That's a function of how the media creates and shapes perceptions of reality, and we know where a majority of the media stands on this issue. I don't really read gaming media unless it's linked somewhere so most of my exposure to this whole thing has been through forums, especially the very anti-Gamergate Gamergate thread at GAF. And I can say with confidence that whenever a death threat or a doxxing of a Gamergate advocate has leaked through into that echo chamber, it was just as promptly met with accusations that it was fake/self-inflicted as when it happens to the other side.

Not to say that it isn't much more prevalent from the Gamergate side. I'm sure it is, but I also think it's to be expected that a blogger who has thousands of readers will receive more correspondence (and thus more threats) than some random person on Twitter.

Referring to this? I wouldn't really interpret it that way. Though everyone seems to be missing the mark because the anti-Quinn brigade insisted that they had a smoking gun that she had traded sex for favors when they had no such thing. Like you, I think this is more about the media being too chummy with its subjects and where networking ends and nepotism begins. I also think this is a bit like when the sexual misadventures of some preacher hit the news. If Zoe Quinn's public face is that of a woman who is all about raising awareness of mental illness while she's manipulating her mentally distressed boyfriend into thinking he's just being paranoid when she is actually fucking around behind his back, then that's shades of Jim Bakker and Ted Haggard.

I agree that there are misogynistic aspects to the way the story has been treated and to Gamergate generally, but once a story becomes about sex people will always focus on that to the exclusion of everything else. Just like how the Clinton impeachment  was over whether he lied under oath, but because it was about sex to this day some people will tell you he was impeached for getting a blowjob.

And as for Gamergate, well, there's always the difficulty of separating any movement from its less desirable elements. For example, the pro-Palestinian movement is fairly rife with genuine anti-semites and, sure, would do well to root them out, but that's more easily said than done and if all they ever did is police themselves they will never be able to do anything else. Meanwhile, your opponents would of course always prefer that you spend all your time and energy denouncing your own side, and will always use any misconduct to tar your whole movement as invalid. So Gamergate can spend the time and effort to reorganize under a new banner, but the same bad elements will just keep attaching themselves to it. If they are to continue with their agenda, whatever the hell that is, all they can do is make some cursory, weak tea condemnation of harassment whenever it's brought up and go right back on the attack. The problem for them is that they're up against most of the media, and the media can (and has) construe their entire movement to be about harassment and misogyny, thereby deflecting any legitimate criticisms.

I didn't watch the whole video because it's very long and InternetAristocrat employs a lot of the same awful arguing techniques as the anti-Gamergate side (e.g., if Zoe Quinn behaved badly here, then we have to assume the worst about everything she's done). But I believe I caught the relevant portion and I have to say, that's pretty thin gruel. I seriously doubt Quinn oinked Nathan Grayson in exchange for him mentioning her game in passing a couple of times. If so, she got fucked in more ways than one. I mean, again, it does highlight that there is a problem with people who write about games being way too chummy with their subjects. It should be enough to say, "Look, she's friendly with writers and made the sort of trendy Important Game With A Message that these bloggers wet themselves over, so she got more coverage than she properly deserved." That's a fair point. But there is zero evidence that she traded sex for favors, and Gamergate insisting on that is irresponsible and self-defeating.

Some gaters are indeed misogynists, while some are not. Many of them seem to have neither the desire nor even the ability to articulate what "corruption" means. A thousand different people will be drawn to the same movement for a thousand different reasons, and often the result is what just looks like a lot of noise and inchoate rage to the outside viewer. So I don't think there's anything simple about Gamergate or similar anti-establishment movements, except this: there is a clear break between the games media and much of its audience. It isn't really a question of the media being corrupt or not. The media certainly doesn't see itself as corrupt, and in fact by tackling social issues instead of being a mere disseminator of corporation-approved information about huge commercial games, probably sees itself as becoming less corrupt. A lot of the complaints against them are simply a matter of bias and not of corruption. But whatever the reason, they no longer represent the interests or reflect the views and concerns of a large portion of their readership, and so we have this mess.

"Why Games Journalists Won’t Leave Their Ideologies at the Door"

Because using the term 'journalist' as a label for the games media is a bit disingenuous. Very few of them are actually traditionally educated in journalism, and have never had to take (or pass) something like an ethics class, let alone a true journalism course.

We need to stop looking at the games 'media' as journalists, and call them what they are, bloggers who've gained enough popularity to attract a following.

1. He said that, and then he proceeded to hammer on her sexual promiscuity throughout the rest of the video, at least until I stopped watching. It's a nice trick. "Well, of course, I don't care that she's a whore... but look at what a whore she was." It's hard to swallow his claim that he doesn't care what kind of person she is when the video is a half hour character assassination, and I say this as someone who finds Zoe Quinn distasteful in the extreme. What he did was purely gratuitous. Make a point, substantiate it, and move on.

As for the assertion that she slept around to improve her standing, I can't and don't have to prove a negative. That she had sex with people in the industry doesn't really seem to be in question, but that she did it to receive favorable treatment rather than for normal reasons like because they were there and she wanted to is in no way proven by the people making the claim.

2. There is no smoking gun. If there were InternetAristocrat would have come up with something better than, "OH, LOOK. NATHAN GRAYSON SAID 'DEPRESSION QUEST'. TWICE!"

Kotaku was a big booster of Depression Quest, and the biggest booster there was Patricia Hernandez. Who is Zoe's friend and, presumably, not a sexual partner. So there's reason enough to say that she was getting favorable treatment from her friends without leaping to assumptions about trading sex for good press, however wonderfully scandalous that sounds.

3. Except nobody in Gamergate is motivated by liking pineapples, and some are clearly animated by misogyny. It can't really be helped. Any time feminists turn up you are going to get anti-feminists on the other side, and that will invariably include misogynists. All the rest of Gamergate can hope to do is disavow misogyny and harassment but not get too sidetracked by it, though even that is futile because the very media they are protesting against controls the narrative. Outside of getting advertisers to drop offending sites and taking their webtraffic elsewhere, I'm not really sure what they can hope to accomplish.

What I've mainly seen is that members of the gaming media have every intention of ignoring any and all well thought-out arguments. Instead, they'll continue to pound away at the extremists, deliberately positioning the most aggressive and spiteful members of the opposition as the only members of the opposition. There is no winning there, as these people have the biggest soap-boxes. It's distasteful but it's also expected. This is what we see in the political entertainment medium and it's why those snake-oil salesmen have achieved so much popularity and support. The gullible are a breeze to influence.

It's easy to see with this blog post. The writer starts from the very beginning with a snarky little comment about the word "bias" in a clear attempt to paint anyone on the other side of his argument as an idiot. It's a petty tactic. He follows that up with a defense of his ad hominem attack on the backers of The Sarkeesian Effect.

Why would I take this person seriously? He derails his own credibility with cheap propaganda.

It is what it is. People like this will always simply pick out the worst, most vile comments as representative of the whole. It's the easiest path even though it ultimately means nothing.

You havent been reading GAF GamerGate thread, have you? It's not good for your health

Pretty much this.  It's quite clear that the only thing the defender's of this debacle are interested in is painting all gamer's with one broad brush.  So, quite frankly, I say fuck them all.  Free Speech will protect game developers from any interference from the media or SJW's.  So they can piss and moan all they want, but the courts will shoot them down (if it even makes it that far...most people don't want to be publicly embarassed ala Al/Tipper Gore and the PMRC hearings).