ESA calls out GamePolitics for unfair coverage [update]
by Alexander Sliwinski 
{ Jun 3rd 2008 at 12:57PM }
The Senior Director of Communications for the ESA, Dan Hewitt, sent a letter to Joystiq stating, "If the ESA posted a blog and called it a news site, journalists would rightfully balk and it wouldn't pass a smell test. Remarkably, GamePolitics doesn't face the same scrutiny even though it's funded by the ECA and tainted with anti-ESA vitriol. At the end of the day, calling GamePolitics a news site is as laughable as saying there's a Cuban free press."
Hewitt points to GP's recent coverage of the ESA saying that the site isn't a news site, but a membership recruitment tool for the site's parent company, the Entertainment Consumers Association.
Update: Two separate statements from GP and the ECA can be found after the break. GP has also amended its headline.
"GamePolitics is the same news site it has always been, covering the nexus between video games and politics. Since acquiring GamePolitics in October, 2006, ECA president Hal Halpin has insisted that GP retain its editorial independence.
I suspect that, given its current difficulties retaining member companies, the ESA is uncomfortable with the level of scrutiny directed at it by some news outlets. Ultimately, an organization like the ESA is judged by its performance, and, right now, it's fair to call that performance into question. When a politician is keynoting E3, that's worth questioning. When the politician has made divisive comments, like those attributed to Gov. Perry, that's really worth questioning."
-- Dennis McCauley, GamePolitics.com
Full Disclosure: GP's Dennis McCauley writes Joystiq's The Political Game.
The ECA's statement:
"We were shocked by the quotes that the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) provided to Joystiq about GamePolitics this afternoon," said Heather Ellertson, VP of Marketing for the Entertainment Consumers Association (ECA). "Comparing a non-profit consumer advocacy organization to communist Cuba is unprofessional to say the least... especially given the broad support that the ECA and our consumer members have shown for the ESA. We stand behind our publications and their editors and appreciate their talent and dedication."
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
wootman @ Jun 3rd 2008 1:03PM
huh, i didn't know it was ECA backed. seemed decent.
Xlorep DarkHelm @ Jun 5th 2008 4:27PM
Why does the fact that GP is funded/backed by a non-profit organization that tries to speak for gamers somehow make it less decent?
Seriously, everyone needs funding eventually, especially a site as heavily trafficked as GP has been. If the ECA wants to back them, *and* the ECA is focused on speaking out for gamers in general, to me this makes sense.
Mind you, I'm not part of the ECA, I'm just saying it makes sense for the two to work together, since GP has tended to bring news relevant to gamers, from within the political arena, and provide it in a way that works rather well. I've been a reader/commenter on GP since the LiveJournal days, and I've never seen GP be anything but up front about things reported there.
WRE (PSN: WorstReviewEver; Gamertag: HaloKissesBoys; Wii Friend Code: 4204-4590-6106-3583) @ Jun 3rd 2008 1:10PM
Huh. I wasn't aware that the press had to be fair. I always thought that people realized that there is no such thing as objectivity and being media literate was the key to being responsibly informed.
NoHitHair @ Jun 3rd 2008 1:15PM
...and that's why Democracy is a colossal failure. It requires a populous to be well-informed on issues, something that clearly does not happen in the United States. At all.
samfish @ Jun 3rd 2008 1:21PM
You can thank the corporate controlled media for that.
NoHitHair @ Jun 3rd 2008 1:25PM
I do. Capitalism + Democracy = dystopia.
NATO_Duke @ Jun 3rd 2008 2:06PM
Just like communism fails because you cant expect everyone to pool their resources perfectly to win at making the masses happy.
Every form of government fails in one way or another.
Ender @ Jun 3rd 2008 6:09PM
Colossal failure? Yes, Democracy does have several problems, but if you look at all other forms of government comparatively, it's clear that democracy has actually been one of the strongest forms of government in history. I wouldn't call it a colossal failure. It's more like a constant attempt at achieving the unachievable.
t_m @ Jun 4th 2008 1:18AM
The press can't be 100% fair, but it should TRY to be fair. And when it is giving opinion, or has a vested interest, it should clearly label it.
"no press can be objective" seems to have recently become an excuse for "well, if no press can be objective, lets not even try, and lets just be as partisan as we can be."
The fact that people no longer even expect the press to TRY to be balanced is pretty worrying... at least in the past this expectation went some way to keeping them honest.
That said, the biggest problem I see today is that people don't realise the difference between bloggers and journalists. Its very worrying when people can't see the difference between a site like Gamepolitics or Joystiq and a legitimate press outlet. It means they aren't informed enough to make evaluations about what they read.
WRE (PSN: WorstReviewEver; Gamertag: HaloKissesBoys; Wii Friend Code: 4204-4590-6106-3583) @ Jun 4th 2008 2:07AM
I would rather the press show it's biases than pretend to be "fair and balanced". I know that Fox News is far right; I know that the New York Times is far left; therefore, I know how to interpret what they tell me. Ideally, yes, it would be nice for the media to be objective, but it won't happen. Sorry, but it just isn't possible.
And an expectation of "balance" has never kept the media honest; it just made them choose their words more carefully.
Deozaan @ Jun 5th 2008 1:47AM
@NoHitHair & apparently just about everyone else:
You guys know that the USA is NOT a democracy, right? It's a Republic. Remember that little part in the Pledge of Allegience? You know, back before it wasn't politically incorrect to say it in school?
"...and for the Republic for which it stands..."
NoHitHair @ Jun 3rd 2008 1:12PM
"...putting in quotes for its headline that Texas governor Rick Perry said "Non-Christians will burn in hell" when the governor made no such statement."
But he DID make that statement.
However, I don't see the issue here. I've known many Christians, friend and acquantance alike, who believe those who refuse to accept Jesus Christ as their savior are headed for a fiery torturous eternity. How is this any different?
Intentless @ Jun 3rd 2008 1:14PM
Generally condemning others to hell for religious beliefs is bad politics...
Delgado @ Jun 3rd 2008 1:28PM
Source please. I'm not saying you're wrong, I've just never heard of this.
NoHitHair @ Jun 3rd 2008 1:33PM
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2006/11/06/texas_governors_religious_remarks_slammed/9560/
There's the story. I don't know if Joystiq is saying he didn't say this which is highly irresponsible journalism and exhibits a questionable bias towards the ESA or if Joystiq is intimating that Rick Perry didn't say the quote in question at a gamer-type event.
The latter would be true.
Stoo @ Jun 3rd 2008 1:44PM
So he didn't say "non-christians will burn in hell" that story you posted reports that pastor John Hagee said in his sermon non-Christians were "going straight to hell with a non-stop ticket,"
and then goes on to say that Rick Perry didn't disagree with what was said, but it doesn't quote Rick Perry as saying "non-christians will burn in hell". Regardless of what someone implies you can't make up quotes, that is bad reporting no matter how big a nut job Rick Perry may or may not be.
Perhaps he did say it, but that link you posted doesn't go anywhere to showing that he did make those comments.
Geoffrey @ Jun 3rd 2008 1:47PM
Gov. Perry never made the remark; a pastor made the remark at an event the governor was attending, and later, the governor said he couldn't disagree with any part of the sermon. GamePolitics characterization of Christian comments toward non-Christians and Hell as "divisive" and "worth questioning" implies to me that there is another agenda beyond the stated one. Since when is it news that Christians think non-Christians are going to Hell?
NoHitHair @ Jun 3rd 2008 1:48PM
So if I agreed that Hitler was right for the Final Solution, since I didn't say it, does that mean I'm not responsible for agreeing with him?
Thank god Perry has apologists like you guys.
Sir Fidlious Wong (Justin T. McElroy Memorial Burn of the Day Award) @ Jun 3rd 2008 2:03PM
Funny you should mention Hitler (and remarkably not invoke Godwin's Law on a technicality) because the pastor Hagee once claimed the third reich was gods plan to force the jews back to the holy land. Holocaust as a relocation tool in God's Great Plan... and people wonder why I've just learned to tune out the entire of the bible belt.
DiRT @ Jun 3rd 2008 2:08PM
"So if I agreed that Hitler was right for the Final Solution, since I didn't say it, does that mean I'm not responsible for agreeing with him?"
So... souls not getting into Heaven is the same as people being so inferior that they should be killed? Yeah, good call on that.
NATO_Duke @ Jun 3rd 2008 2:11PM
+1 Fid for mentioning Godwin's Law.
Geoffrey @ Jun 3rd 2008 5:01PM
I'm sorry, at what point did I apologize for his agreement? I was just countering your blatant misstatement that "he DID make the statement". He did not make the statement. It is deceitful of GamePolitics to attribute the quote, and use quotation marks, in regards to the remark and the man. Do you have ADD? Short term memory loss? Did you forget what you said, which in turn, other people were responding to?
Sora267 @ Jun 3rd 2008 5:15PM
"So... souls not getting into Heaven is the same as people being so inferior that they should be killed? Yeah, good call on that."
I kinda got what you were trying to say, but I have to disagree. "souls not getting into Heaven" should be "souls not getting into Heaven because they're not Christian, implying that all non-Christians are inferior". Then it kind of IS the same. Kind of, but not really.
samfish @ Jun 3rd 2008 1:19PM
While Perry did concur with that reprehensible reptile Hagee about non-Christians being condemed to Hell, to be honest, I don't see the point in getting on the ESA's ass over this.
He's there, as I understand it, to talk about how Texas has helped create a suitable environment for game developers. As long as he sticks to the topic and doesn't go off on a right-wing tirade or about how great John McCain is, I don't see the problem with him speaking.
John @ Jun 4th 2008 3:49AM
This is why you are out of touch. I consider myself well into right territory and I hate McCain, I think he is a lib douche.
Us "right wingers" don't like MCCain, or bill o'reilly either, please quit attributing these morons to our views.
koehler83 @ Jun 3rd 2008 1:21PM
The ESA could create a blog and call it a news site. No one is stopping them. The difference is that the ECA represents the readership of such blogs.. not the people trying to make money off them.
samfish @ Jun 3rd 2008 1:25PM
It happened this morning.
Relentless @ Jun 3rd 2008 9:03PM
I've been following this for awhile and often agree with GP on most things, but on this one, the ESA's right. Game Politics has been trashing them for weeks and it's about time the ESA stood up. Good for them!
Donald @ Jun 3rd 2008 1:31PM
So is the site being down right now a coincidence, or am I reading too much into this?
samfish @ Jun 3rd 2008 1:39PM
Fucking Reptoids probably are making it go down.
brokenscope @ Jun 3rd 2008 1:45PM
The only reason there is any vitriol on GP is because the actions of the ESA have invited it. It was there before they even joined the ECA. The fact of the matter is, the ESA does not give a damn about consumers, and is one more of many companies that balks at the thought of fair use, first sale, or consumer rights.
Thefremen @ Jun 3rd 2008 4:25PM
agree'd completely. They've always had the same "who cares if consumers can't use products because of DRM, they're all pirates anyways" as the industry and have become even worse since they decided a GOP mouthpiece should be the man in charge.
Pixelantes Anonymous @ Jun 3rd 2008 3:42PM
"The fact of the matter is, the ESA does not give a damn about consumers"
You got that right. ESA's comments towards GamePolitics (and ECA by extension) are pot calling the kettle black.
Regardless, GamePolitics.com doesn't really have an agenda ESA claims it has. It reports on game industry happenings where they intersect with politics. And it does that better than any other news outlet, incl. the "real" media. It's a quality operation through and through.
I would urge ESA to stop stomping on consumers' rights and in general being the little brother of MAFIAA, if they wish GP to stop reporting on news that ESA is doing so.
Zone Daiatlas @ Jun 3rd 2008 5:45PM
Thefremen, I guess it would be acceptable to you than to have some 35yr hippie with yellow stain teeth with a Che Guevara t-shirt spewing propaganda from the DNC...
Godmil @ Jun 3rd 2008 1:58PM
I'm normally a fan of GamePolitics, but that story this morning seemed like nothing but poop-stiring, there was no point to it what-so-ever.
If you break the story down it goes like this: This person is doing a keynote at E3, he is religious and some of the things in his religion could be offensive to people of other religions... therefore we believe he should not be allowed to speak.
Tenuous argument at best.
Sir Fidlious Wong (Justin T. McElroy Memorial Burn of the Day Award) @ Jun 3rd 2008 2:07PM
So Obama should be held accountable as his pastor claims 9/11 was god's retaliation for America's manufacturing of the AIDS virus to eliminate the black man in Africa... but not the same kind of thing should be applied to a politician speaking at a gaming convention. A GAMING CONVENTION! This shouldn't be questioned?!?
And besides, any religion that puts George W Bush in Heaven and Ghandi in Hell, I take offense to.
DiRT @ Jun 3rd 2008 2:09PM
"And besides, any religion that puts George W Bush in Heaven and Ghandi in Hell, I take offense to."
Wow. That's some excellent trolling.
samfish @ Jun 3rd 2008 2:30PM
Ghandi was not responsible for the death of over 1,000,000 innocent civilians.
Farseer (GDI) @ Jun 3rd 2008 2:31PM
That's not trolling, that's spot-on. There is no reasonable argument to be made against that statement.
Sir Fidlious Wong (Justin T. McElroy Memorial Burn of the Day Award) @ Jun 3rd 2008 2:34PM
Was Bush responsible for that many innocent deaths? Hmm, I knew it was alot but I doubt that figure. Unless you're using some hardcore transient properties type shit.
samfish @ Jun 3rd 2008 3:22PM
1 million was the number of estimated Iraqi civilian deaths as a result of the war that was put out about 18 months ago.
I haven't heard an update since then, to be honest, so it's likely much higher now.
I say "likely" because it's always possible that they're coming back as zombies. Should that scenario be playing out, we'll have to dispatch Leon Kennedy and Frank West into the heart of Babylon.
Chris Redfield would join them, but he's too busy killing the blacks.
samfish @ Jun 3rd 2008 3:26PM
Oh, wait. My bad. I'm...misremembering. It's over 650,000 as of 2006. Although if the death rate has held up, 1,000,000+ seems reasonable.
tooPrime @ Jun 3rd 2008 4:04PM
Regarding Gandhi's possible afterlife in hell, I just want to say when asked what he thought about the Holocaust Ganhndi said something to the extent the all Jews should have just killed themselves, and he also admitted that if the British were the Nazis all his tactics wouldn’t have worked for shit. Gandhi was just as manipulative as any politician; he just realized you weren’t going to get the support of common Indians dressed like a British businessman and you couldn't beat them militarily, so he started dressing like a hobo and advocating peaceful protests. I don’t have too much of a problem with Gandhi, put I hate his beyond perfect image that people give him, which is far from the truth.
Farseer (GDI) @ Jun 3rd 2008 4:48PM
"...when asked what he thought about the Holocaust Ganhndi [sic] said something to the extent the all Jews should have just killed themselves..."
I think that statement needs a source. Do you have a link by chance?
Zone Daiatlas @ Jun 3rd 2008 5:45PM
Oh Please Samfish, The civilian casualties is about 65,000 and that is reported of all places the UN and 99% of the civilian deaths are caused by jihadists in Iraq. I'm a Veteran in the US Air Force and I find it insulting to me and other Veterans in the US Military to read stupid comments like yours that claim we killed all these people. We do our damnest to avoid civilian casualties at all cost even at the expense of our own lives. I didn't see you bitch when Saddam killed at least million of his own people but to you George W. Bush is the terrorist not Saddam.
LaughingTarget @ Jun 3rd 2008 6:57PM
Ghandi was responsible for thousands of deaths himself. Pacifism didn't bring Indian independence, it was a huge population of people using violence. Ghandi utilized pacifism to incite it and supported the fighters' methods. HE didn't want to fight when he could get someone else to do it. Pacifism never changes anything, its them getting violent people on their side that does.
tooPrime @ Jun 3rd 2008 7:15PM
Farseer, I read that in a couple of places but here's a some quotes from wikipedia. I was just trying to show Gandhi isn't perfect like people make him out to be.
"In accordance with these views, in 1940, when invasion of the British Isles by Nazi Germany looked imminent, Gandhi offered the following advice to the British people (Non-Violence in Peace and War):[28]
'I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions...If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them.'
In a post-war interview in 1946, he offered a view at an even further extreme:
'The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs.'"
Farseer (GDI) @ Jun 3rd 2008 10:16PM
Right on Prime, thanks for the follow up. You can't argue, though, that it sounds the same once it is in context. In context, it honestly may even sound familar:
"Live free or die: death is not the worst of evils"
"Give me liberty, or give me death"
Our American revolution was spurred on by the same sentiments. Dying at the hands of one's opressors is much different than killing oneself.
LaughingTarget @ Jun 4th 2008 8:32AM
There is no parallel between Ghandi and the US revolution. Ghandi told the Brits that they should never resist, just lay down, die, and hope that Germany decided that it was too easy and go looking for someone willing to fight back. America pushed back and hard, knowing their lives are their sacred right that cannot be taken without a fight. Ghandi views life as worthless as he was willing to throw it away. American revolutionaries held life sacrosanct as they would let no one take it.
DiRT @ Jun 3rd 2008 2:05PM
The biggest problem with GP is that it has it's own political agenda. It SHOULD just post what happens and the political ramifications. INSTEAD it tries to be a mouthpiece. What good is a site like GP if you don't agree with their political leanings that go beyond games and game law?