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.
Spotter5
it’s not just technology that brings out the arseholes. Read the comments on an F1 site to hear stupid remarks about other drivers.
Demibeard
I’ll admit to reading Giz everyday, but it rare for me to read the comments, there’s usually not much point past the sixth as it typically descends into some sort of attack, and is neither informed nor relevant.
I also always use their ‘not’ tags to turn off Apple news (I personally have no interest in Apple products). It’s also only one of a few sites I check at work, mainly due to internet filters precluding me from reading this site (my phone browser does work, but the signal is appalling).
Recently I’ve moved to reading ArsTechnica as it has better open sorce coverage and less idiots clogging up the comments (They tend to be grammar nerds or such experts as to leave me saying ‘Huh?’)
Whilst I understand the chap getting upset at commenter’s, but airing his laundry in public will only alienate the majority of his readers.
I used to read Kotaku but got fed up with the Sony bashing, never been back.
I can’t say that anything I’ve read on Giz isn’t available in other more convivial environments where the editors have a little more respect for their customers and revenue generators. Maybe it’s time for a bookmark clean up.
solidsteven
TSA is one of the few sites that is fanboy free. And where someone can have a civil diccussion without a fanboy going “ps3 ftw or xboy ftw”. If you look at the comments on IGN’s videos on Youtube it is mostly Fanboys arguing.
solidsteven
EDIT: Xbox not xboy, How can i mispell Xbox when it is advertised here on the site.
nemesisND1derboy
Great article CB. I’m at a loss thinking about what this guy could have posiibly have gained by writing this article. Yes, its true that there are a lot of unintelligent people on the internet who write stupid fanboy things and blah blah blah, but you just don’t write a 1400 word article coming accross like a baby throwing a tantrum and insult them all on your website. Is he the editor? I can’t imagine any editor letting that pass through.
As for his comments, I do agree with some of them. I think CC mentioned it above, about a gamaer’s sense of entitlement, but to an extent I think it is allowed. Not to the extent we see it though. We have probably one of the most expensive hobbies. We buy high priced hardware and software, so when someone “cocks up”, for want of a better term, we are entitled to a moan, just not to fanboy proportions.
As for the hate and abuse, that is to be expected. There are a lot of horrid people out there, and in my opinion people who resort to being personal in an argument are fairly horrible, but you have to expect that and expect to take a certain degree of abuse as a reviewer.
I don’t think that was a smart move on his part, and as I sit here typing this rant, I fell kinda silly too…
nemesisND1derboy
gamaer, what a fool I look. Also that stuff he wrote about being raped, what was that all about?
chocobosandwich
I’ve seen many comments who try to be just as reasonable and echo this Editorial Note get destarred/banned at Gizmodo under Joel’s hammer. Casual readers and even this post by TSA staff would give some credibility/leniency to the writers and their grievances at Gizmodo, but long-time readers and those not obsessed with treating Gizmodo’s word as law will tell you they’ve been on a steep decline for a while and deserve every piece of filth thrown their way. In fact, by mentioning that they will try to be objective, unbiased, and “professional journalists”, TSA would probably be labeled as dimwitted, entitled shit-eaters as well. Gizmodo saying their determinations are more well-informed than their readers is quite hysterical considering the technical know-how of the writers (and their writing ability) is quite low, consisting mostly of snark-laden short synopses of linked stories, many poorly and misleadingly paraphrased, and half-baked “straight-talking” reviews that accentuate a relative low, especially among professional blogs. (its professional because they get PAID)
Gizmodo has always put a bit of casual spin to their posts to inject some light humor and spruce up stiffer topics. It’s good for a harmless chuckle from time to time. However, it’s gotten to the point where most of the writers, especially those involved with gadget tech, feel that it’s okay to drop down to a 5th grade writing style filled with profanity, sensationalist snark, and mean-spirited, unfair accusations. Half the posts are “things I hate for no particularly good reason” and are more suited to a 4chan board than people given the privilege of press badges at tech shows.
In essence, they have (or were already headed towards) becoming the most annoying of internet trolls, the ones they so condemn in their open comment section yet readily attract by mirroring the same low-brow rhetoric. And they exhibit the same sort of troll responses, by treating their own words as doctrine and banning even the most respectable of dissenting opinions and *gasp* any mention of bias or hypocrisy, which they rationalize by saying it’s a-okay.
The superfund of a comments section hasn’t changed that much over the past couple of years and the community is largely the same. However, for some reason, it struck a nerve this time. The bloggers couldn’t bear to hear the same music they’d been playing all along being blasted back at them. And this is a general trend among the writers, not specific to Joel himself. There’s an unwritten rule at Gizmodo where it’s okay to play fanboy with blind subjectivity and incendiary writing because tabloids get page views. Apparently Joel didn’t get the memo that this was the status quo and encouraged. Not to mention most of the expert opinions seem to lean on whoever is paying them at the moment for their good graces, or a bounced check for their ire, so drawing too much attention to that possibility isn’t a good idea.
I’d like to end this comment with a brief enumeration of reasons why among tech blogs, Gizmodo is one of the lowest common denominators. I’ve moved on to reading Engadget (which has a bit of a snobbish tinge, but passable) for gadget news/reviews and use Gizmodo for their off-beat science and geek stuff, which strangely has none of that contemptible attitude of their gadget posts, but will be actively looking for alternatives.
1. Their complex hate/love affair with Apple. Half their posts are Apple-related, all the way down to the most disturbing, including every sight, sound, and tweet from Steve Jobs. They are the first to pounce on even the slightest rumor of fallibility in the company’s products, and instigated the further theft of the iPhone 4 prototype while shamelessly revealing the identity of the employee who lost it. It’s like a bad yet undying relationship.
2. Their general die/praise or fail/win view of companies, which is erratic and unpredictable. Currently it’s Nokia, Sony Ericsson, RIM, and possibly Samsung based on the Tab review. The pattern usually involves many posts headlined “when is X company going to finally die already?” and is reflected by a pre-meditated contempt for that company’s products, manifested in derogatory reviews or a post about not writing a review.
2. Their angry rant and insults at Blackberry for not sending them the Storm 2, and concluding that it most be a POS because they didn’t get a free review unit.
3. Their slamming of Motorola only a year ago now 180-ed after the release of the Droid. Their own review of the phone praising it as second behind the iPhone contradicts the meat of the writing which harped against its sluggish performance, lousy camera, and poor keyboard. I pointed out this contradiction in a comment and their worshippers started throwing dirt, which made me stop commenting at all. Their review of the Droid 2 said it had the same problems as the first one and had little improvement, but what would be deemed tar-and-feather-able in another review is just a slap on the wrist in this case. A noticeable trend.
4. Their condescending attitude toward the N8, Nokia, and Symbian, electing to not review the phone at all, a flagship phone from the world’s largest phone manufacturer that may have some legacy support commitments but some great overall features. They shamelessly bothered to post an “unscientific” speed test between a Blackberry, N8, and iPhone when the user of the N8 clearly was using it for the first time, pausing at every interval hesitantly, whereas the other phone users were semi-acquainted with their phones. Probably the worst offense of bias for a phone I’ve seen from a major news site.
5. Of course, the troll review of the Galaxy Tab, in which every other sentence was just an insult and not a real objective comparison of the very small competition, prompting a flood of commenters stating the obvious and the pinching of nerves. The Android interface, which was not designed for tablets to begin with but is serviceable and much loved by Gizmodo, somehow is now the devil’s incarnate when used by Samsung. They were expecting an entirely new OS experience by Samsung, one Google hasn’t even managed to achieve yet, which is all quite *reasonable*. The railing at the $600 price, which is on par with the much-praised 3G-equipped iPad, needs no explanation on its stupidity. Things really hit the fan when the two cameras, which the iPad doesn’t even have, is blatantly ignored as trivial. That’s called BIAS. When gadget bloggers are out to get you and want you to become their new punching bag even though you haven’t done anything wrong.
6. Their ethnocentric American tastes. Foreign platforms Bada and Symbian, which have coveted features like mobile AP, multitasking, and copy/paste, are just absolute failures and will pollute and fragment the market (because they aren’t big in the US market, apparently). In contrast, Windows Phone 7 is devoid of these features at its 1.0 stage and receives very little criticism. The Palm WebOS platform and HPs desire to use it for future devices also is free of criticism.
6. Their juvenile and self-entitled stances on digital copyright, law enforcement, and understood rules and regulations. Frequent guides on torrenting, usenet usage, and avoiding detection, as well as rants about the music/movie/book industry for not giving away everything for free (because they suck anyway!) are common. They also support the hacking of all hardware and undermining or illegal repurposing of software for the sake of the “greater good”, meaning now that its out in public, it belongs to everyone.
7. Their undivided hatred of facebook, especially their founder Mark Zuckerburg. From stalking him around his neighborhood with a paid paparazzi to equating him to some soul-sucking evil villain who controls your mind with his Social Network, it’s a bit much for a gadget blog to be so obsessed about one individual’s idea of privacy when most users of facebook just don’t care.
hazelam
wow, that is astounding, just read the rant.
he says his readers can disagree with him but don’t do it in the form of a rant filled with personal attacks and egotistical statements about how you’re better than the other person, and he does it in the form of a rant filled with personal attacks and egotistical statements about how he’s better than his readers?
he seems to think that makes it ok for him to make personal attacks but they readers aren’t as good as him so they don’t get to.
and looking at the way this guy is treating those who commented on the article, moving their comments to their phantom zone
http://gizmodo.com/tag/phantomzone
and banning the users, some with perfectly valid comments without a hint of the vitriol he just displayed, this is motivated by anger it seems, and that would be bad enough for a commenter but for the one claiming to be better because he’s “the professional”
and then he seems to be personally banning the people too.
they are going to lose a hell of a lot of traffic from this guy’s hypocritical rant.
you know i’m not averse to the odd rant, but i make no claim to be a professional, who’d hire somebody who says essentially the same thing five different ways? :)
but anyway, you could not call what he just did professional in any way.
hazelam
oh yeah, i’m back, bloody virgin crapfest, internet was down for a frakking week nearly.
moshi
welcome back, we missed your comments
Hicko
It’s funny that some people feel the need to justify their purchase choices to a large group that they don’t know and have never met. I have a ps3, not because I love or hate different multinational companies or lumps of plastic and metal, but because it suits me better and it’s what I wanted to buy after trying both. Mates of mine have different consoles and that’s fine, we wouldn’t fight about it down the pub. We should just be thankful we have choice.
Quinlank
People should be free to post what they like on comments threads(Within the context of site T&Cs obviously), that’s what they exist for. To see people complain about their own comments threads strikes me as an incredibly dumb thing to be doing. To see it go further than mere complaining though is where things get pretty questionable.
It isn’t really on to be visiting a website only to see staff members of that website stir the shit among users with loaded or sniping comments or even going as far as to edit user’s posts when no violation of site rules has occurred simply because that user pokes fun at “company A” or somesuch, that’s something I see as nothing other than a massive abuse of power and trust.
Just speaking metaphorically of course.
“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.”
Given that Forza 3’s reviewer declared that it would be a better game than Gran Turismo 5 before he had played either game, you’ve pretty much set yourselves up for a fall on this score regardless of “expertise or knowledge”, whatever either has to do with offering an opinion on a videogame.