Adventure Forums - View Single Post

After a brisk nap · 02-20-2006, 11:47 AM

To elaborate on that...

Anyone who's covering a field where some of the material may be controversial or objectionable has to deal with where to draw the line. Say you're running a music website. You probably don't want to cover neo-nazi rock. But what do you do with, say, rap music with strong misogynistic messages, or homophobic reggae? It seems you have to draw many lines:

Things you review without bias and without comment
Things you review without bias, but where you point out content that might be controversial
Things you review with criticism of the content you find objectionable
Things you don't review, but discuss in an editorial or article
Things you refuse to cover at all

I was surprised when, way back when, Jackal raised the fact that these were Christian games as a possible reason not to cover them (implicitly saying they might belong in the fifth category), because I had a hard time imagining how they could be bad enough to meet my bar for things that I'd refuse to cover (I supposed they would belong to the second or possibly the third category), and I had expected AG to have a similar threshold.

Ultimately, the game turned out to fall in category 1 or 2 (possible controversy is mentioned, but dismissed as intolerant), while one organization associated with it falls in my personal category 3. That doesn't prove anything, of course.

02-20-2006, 11:47 AM	#19
After a brisk nap Elegantly copy+pasted Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 1,773	To elaborate on that... Anyone who's covering a field where some of the material may be controversial or objectionable has to deal with where to draw the line. Say you're running a music website. You probably don't want to cover neo-nazi rock. But what do you do with, say, rap music with strong misogynistic messages, or homophobic reggae? It seems you have to draw many lines: Things you review without bias and without comment Things you review without bias, but where you point out content that might be controversial Things you review with criticism of the content you find objectionable Things you don't review, but discuss in an editorial or article Things you refuse to cover at all I was surprised when, way back when, Jackal raised the fact that these were Christian games as a possible reason not to cover them (implicitly saying they might belong in the fifth category), because I had a hard time imagining how they could be bad enough to meet my bar for things that I'd refuse to cover (I supposed they would belong to the second or possibly the third category), and I had expected AG to have a similar threshold. Ultimately, the game turned out to fall in category 1 or 2 (possible controversy is mentioned, but dismissed as intolerant), while one organization associated with it falls in my personal category 3. That doesn't prove anything, of course. __________________ Please excuse me. I've got to see a man about a dog. Last edited by After a brisk nap; 02-20-2006 at 11:53 AM.