaign for Airplay was marketed as being "urgent," despite there being a month and a half before the event. In addition, Koretzky failed to provide a strong argument for why people should pay for the transportation of the panelists.
The SPJ has very little real influence and doesn't enforce ethical practices among it's members. It merely encourages ethical behavior, without doing anything to punish those who are unethical.
The SPJ has bought into identity politics and published a set of guidelines encouraging journalists to promote special treatment for racial, ethnic and religious minorities.
Koretzky and/or the SPJ could be using this event to raise their own profile. The organization is constantly looking for new members, donations and ad revenue.
Andrew Seaman and many members of the SPJ have been apathetic towards GamerGate, stating that were "choosing not to engage the gamers" during #SPJEthicsWeek and an unofficial poll showed that many SPJ leaders wanted to disassociate Airplay with the national body.
Koretzky's win condition for GamerGate is unobtainable, tangible reform will not come from discourse alone. Bureaucracy won't resolve issues of journalistic integrity.
The event would be more productive if it established a dialogue between gaming journalists and disgruntled consumers.
Even if journalists realized the truth about GamerGate and published articles going against the narrative, it would likely have little meaningful impact. The anti-GG journalists who don't follow the SPJ's guidelines will still be under no obligation follow them after the event.
If the SPJ isn't convinced that any ethical breaches have taken place, it could help the anti-GamerGate narrative. They could also try to put the panelists on the defensive.
Koretzky and/or the SPJ could selectively determine which ethical concerns we should and should not be perusing.
Airplay exists to garner public influence for the SPJ under the presumption of improving journalistic ethics.
The panelists attending are receiving undue recognition as authoritative figures.
That's a lot of bullet points. What do you think of the points he made? What do you agree and disagree with?
Log in to comment