Renna Hazel said:
I laid out where I believe Jim is misleading people. You disagreeing with that is fine, but it's part of the basis for which I've formed my opinion. I could also point out Jim's little Horizon vs Zelda rant where he cherry picked information to paint one fanbase in a negative light. I'm sure you've seen this article http://www.thejimquisition.com/the-sad-ghost-war-between-breath-of-the-wild-and-horizon-zero-dawn/ “So I guess Jim is going to use this comment section to justify how Zelda fans are toxic and all that, yet he still hasn’t commented on the Metabombing of the Metacritic user score by Horizon: Zero Dawn fans,” wrote one responder to The Jimquisition’s Breath of the Wild review. This sentiment is not uncommon amongst those Zelda fans who genuinely are toxic, the fans I guess I’ll just call Fucking Slithering Pricks. This is a sentiment almost anyone following metacritic has, and there is just as much evidence of Horizon fans "metabombing" Zelda BotW. Mathematically speaking, Zelda has a higher percentage of 'metabomb' scores than Horizon does. But this entire article was written to make one fanbase look bad regardless of the facts. I truly do believe he has something against the game and it's fans. At the very least, Jim has gone far beyond discrediting one's opinions and has gone on to directly insulting users on his site and Zelda fans (who believe the game is also being 'metabombed'). I'm sorry but I completely discredit the opinion on individuals who act like this, and I truly believe he's showing a VERY clear bias. It's fine if you disagree with me, but my accusation certainly is not baseless. |
Quite honestly, that sounds like nothing short of paranoia to me. Jim Sterling's a lot of things, and certainly not all of them positive, but one thing I'm sure we can both agree he's not is an internet policeman who will provide a hot take on every video game injustice. And chances are that, when it comes down to it, the fanbase that launced a DDoS attack on his website is probably going to go through a bit more scrutiny. And yet this is somehow supposed to suggest to me that he's just trying to make Zelda look bad? The series which he's given a 9.5 to a spinoff for and actively praised as a leader in providing worthwhile DLC?
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, though, that this article really was meant to make Zelda fans look bad. When I say "tangible evidence" that he is actively trying to mislead people (in regards to BotW's quality), I mean something that isn't just based off your impressions or whether you dislike the way he interacts with the fanbases. Plenty of major publication journalists are on less than friendly terms with certain political segments. As a personal example, I immensely disagree with many of New York Times' columnist Paul Krugman's assessments and am part of groups that he insults in far more sweeping terms than Sterling has (who still makes sure to distinguish that not all Zelda fans are hackers or metascore bombers). With that said, that isn't sufficient grounds for me to accuse him of lying or journalistic dishonesty. Why? There's a bunch of reasons, but the biggest one is that I have no sufficient evidence proving that he is incapable of keeping his opinions or biases from bleeding over into his writings which are intended to be objective.
This is entirely the same case here. You're attempting to extrapolate from what is essentially an opinion piece (with the opinion being that a certain portion of the Zelda fanbase are being children) and whatever other "impressions" you've formed about him as a person that he is deliberately lying and misleading the video game community. And no, this is not "tangible evidence." This is entirely circumstantial, and for a charge as serious as journalistic dishonesty, has no base on which to stand upon. As someone who's witnessed people legitimately getting removed from their position as a reporter for not meeting standards of integrity, I can assure you that it is, in fact, baseless.
