Conscientiousness
Jul. 6th, 2015 11:57 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
luna_manarListening to a podcast between Jim Sterling and the Digital Homicide guy has me thinking about the difficulties inherent in media criticism, and how sticky it can be for an established content creator to criticize a beginner. The argument that it can discourage creativity...well, first of all, the DH guy is an inelegant ambassador and kind of a jerk. But there is an argument there, far outside of his personal problems with Sterling.
I don't think it's unreasonable to claim that the followers of established pundits have a tendency to mob the subjects of said pundits' ire. I think it's worth acknowledging that without ever CALLING for harassment, it's possible to incite it. Now, I don't think that what happened to DH was harassment, but that doesn't mean it isn't possible, or even that Sterling hasn't unintentionally caused it for someone.
I think it's worth considering that as you become an established speaker, your words have greater ripple effects (or katamari effects, as sometimes happens in today's social media). When you criticize someone who has no established audience, and the result of that criticism is that they gain a massive audience--all of it negative--it's worth considering that that is damaging, whether you intend it to be or not. Some people can emotionally recover from that: keep their cool, address the concerns, and improve. A lot of people don't have that gumption, and I'm not sure I agree that they deserve the flak they get when they melt down in public, or the indifference when they give up and disappear.
That doesn't mean established creators should refrain from criticizing the content of those who are starting out. Opinions are, in theory, equal in value no matter who they're coming from. The fact that in practice, that doesn't hold true is a problem with our social system, not an inevitability. I think people should be allowed to call other people's media crap, if they think it's crap. The inequity between the opinions of someone with no audience and someone with an established audience is a social conundrum, not an ethics issue.
So someone like Sterling is committing no error, in theory, by lambasting shitty games made by individuals. But there's an unfortunate tendency for his audience to turn his criticism into a laugh train, and to echo his words to the makers of those games, tease and make fun of them. And some of those fans are actually cruel, even if Sterling himself is not. That's not his fault. But it is something worth acknowledging, at least. I think he should be a bit more explicitly aware of it than he is.
That said, Digital Homicide is not good at games.
I don't think it's unreasonable to claim that the followers of established pundits have a tendency to mob the subjects of said pundits' ire. I think it's worth acknowledging that without ever CALLING for harassment, it's possible to incite it. Now, I don't think that what happened to DH was harassment, but that doesn't mean it isn't possible, or even that Sterling hasn't unintentionally caused it for someone.
I think it's worth considering that as you become an established speaker, your words have greater ripple effects (or katamari effects, as sometimes happens in today's social media). When you criticize someone who has no established audience, and the result of that criticism is that they gain a massive audience--all of it negative--it's worth considering that that is damaging, whether you intend it to be or not. Some people can emotionally recover from that: keep their cool, address the concerns, and improve. A lot of people don't have that gumption, and I'm not sure I agree that they deserve the flak they get when they melt down in public, or the indifference when they give up and disappear.
That doesn't mean established creators should refrain from criticizing the content of those who are starting out. Opinions are, in theory, equal in value no matter who they're coming from. The fact that in practice, that doesn't hold true is a problem with our social system, not an inevitability. I think people should be allowed to call other people's media crap, if they think it's crap. The inequity between the opinions of someone with no audience and someone with an established audience is a social conundrum, not an ethics issue.
So someone like Sterling is committing no error, in theory, by lambasting shitty games made by individuals. But there's an unfortunate tendency for his audience to turn his criticism into a laugh train, and to echo his words to the makers of those games, tease and make fun of them. And some of those fans are actually cruel, even if Sterling himself is not. That's not his fault. But it is something worth acknowledging, at least. I think he should be a bit more explicitly aware of it than he is.
That said, Digital Homicide is not good at games.
