RSS
Home
How to spot a biased, research-free article
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
As many N4G readers know by now Valve is forbidden to have an opinion on the basis that they are a video game developer.
Some have even noted that when an employee like Chet Faliszek says something controversial in a one on one interview, all 190 employees that make up the company also state the same quotations and in fact founder Gabe Newell somehow said them both louder and previous to anyone else. Of course, his weight and what people plan on doing to his wife are both integral parts of the comments in question.
Reading the top material on N4G for a day or so gives you an understanding of what the majority of readers are looking for when they come to the site. They're looking for legit game developers/journalists anyone with a URL to write an article that pushes their buttons, so in turn they can express their anger into what they feel is a completely reasonable response. Trolls are fed, flame wars rise, and most importantly the article benefits from it; and to think most reputable sites shy away from this kind of stuff.
Given all of that, it seems necessary for those in search of actual news on 'News 4 Gamers' to have the ability to identify this type of article and disregard its content as biased, under-researched and/or provocative only for the sake of being provocative. The next time you find yourself concerned over whether the article you're reading belongs in the garbage pile or not, ask yourself these questions:
1. Does the author refer to an entire company as a living, breathing, statement making entity, ignoring that the comments were made by a single person who wasn't releasing an official statement representing said company?
2. Does the author appear to write more than he reads?
3. Is the article on N4G between 500-1,000,000 degrees, with a title that ends in either a question mark or a controversial statement in the absence of legitimate news or valid insight?
4. Does the author blindly insist that the person/place/thing in question shut up as they incessantly continue to voice their own clearly biased opinion?
5. Does the author outright tell the audience they're biased by prefacing his/her 'opinion piece' with something along the lines of: "Granted I write my column on a Playstation website, that gives me a vested interest in the Sony side of things."?
These are all warning signs that you have come across something that wasn't written with a general audience in mind, something that doesn't progress the situation. These kind of xenophobes are interested only in building walls higher, not tearing them down.
Related Articles:
Comments
