This week, Gizmodo seem to have gone a bit mental. On Thursday night (UK time) their Editor-at-Large, Joel Johnson, posted a fourteen hundred word rant aimed squarely at their own community.
Within that rant he called his readers “half-witted thinkers”, “very stupid” and “dumb, cruel, entitled, tunnelled vision shit eaters”. It’s astonishing, really.
Let’s put it in context though. The comments on Gizmodo stories are often clogged up with outspoken, opinionated and yes, often barely informed and barely intelligible people. It’s a comments section on a website that reports on technology.
People have passionate views about their technology because it costs hundreds and thousands of pounds/dollars/euro. So they’re invested in it financially. That’s why console fanboys, tedious as they are, are so widespread – you spend $400 on a console, you don’t want to be told there’s a better one out there. The same thing goes for televisions, smartphones, mp3 players and pretty much any other expensive piece of equipment you can think of.
So some people, encouraged by their apparent anonymity and a freely offered platform, will express their views. Because there are hardly any barriers to entry into this forum for expressing views there are many that are uninformed, poorly expressed or just plain wrong. There are even some that are aggressive (or passive-aggressive, my own pet hate), hate-ridden and personally abusive. Welcome to the internet, Joel.
Now, there are elements underpinning what Joel says which are entirely true. For example, he points out that someone sitting in their bedroom with an RSS feed, and no prior experience or expertise in journalism, probably isn’t as well-informed as the Gizmodo team who live in and around the industry on a daily basis. Putting it bluntly, they know more than we do about their jobs. This is almost certainly true and it applies to any professionally-run website with a comments section. It even happens here very occasionally but luckily our community recognises ignorance, for the most part, and they eradicate it before it enrages us enough to rant. We’re extremely lucky.
Joel goes on to point out that people calling “Bias” are largely misunderstanding the term and the nature of humankind. He’s right again: we are all biased in some way. It’s the writer’s job to recognise that fact and do everything he can to limit that natural bias that comes with being human.
It’s true that in most cases when a reader screams bias it’s simply because they disagree (often based on much less information – see above) and don’t have the knowledge or expertise to argue their point. So they assume that the other person is just corrupt because it’s easier than self-examination and reasoning. In short, if you think they’re biased then it’s probably because you are, you could try to find a better way of expressing your own opinions.
The next point Joel raises is that getting personal will lose you the argument. This holds true in all areas of life, discuss two opposing views all you like but the instant someone turns to a personal attack, the argument is lost. Getting personal is shorthand for admitting your lack of intelligence, not only in being unable to deliver your point but also in being unable to recognise that you can’t deliver your point. But as he previously pointed out, he is supposed to know more about his subject matter than his readership does. That’s his job. It should hardly be surprising when his argument defeats one of theirs. That’s no excuse for personal insults but I would suggest that he should be prepared for them.
Finally, Joel makes a point which is harder to justify. He says that his readership has no rights. It’s factually accurate that Gizmodo owns the platform that those who comment are using to attack an article and the use of that platform is not a right, it’s a privilege which can be removed at any point at the discretion of the person who pays for that platform to be there. No arguments here.
To say that the people who take the time to comment should refrain from being “disrespectful or even impolite in the comments of an article or in an email to an editor” is, in my opinion, going too far. Of course you should always try to be respectful when you interact with another human being but what is “disrespectful or even impolite”? It’s subjective; I might be offended by something which was said with only kind enquiry. So you’re threatening your readers before you’ve even entered into a discussion with them.
What is a valid point, though, is that even if you have the right to voice your dissent in the comments or (usually far more constructively) in a well-considered email to the editor, you don’t have the right to expect to be listened to. Just because you think it’s a good idea, based on what you see of the website, that doesn’t mean they’ll agree with you. Bear in mind the first point raised: they know more about their jobs than we do.
Throughout the course of the article, Joel makes some valid points but he makes them in an overly aggressive and entitled manner. Exactly the style he argues is counter-productive for readers posting comments. So while some of his points are valid, he undermines his own argument by presenting them in such a vitriolic way. He’s also firing blind at a huge crowd and hoping to hit the targets of his ire.
Throughout the whole fourteen hundred words of railing against his readership there’s one important point Joel seems to have missed: only a tiny fraction of your readership are the people who are acting like fools in your comments. Your entire readership is now reading your ranting against them. You’re throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
For comparison, here at TheSixthAxis we have tens of thousands of people reading every day. A few thousand of them are signed-up members and only a few hundred are people who will regularly comment on articles. Of those few hundred, there might be half a dozen that make uninformed comments attacking a writer personally or calling bias without reasoning. That’s a miniscule percentage of your audience.
Of course, the problem gets worse on popular topics. For example, we will hopefully be reviewing Gran Turismo 5 very soon. We sincerely hope it’s fantastic but our review will be as objective and unbiased as it’s possible for us to be. If, for some reason, it doesn’t score as well as Forza Motorsport 3 did a year ago, we fully expect a tirade of abusive comments based on very little expertise or knowledge.
That doesn’t mean that we think you’ll be right, it just means that we know you’re passionate and we know that’s how things go on the internet. It’s our jobs to be sure we know what we’re saying and be confident that we’re being fair and getting it right. After that, we’ve earned the right to ignore the comments that are idiotic, as long as we still pay attention to the reasoned ones.
Will we ever have earned the right to criticise our whole readership because of the few that can’t express themselves properly? No, we won’t.
clone555
Your point is well made. I think it is an even bigger problem on discussion forums. I’m amazed at the spitefulness of some of the posts to be found on pretty much any gaming discussion forum.
Software is too complex to be perfect. Personally I think it’s a miracle developers can release anything, let alone a top quality game. I don’t doubt GT5 will be incredible. And I don’t doubt it will have it’s flaws. It doesn’t mean I can’t enjoy the good parts while I wait for the inevitable patch, right?
Jumping Monks
Well written piece this, makes more sense to me than the original rant.
bunimomike
If, for some reason, it doesn’t score as well as Forza Motorsport 3 did a year ago, we fully expect a tirade of abusive comments based on very little expertise or knowledge.
I’ve been in touch with Oxford English Dictionary to inform them of the new profanities I have lined up if GT5’s review doesn’t score more than a nine. Every obscenity has the same six letters at the beginning. TSAIZA….. then I just fill in the bit after that from me randomly drawing suggestions out of my tombola of testicle-shakingly awesome swear words.
3shirts
I’m excited
3shirts
TSAIZAMEMARIO
bunimomike
Memario? Is that Italian for “booby”?
gordon_strange
” I was raped when I was a kid by a parent and I wrote about it. In case you’re wondering: It fucking sucked, but I’m much better, thank you….”
so he talks about something as raw and devastating as this, on an internet blog and doesn’t expect the faceless assassins to say anything negative? i’m at a loss as to where this conversation fits in a technology blog. i work with victims of physical, mental and sexual abuse, and have never met a young person that has been this blase about such an ordeal. perhaps i’m miss reading the article. before i continue my impassioned response, i shall re read
Kovacs
Don’t think you’ll see it any differently after a second read, mate.
Forrest_01
Well said cb – I took a look at the article in question & agree with everything that you have said. A bizarre way to convey a message to a few individuals of a much wider community (especially when that message tends to get a little lost in all the ranting).
I have to be honest & say that shocked me the most though was the language/profanity used in a published article by a professional journalist. I didn’t expect that.
Grey_Ghost13
My thoughts:
Communities build around a central thesis. It seems that the Gizmondo community has built on the same ideals that Joel has. They both seem to be as bad as each other. Joel’s views, opinions and part of himself has bled throgh his site and into the community that has built up around it. The like minded seek each other out.
For example here on the TSA, the community here is great and we are all pretty much like minded. The general consenses is that the TSA reviews of games are well thought out and written in an un biased way as much as possible, they are honest and do not follow the hype. We all pretty much agree with each other and agree with TSA, that’s why we come back day after day and contribute the community.
big-nathan22
Well writne article.
On the subject of bias I own a Playstation 3 but I have respect for everything Microsoft do as well. I only get into jokey fanboyism with my cousins (one believed that the PS3 could also toast bread).
I always look out for cc_stars comments whenever there is a hint of fanboyism out there as he always offers a factual response nulifying this.
KeRaSh
Interesting. However, if it’s only the biased readership he’s ranting about then there should be no reason for serious relatively unbiased readers to be offended, right? I kind of enjoyed reading Joel’s rant…
KeRaSh
Esecially loved this line:
Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Sony all make some excellent products. Well, maybe not Sony.
DrNate86
While he makes valid and interesting points, he does so horribly and seems to have gone slightly power mad. If you read some of the comments that have gotten users banned, they seem perfectly reasonable and polite. Many are simply stating that he is being disrespectful, which he is, and ask for the same courtesy he expects in others. I think he is straying into dangerous territory where he risks alienating his users and ending up with a dictatorial site where simple differing opinions are vilified. In fact, If I were to post this here, I have no doubt it would get me insta-banned.
KeRaSh
“To say that the people who take the time to comment should refrain from being “disrespectful or even impolite in the comments of an article or in an email to an editor” is, in my opinion, going too far.”
.
As far as i recall he did not say that these kind of people should not comment or write them emails. He just told them that they shouldn’t expect being treated with respect if they disrespect the writers.
Just saying…