A Pox On Both Their Houses

For those who haven’t been paying attention, there was a minor skirmish earlier this week betwen Gamepolitics and the ESA.  The ESA took issue with one of GP’s posts, highlighting the evangelical views of Texas Governor Rick Perry; Perry’s going to be the keynote speaker at E3 this year.  The ESA complained that GP is a “recruitment tool” for the ECA, an organization that competes with it to some extent… presumably concerned that GP was trying to discredit E3 through its article.  I have the fortunate job of complaining about both of them! 

First off, I completely agree that the original GP post was inappropriate.  The fact that a politician has certain political views, and will be a speaker at a conference in his state, is not in and of itself newsworthy for a site that is devoted to the intersection of gaming and politics.  I realize that this isn’t necessarily intuitive immediately.  But consider this: first, these facts are simply irrelevant, particularly in conjunction with each other.  If an EA executive donated to Planned Parenthood, is that reportable?  More significantly, Perry’s religious views aren’t political in this instance - unlike a position on, say, abortion, there are no political ramifications from a belief in general damnation. 

Second, Perry’s political views in general, let alone the ones in consideration here, were not in any way the reason for his selection as speaker.  He’s the leader of a state with a vibrant development industry.  This is merely one of a number of highly controversial views held by either political party, so why this is being called out is unknown.  Finally, and perhaps most importantly, highlighting it in this way is clearly suggesting something - pejorative or otherwise - is relevant.  GP is putting these facts in conjunction with each other to make a point - as far as I can tell, that Perry’s selection is inappropriate due to his religious views, although whether or not that is true is irrelevant.  GP is not a political advocacy site.  Regardless of my own religious or political views, I resent being manipulated in this way.

That said, I’m not sure that the decision here is actually malicious.  It may simply be more likely that GP saw a politician, saw a connection between that figure and gaming, and figured that they needed content - so why not publish.  And that brings me to the problems with ESA’s response.  It was intemperate: the group came across as petty, failing to rise above a single ambiguous question.  It was equally irrelevant: they didn’t bother to attack issues, they attacked people.  Would it have been so hard to point out the irrelevance of thecomments publicly?  Or suggest why the decision to invite Perry was actually made?  It was hyperbolic: it caused the ESA to lose credibility through overheated rhetoric.  And it was unfortunately counterproductive: the ESA has had so many problems recently that this actually magnifies their relative weaknesses and makes them even more high-profile.

Suggestions: GP, be a little more selective in finding articles to publish.  And the ESA, don’t box shadows.