Let’s Edit: Jim Sterling vs. Carole Lieberman

Jim Sterling is, to say the least, a polarizing figure in the videogame community. When freelancing, he can speak articulately, even intelligently, about videogame culture; however, in his day job at Destructoid, he tends towards a much cruder style. He and the site are fairly strongly associated with each other, and Destructoid’s community is swarming with fans of The Sterling Persona–a persona prone to rants and profanity and kneejerk unresearched reactions to minor news events and questionable headlines suggesting that a certain game will “scare the foreskin off you” or that you ought to “stuff these Dynasty Warriors 7 screens down your urethra”. His sense of humor is fairly boorish and scatological. He’ll make references to both male and female genitalia with wild abandon. While Thoughtful Intelligent Jim Sterling does exist, the bulk of his output sees him writing from the perspective of a loutish fratboy, and that’s the general view of him.

Games journalists often treat women questionably–many of the articles you’ll read on Kotaku seem to be written from the perspective of a five year old who’s suddenly realized the difference between girls and boys. Sterling has that same infantile fascination, and in fact he’s sort of gotten himself in trouble a few times because of this. (I say “sort of” because there usually aren’t any repercussions for his behavior–a bit of clucking in certain corners of the internet is usually all, and it amounts to nothing but fuel for The Legend.) Most recently, there was some sort of kerfuffle on Twitter between him and a woman (username “daphaknee”) who sent him some sexually suggestive fanart (link not worksafe) of Sterling and God of War director David Jaffe. Sterling called her a “cunt”, among other things, and seemed surprised when the spat exploded and people accused him of hating women. Sterling defended himself, essentially stating that he was using those words to get out of her the same reaction she was intending on provoking in him. I personally believe it was simply a case of two trolls who are too good at their jobs, but that’s not the point. It doesn’t matter whether or not Sterling intended the remarks misogynistically–although it’s fairly difficult to use a historically misogynistic term in a non-misogynistic way–he should have responded to this incident by treading carefully when it comes to the subject of women. Toning things down would be a good course of action–would bolster his admittedly questionable claim that he meant it in good faith. Sterling, however, proved that he’s no slave to PR by writing a series of articles about a psychiatrist who holds a different view of videogame violence than he does. It’s probably not a good idea to write articles that include rape jokes shortly after finding yourself on the receiving end of accusations that you hate women. Let’s edit.

(Original text of the post in italics. My comments in bold.)

Psychologist: Videogames to blame for rape attacks [While this was a minor point in the Fox News article, it was far from the only thing mentioned, and she wasn’t the only person quoted. From the very beginning it seems you have a vendetta against her. Why is this?]

Sexual assault is on the rise, and videogames are to blame! In asking the question, “Is Bulletstorm the worst game video game in the world?” [The actual title is “Is Bulletstorm the Worst Video Game in the World”], FOX [sic] News (who else?) has assembled the world’s leading experts to find out just how damaging games can be — or they found some maniac who thinks games cause rape. [This is an extremely inelegant construction. Nearly every word you wrote is dripping with sarcasm--and your phrasing is particularly tortured in order to get this viewpoint across. Counter the article by pointing out and contradicting its inaccuracies, not by making fun of it.]

“The increase in rapes can be attributed in large part to the playing out of [sexual] scenes in video games,” said psychologist Carol [sic] Lieberman. If you’re expecting her to back that up, don’t hold your breath — that is literally all she had to offer. [Rather, that is the only quote that Fox News printed. Look at the physical quote itself--the word "sexual" is written in brackets, meaning that this wasn't the exact quote she said. Usually, brackets are used in this way if the original quote simply included a pronoun which refers to an earlier statement. This quote was fairly obviously taken from a longer conversation with Lieberman. As a writer, you should have realized this. Incidentally, it would have been a fairly easy matter to contradict her comments with an authoritative source. Five minutes of searching brought up a study from the United States Bureau of Justice Statistics, which suggests that the rate of reported rape is indeed decreasing. Nowhere in your article do you show any evidence that you thought to search for any statistics--your reaction is a kneejerk one made without any critical thought. You happen to be right--but that's sheer coincidence, not any accomplishment on your part.]

Clinical psychologist Dr. Jerry Weichman had a little more: “Violent video games like Bulletstorm have the potential to send the message that violence and insults with sexual innuendos are the way to handle disputes and problems.” [You include this quote with no real commentary on it. I'm glad you did--it will put one of your later comments in a very interesting light.]

Looks like FOX [sic] News is gearing up to inadvertently promote the game [Odd choice of link--it leads to one of your own previews of the game; the implication is that it would lead to something on Fox News’s site], which releases [Using this verb intransitively is a mistake--you should phrase it as “which will be released”] on February 22. The full article is a highly entertaining read, especially if you’re over 65, stupid, and you think the Moon [sic] is held up in the sky by fairy magic. [Is this the best way you're able to critique the article--by creating a bizarre strawman? Surely, if your opinion on it is unassailable, you'd be able to come up with a better way of critiquing it. The article is very broad and contains several weak areas you could have picked at in order to discredit the entirety. It's not a very good article and yet it proves its points better than you prove yours.]

Now if you’ll excuse me, there are some vaginas that have not been raped yet [While your intent is to be jocular, you’re not only being too flippant, you’re making an incredibly tasteless joke, especially considering the subject matter under discussion], and Kirby told me I need to “get on dat sh*t!” [I'm not aware of the provenance of this in-joke. Neither are the vast majority of your readers. Find a better ending.]

In and of itself, this article is relatively innocuous. It’s certainly not any good, of course–it’s not fleshed out enough to be a legitimate opinion piece, it’s not objective enough to function as a news piece, it tells us nothing more than Sterling’s negative views about Fox News, and it’s poorly written, but other than the ending, there’s nothing particularly horrible about it. It’s his subsequent treatments of the subject where he moves from being a simple poor writer to one who has a questionable and genuinely damaging viewpoint. As a result of Lieberman’s comments, a spate of negative reviews appeared on Amazon for her book Bad Girls: Why Men Love Them & How Good Girls Can Learn Their Secrets. Sterling followed up his first piece with a post about these reviews, one written in a nasty tone:

“Games cause rape’”psychologist’s book gets raped [We could really stop here. The tastelessness of this headline encapsulates everything that’s wrong with these articles, with your persona, with the site you write for, with the more unsavory elements of the videogame community in general.]

Carol [sic] Lieberman, the psychologist and author who claimed that videogames encourage young men to go out and rape has been hit with swift Internet justice. [What is the value of internet justice, incidentally? This could be a good opportunity to question whether fake Amazon reviews are an effective method of debate.] In a move that mirrors the way in which Cooper Lawrence was punished [I don't like the use of the word "punished"--it gives a very unseemly atmosphere. While Lawrence's interview was certainly questionable, there are some disturbingly misogynistic elements to this statement. The word “punish” has connotations of the schoolroom and of parental discipline. Cooper Lawrence and Carole Lieberman are naughty girls who did a bad thing by daring to have an opinion, and Daddy has to give her a spanking.] for telling lies about Mass Effect, [“Telling lies” is not how you would describe Lawrence’s admittedly egregious errors--it’s something you’d accuse a little girl of doing.] Lieberman’s latest book has been mauled in Amazon’s user reviews section. [Dr. Jerry Weichman, who was quoted in the previous article, also has a book available on Amazon. As of the time of this writing, he has four reviews, all from people who actually read the book and have nothing but good things to say about it. Why didn’t you check to see if his book had been hit? If there are no misogynistic undertones to this whole scenario, why is it that two women have been “punished” while this man has not?]

Yesterday, Bad Girls only had six reviews and a five-star user rating. Today, it has thirty-seven, with a two-star rating. A childish recourse, yes, [So why glorify it?] but it actually worked against Lawrence [How, exactly? You should back this up with statistics which show that sales genuinely dropped, and show a definite connection between reviews and lowered sales. Otherwise this statement seems simply mythological and self-serving], and maybe it will teach Lieberman that spouting off ignorant bullshit for the salivation of FOX [sic] readers does have repercussions. [Again, what are these repercussions? This article is written from the perspective that writing nasty low-scored reviews is a form of "winning". How is this the case?]

“I have it on high authority that people reading books with sexy leg outlines tends to lead to a rise in rape victims,” reads one review. “Most of these victims never even saw it coming. They were casually in a store aisle questioning what millions see in Twilight when all the sudden, rape happens. Not even the fancy romantic rape, with months and months of stalking. Nope, just pure sudden rape. Must be those videogames.” [Remember how Weichman made that statement in the first article about how videogames influence people to think that "insults with sexual innuendos are the way to handle disputes and problems"? This review, which you're proudly listing as a just blow against hysterical moral guardians, is exactly that. You are proving him right.]

Another review called the book “Mein Kampf meets Playboy.” [You've quoted exactly two reviews--how representative of a sample are these?] It would appear that, while videogames do not cause rape, slagging videogames off without evidence or logic can lead to you getting forcefully f*cked in the ass. [And here's where you've exactly proven Lieberman's point. You have set up a scenario in which a woman has done something wrong, deserves to be punished, and is indeed given retribution--and your description of this retribution is wholly in the language of sexual violence. Not only has Lieberman been metaphorically raped (in reality a bunch of people have simply given poor reviews to a book she wrote), you’ve cast it as anal rape, and you're standing back and cheering this assault. A likely argument is that you're simply making a joke and using this particular language because of the subject at hand. Any sane person would agree that gang rape is an extremely traumatic torture, a horrifying event that irrevocably scars its victims. You've pronounced a symbolic gang rape upon her as just deserts. That you've managed to do so as lightly as you have implies that you're unable to feel any empathy for rape victims--just schadenfreude. If that doesn't demonstrate that you've become desensitized to rape, I don't know what does.]

I can’t help but think about professionalism and image when I read these articles. I definitely find the Fox News article to be a masterpiece of obvious cherrypicking, out-of-context quotes, and questionable research. It’s a poorly-written article and its premise is unsupportable–but at least it appears to have been written by an adult. Sterling’s piece, by contrast, is written in the guise of an infantile, smirking fratboy who is pointing and laughing at a woman who got slapped down for speaking. What do you tell a pop psychiatrist with 37 bad Amazon reviews? Nothing, you already told her 37 times.

As the Twitter debacle demonstrated, Sterling does not always respond well to his critics–he’s happy to let fly a series of names and insults that aren’t exactly defendable. For all his protestations that he’s not a misogynist, he’s certainly comfortable with the use of misogynistic language, which to me indicates that he’s either lying or that he’s unaware what words mean.

The videogame news site GamePolitics gave Lieberman the opportunity to expand upon and explain the remark that Fox News quoted. (That’s right–instead of rampantly speculating on something which may or may not have been taken out of context, they did some real work and went to the source!) She defends herself well in the interview–she explains her points while still sticking to her original statements. Given the choice between how she presents herself and how Sterling words his response, I find myself almost siding with her–but let’s see how Sterling covered this story:

“Games cause rape” psychologist says even more dumb crap [Rather than giving us a chance to read her comments and attempt to understand where she’s coming from, you’ve made up our minds for us before we even come to the story itself. The phrase is “poisoning the well”.]

Ignorant psychologist [There's bias, and then there's this. You seem to think you can prove your points by putting labels on people and hoping that does the work for you. Critique her statements. Don't make a judgment on her--that weakens your argument] Carole Lieberman has quickly made a name for herself among gamers after claiming that games like Bulletstorm can be blamed for increasing sexual assault cases. Fortunately, she has decided to come forth and qualify her statements … by saying even more backwards shite. [Again. Let her words speak for themselves. If she's so obviously in the wrong, then her statements should be easy to refute. Your attacks on her seem like you're reaching at straws.]

“My FoxNews.com statements were taken out of context and made to sound more inflammatory than they were meant,” she stated. [You don't make it clear that this is GamePolitics's interview. The way you've written this article, it implies that you've spoken to her. Unless someone clicks the link to the original source, it's a fairly logical, if mistaken, conclusion to assume that this is a Destructoid interview.] “Nonetheless, I stand behind my view that media violence, and particularly videogame violence is harmful. Thousands of studies have shown that the more violent media a person consumes, the more desensitized to violence and the more aggressive they become.

“When this violence is sexualized it is even more stimulating. And rape is a violent crime. Furthermore, research has shown that, not only do people become more aggressive in a general sense, but they also act out copycat violence in response to behaviors seen in movies, TV shows, and video games.”

Lieberman, in trying to contextualize her statements, has only made herself look like a liar. [How?] There’s not even one thousand studies backing up her claims, let alone several thousand, and those studies that do exist are questionable at best. [Why? What do they say? How are they questionable?] Just read Grand Theft Childhood for examples of the kind of crap [Again, don't editorialize in such a blatant way] she’s talking about. [What exactly is Grand Theft Childhood? A book? A website? What sort of things does it say? Don’t make the reader do your work for you.]

Lieberman also described her background, but again, she did nothing to really justify her claims.

“Since the FoxNews.com article didn’t describe my background, it made it seem as though I was simply making a flippant remark,” she argued. “Actually, I have  been a researcher in media violence for over twenty years and, as such, have testified before Congress several times, been the head of the National Coalition on TV Violence, and have stopped the ‘Schwarzenegger rocket’ (a NASA rocket that had planned to have an ad for Last Action Hero on its exterior). I was also invited to contribute an essay to Larry King’s book Beyond A Reasonable Doubt, about video game violence.” [Actually, this goes a long way towards justifying her claims. Her expertise and knowledge are being called into question. She's listed some of the highlights of her CV, all of which show her to be a nationally-recognized expert on media violence, one who has been keeping up with the latest studies. She has spoken to government and popular audiences. How does any statement in this paragraph show her to not know what she's talking about?]

Admittedly, that’s a lot of years researching the stuff, but if she’s been doing it for such a long time, she should know that there are just as many studies arguing against her claims as there are ones backing her up. [I have several problems with this statement, not the least of which is your earlier dismissal of the number of studies as well as their quality. You need to make it clear why one set of studies is better or more accurate than the other. Along those lines, it's likely that she's aware of these studies and disagrees with them based on her own research.] She’d have heard about the Byron Report, which says that no conclusive videogame violence test exists, and in the case of children, such a test would be impossible, ethically. In declaring her years of research, she has only betrayed her ignorance and prejudice in favor of the weak studies that back her up. [Again, what makes the Byron Report more accurate than any of the of the studies she's mentioned? Can you demonstrate that it's undoubtedly stronger and more accurate? If not, you're betraying your own ignorance and prejudice.]

Finally, she addressed the negative reviews of her book on Amazon, saying that they “prove” her claims that games make people aggressive. Because, of course, it is the fault of videogames that people decided to give her a taste of her own ignorant medicine. [She accuses these reviews of having an aggressive attitude, and you proudly defend them--”the bitch deserved it” is the upshot of this.]

“I have received an onslaught of abusive emails, phone calls, and angry comments from gamers to the point of harassment… What has been most disturbing is the Amazon-bombing that gamers have done, regarding a book that has nothing whatsoever to do with video games. I wrote Bad Girls: Why Men Love Them & How Good Girls Can Learn Their Secrets in an effort to help men and women find the love they deserve. The so-called reviews have served to prove that video games do make people more aggressive, indeed.” [In this quote, she portrays herself as an innocent victim. It’s strange that you include it without comment.]

I can play that game, too: [What game? Is the goal of your piece to debunk her arguments, or to "win" while holding your hand out for high-fives?]

The so-called reviews have served to prove that FOX [sic] news ["News" should be capitalized] articles do make people more aggressive, indeed. [First off, you seem to be confusing Fox News with Carole Lieberman. She was simply quoted in the article. Second, I realize what you're trying to do, but you're not going to debunk Lieberman's questionable cause fallacy by committing your own.]

It’s just that fucking easy to back up your ludicrous opinions with vague correlation. [You should know best--these articles have been nothing but a series of incoherent points which barely disguise that their purpose is to set Lieberman up as a pinata.] Which is how those “thousands” of studies are made, indeed. [Your understanding of the methodology of the construction of these studies is inaccurate. While groups often cast statistics in a light that favors their thesis, you seem to imply they’re made up completely. You’re accusing Lieberman of serious ethical breaches--have you done anything resembling the necessary research in order to prove this?]

This has been, perhaps, one of the hardest articles I’ve ever had to write. Sterling’s articles in general come from a very disturbing place; if he’s writing from a persona, it’s a loathsome, disgusting one, full of venomous scatology, a mocking distaste for sexuality, a reduction of people to crude exaggerated Sheela-na-Gigs of genitalia. In the world of Sterling, we are wholly our bodies, and our bodies are abominations. There is no beauty in being human. The sex act is one of filth. This is a worldview that is pathological. What we have here is not humor. Sterling is a wretched figure who has managed to get a fair share of notoriety–I wouldn’t call it “fame”–for airing out his neuroses; what I find particularly dismaying is that he’s managed to find an audience that isn’t immediately turned off by his degrading writing—rather, they identify with it.

Destructoid is not a support group for those with a phobia of the body. It is one of the most prominent and influential videogame news sites. Articles like this are irresponsible at best and actively harmful at worst. Fox News can, legitimately and accurately, quote Sterling’s articles. This is not a private conversation or a joke between friends–these are public statements. Sterling traditionally attempts to mitigate his own offensiveness by saying that he’s not a journalist and that he ought not to be held to journalistic standards. There is nothing on the site or in his articles that makes this clear, however; to the eye of anyone who does not follow the site, his articles look like poorly-written news. That the top of the blog section on the main page entreats gamers to email or start their own blog if they “Got News” does nothing to dissuade this perception. Neither does Destructoid’s own About page, which boasts that it publishes “40-60 pieces of video game industry news and commentary” every day. It doesn’t make a clear differentiation between the two, and Sterling cloaks his opinions in the guise of news.

Perception and reputation are everything. Sterling can deny claims of misogyny all he wants, and perhaps in his daily life he genuinely has neutral or even warm feelings towards women. And yet–his regular use of misogynistic language trumps his protests. We can’t point out any differences between Sterling’s writings and the writings of an actual misogynist, unless the only exception is that Sterling’s articles are equally misandryst. He is not a good representative for the gaming community. His is a face that does not represent us, any of our friends, and–if the comments we’ve received over time are any indication–the vast majority of our listeners and readers. In short, Jim Sterling is an affront to every intelligent, thoughtful, and adult gamer.

And as such it is equally irresponsible for Destructoid to keep him in their employ. It is irresponsible for sites like The Escapist to publish his writings even when they contain no actively offensive content because it means they’re condoning his larger viewpoint. It is irresponsible to view his posts. His very career is a stain on all of our reputations.

The purpose of Let’s Edit is to point out areas where writers have misstepped–where there hasn’t been enough research done, where press releases have been treated as gospel, where inaccurate information has been left uncorrected. In truth, those are the easy articles to write. While they may represent games journalists as undereducated, undertalented, and underedited, the ultimate lesson that I take from them is that we’re so close. We have a press that is populated largely by enthusiasts–if that enthusiasm could be married to some better technical skills and an understanding of journalistic standards and ethics, we’d be on our way to having an extremely strong press. But I find Sterling’s writing to be irredeemable. He has made a mockery of our community, of our hobby, and of us as individuals. He drives all of our names through the fecal cesspool where his worldview dwells. We have jobs, or we’re pursuing educations, we have families, and friends, and active social lives, and are well-adjusted people who are making our own ways through the world. We have an active interest in portraying ourselves as the adults that we are. Acceptance of Jim Sterling and his ilk goes directly contrary to every rational and sane aspect of our lives. To allow him a presence in our community is to assume, however tenuous, the mantle of the mouth-breathing obsessive terrified of corporeality, of sexuality, of women, of maturity. I do not agree with Carole Lieberman–my views are closer to Sterling’s when it comes to the matter of videogame violence. But the damage done by Sterling–and by associating with the quislings who allow him a space in our community–-is much more insidious than anything Fox News could ever do. They don’t need to break out statistics and experts in order to bring censure on the videogame community. All they need to do is link to Destructoid.

Want more Let’s Edit? We’ve got it!

[Update: It didn't click until last night, but Dr. Lieberman is actually a psychiatrist, not a psychologist. The error is Sterling's--Fox News accurately refers to her as a psychiatrist in their article--but we ought to have double-checked before publication. (For the record, Dr. Weichman is indeed a psychologist.) We have fixed our inaccurate use of the term but have, of course, left it untouched in Sterling's article. Consider this a blanket comment which covers his confusion over her title, and apologies to Dr. Lieberman for the oversight.]

Filed Under: Blog

Tags: featured, letsedit