OPINION

Mar. 01, 2021 | The Mercury

ALESANDRA BELL | OUTREACH EDITOR Editing with (more) care

“Stability through civility” was poorly fact-checked, edited.

DANIEL VALDEZ

COURTESY

Op-eds can be dicey, to say the least. Remember last summer when The New York Times published an incendiary editorial by Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton advocating military intervention to curb BLM protests? The decision to print that authoritarian garbage was so ill-advised that the newspaper’s opinion editor resigned and the outlet’s op-ed process was overhauled. The opinion piece “Stability Through Civility,” posted on The Mercury’s website on Feb. 1, is not nearly as significant of a public danger as Cotton’s article. But the fact that it passed through The Mercury’s editorial board with little to no quality edits makes it a more disheartening read than anything The Gray Lady has published this century.

Jimmy Teeling’s op-ed levels most of the blame for the Jan. 6 Capitol riot on Democrats and riots during BLM protests for making “political violence acceptable in America.” That contrarian viewpoint requires air-tight logic and relevant sources to back it up, but the structure of the piece does not directly relate to his argument or refute his claims when they are demonstrably false. For example, Teeling repeatedly minimizes the number of Capitol rioters (“a few Trump supporters,” “a small fraction”): a convenient obfuscation of the fact that over 200 people have been arrested on charges associated with the riot.

Teeling also claims that Democratic politicians encouraged violence by BLM, citing a USA Today article about Rep. Ayanna Pressley. The link quotes Pressley’s August 2020 statement on MSNBC that “there will be unrest in the streets for as long as there is unrest in our lives.” Using that quote as proof that Democratic politicians encouraged political violence is a stretch that would make Mr. Fantastic wince. Teeling also attempts to prove this claim by linking a Washington Post article about Kamala Harris promoting the Minnesota Freedom Fund bail fund. However, that article ultimately asserts that MFF funds did not lead to the release of “violent rioters” who then committed further crimes, contradicting Teeling’s claim. These are rhetorical inconsistencies and dishonest reaches that should have been caught by The Mercury’s editorial board, including its opinion editor, managing editor, copy editor and editor-in-chief. The lack of apparent care extends to the article’s formatting, which leaves “Republican” and “Democrat” in lowercase several times like a Billie Eilish song title. Teeling might as well have copied and pasted his rough draft directly onto The Mercury’s website.

I do not blame The Mercury as an institution, as former Mercury editor-in-chief Cindy Folefack tweeted: “95% of The Mercury’s staff had nothing to do with this and no say in its publication.” She urged those frustrated with the decision to “take it to Merc leadership,” which is why I focus my criticism primarily on the newspaper’s editorial board. By granting its platform to such sloppy rhetoric without exercising due editorial diligence, The Mercury’s editorial board has damaged the credibility of its organization and UTD Student Media overall.

So where do we go from here? This journalistic and ethical mistake highlights two major responsibilities for both readers and journalists in general. As readers, we must stay critical of any media

OPINION

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: The Mercury should do better

CINDY FOLEFACK, BHARHAV ARIMILLI, MIRIAM PERCIVAL

COURTESY

The Mercury has begun descending into a den of right-wing misinformation. As former editors-in-chief, it is heartbreaking to watch the paper that we worked to make a legitimate outlet become weaponized in this way.

Jimmy Teeling’s Feb. 1 op-ed, “Stability through civility,” is emblematic of The Mercury’s recent habit of publishing opinion pieces that are demonstrably false at best and bigoted at worst.

One often-repeated – but misused – rule of journalism is to always tell both sides of a story. There are not, in fact, two sides to every story. Racism is wrong. The truth is the truth. Facts are not political. These aren’t up for debate.

There was a litany of problems in Teeling’s op-ed, from claiming that only a “few” Trump supporters stormed the Capitol when in fact hundreds were caught on camera doing so, to suggesting that supporters’ suspicion of voter fraud fueled the attack, despite no evidence of widespread voter fraud.

The author then quotes Martin Luther King, Jr. to justify the violence at the Capitol. How would King feel about his words being used to defend domestic terrorists and white supremacists? Teeling also attempts to draw a false equivalency between the Capitol riot and the violence at the Black Lives Matter protests last summer, failing to note that the latter occurred in response to repeated episodes of police brutality, extrajudicial killings and systemic racism.

Teeling’s use of legitimate news articles to support his revisionist claims was particularly problematic. He cites a USA Today article to claim Democratic politicians “encouraged the violent actions” from Black Lives Matter and Antifa protestors. The article he linked made no mention of Antifa, and the only violence discussed in the article referenced threats Rep. Ayanna Pressley received from white supremacists.

Additionally, the other article used to support his point of Democrats encouraging violence shows a tweet from Vice President Kamala Harris with a link to the Minnesota Freedom Fund, hardly a call to arms. Teeling also ignores the fact that several Capitol rioters have since come forward stating that they were following Trump’s orders.

Did The Mercury’s editors read through the sources Teeling cited? If the current Mercury administration is unwilling to engage in basic fact-checking, it has no business publishing opinions.

Teeling is free to rail against the “mainstream media” all he wants, but a cursory glance at the facts of the Jan. 6 attack make one thing clear: the only people responsible were the rioters, Trump and Republican lawmakers who stoked division by repeating false election fraud claims.

As former editors-in-chief, we’ve dealt with opinion contributors who have relaxed relationships with truth. Let us be clear: having the opportunity to write an opinion is not an excuse to peddle conspiracy theories. An opinion requires basis in fact. What we’ve seen from the current administration of The Mercury is a failure to hold opinion writers accountable to this very simple standard.

Cindy Folefack Editor-in-Chief, 2019-2020

Bhargav Arimilli Editor-in-Chief, 2018-2019

Miriam Percival Editor-in-Chief, 2017-2018

OPINION

Mar. 1 2021 | The Mercury

Scrutiny of leaders is key

Criticism of politicians integral to level-headed society

FATIMAH AZEEM

MERCURY STAFF

The Jan. 6 Capitol Hill riot and its aftermath are a reminder that we must be critical of our political leaders – especially the ones we might favor – to avoid blind allegiance and knee-jerk reactions.

Post-election and pre-Capitol riot, former president Donald Trump gave speeches on how the election was fraudulent, speeches that appealed to his supporters’ disbelief in his loss but were filled with fallacies and false information. In his “Save America” speech, Trump said “make no mistake, this election was stolen from you, from me and from the country. And not a single swing state has conducted a comprehensive audit to remove the illegal ballots.” These claims are false. Popular theories on election fraud such as votes being cast on behalf of the dead and mail-in-ballots being rigged have been debunked. In addition, all states, including swing states, conducted comprehensive audits to ensure accurate election results. Georgia, a key swing state in the 2020 election, reviewed statewide ballots three times via Trump’s request, and each time, the majority votes were confirmed to be in favor of Biden.

Trump isn’t the only political leader guilty of logical fallacies and misinformation. A study done by pragmatics researcher Fareed Al-Hindawi showed that 26.66% of former President Barack Obama’s war speeches contained appeal to fear fallacies and 21.66% of his electoral speeches contained appeal to interest fallacies. In a war speech, Obama said “I don’t oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats...” This statement is fallacious because Obama does not distinguish the difference between a dumb or rash war and one that is not. Through powerful language, the statement appeals to the emotions of Obama’s audience, but it doesn’t present any factual information to back why his audience should support what he is saying.

Speeches such as Trump’s “Save America” and Obama’s war speech show that political leaders have the potential to misguide. Though we can’t control what’s being said, we can control how we react to it. It’s up to us to become knowledgeable on topics our leaders speak on so that we can be comfortable with holding them accountable. For example, if a politician quotes Martin Luther King Jr., research the context in which the quote is being said to see if it’s being misused. If a leader you like makes claims about COVID-19, look up CDC guidelines – or guidelines from other reputable health sources – to ensure that the information is accurate. And if it isn’t, don’t feel obligated to adhere to their claims just because they’re your favorite politician. Being critical of leaders, particularly the ones we subscribe to, doesn’t mean that we support them any less. It means that we are keeping ourselves safe from misinformation and the subsequent actions that could result.

Being critical of our leaders also doesn’t mean that we have to be overly skeptical. We don’t necessarily need to doubt or be suspicious of everything that a politician says, but we should be willing to fact check claims and acknowledge when something is false to avoid overlookingfacts. Over-skepticism can be detrimental, as seen in the Capitol riot where – in addition to being egged on by Trump to question the election’s integrity – conservatives were overly doubtful of a free and fair election system.

When it comes to getting comfortable with being critical, we can start by recognizing fallacies in our personal lives with friends or family members. If someone close to you says something you disagree with, consider their reasoning before reacting. If you find fault in what they’re saying, don’t be afraid to point it out to them; acknowledging the fault allows both of you to practice being aware of your speech and reactions in a familiar setting. In addition to this, we can practice diversifying our points of view. For example, if you typically listen to liberal-leaning talk show hosts, consider listening to more conservative voices to get a feel for the opposite side. By doing this, you have a chance to break down the opposing party’s argument and familiarize yourself with specific fallacies in their speech that are causing you to disagree. You can even apply the same analytical strategies to your own political leanings. By normalizing these behaviors, we are setting ourselves up to stray away from blind following and its resulting actions.

JACKY CHAO |MERCURY STAFF

JACKY CHAO |MERCURY STAFF

It’s time to stop crunch time

Crunch in the video game industry is unsustainable, needs to be phased out

ALESANDRA BELL

MERCURY STAFF

As students enter the game industry, it is important that they recognize their responsibility in advocating for more sustainable industry labor practices.

Every year ATEC enrolls upwards of 1,800 students in its various undergraduate and post-graduate programs. In a technology hub like Dallas, it is not surprising that many ATEC students hope to break into the competitive, fast-paced and exacting video game industry. Yet, the interplay of demands from publishing companies and studio policies, as well as the pressures of commercial success, place high levels of stress on game developers across the country. One of the symptoms of this interplay is an industry practice known as “crunch.”

When a game studio faces a sudden or impending deadline, the push to complete a game is called crunch time. In effect, a studio and its developers attempt to meet the deadline by working long hours daily, sometimes for months on end, in order to condense the time it will take to ship a game and get it on shelves.

During his time as a junior environment artist at Junction Point, ATEC professor Adam Chandler worked 80 hours a week for about a month and a half while working on “Epic Mickey 2”.

“I mean at that point I was young enough and this was my first big industry job right out of college and I was just willing to take it,” Chandler said.

Students coming into the industry are often given advice that echoes the sentiment of “take what you can get.” ATEC Ph.D. student and game developer Eric Miller received similar advice himself before entering the field.

“They always say take your first game job, whatever it is, and go…which isn’t bad advice, but it’s definitely a double-edged sword,” Miller said.

During his first game job at Electronic Arts, Miller helped develop three games in two weeks that went live on the app store immediately after completion. Miller said that while he crunched during his time at EA, his motivation to prove himself to the studio as a contract hire influenced his working patterns.

“It really highlighted internal-external motivations … You have to manage both, right?” Miller said. “You have to think about [both] in order to stay connected to the rest of your life.”

As much as the normalization of crunch in the industry is blamed on poor project management – such as in studios like Naughty Dog, where there is a notorious lack of a production department – the normalization of this unsustainable and brutal practice is in part sustained by developers. Chandler said that crunch didn’t just affect himself, but his friends and team members.

“I think that the trap is that it’s easy to feel like [coworkers] are your family because you’re spending literally your entire day with them and they understand what you’re going through and you’re all going through [the same] thing,” Chandler said.

Studios that capitalize on the willingness of young developers to crunch often do so at the peril of losing veterans in the industry. An especially long and stressful development cycle finished off with a round of crunch has been the reason for veterans leaving the industry for indefinite periods of time, or even permanently on several occasions. Crunch isn’t a sustainable practice because of the dire mental health consequences and heavy loss of industry knowledge in the areas that need it most, such as in leadership positions.

However, games do not have to be completed under the extreme pressure of crunch. Supergiant proved that with its 2020 release of “Hades”. The company is an independent studio, with a core team of seven that has been together for ten years and ten hires from different projects. As the lives of team members have changed, they’ve implemented policies that respond to those changes. Their retention rate is 100% compared to Naughty Dog’s 30%. While Supergiant has a notably smaller team, it’s their commitment to making changes based on the team’s needs that matters. In an industry where change is highly demanded but rarely implemented, Supergiant represents an ideal we should work towards, even if it cannot be exactly replicated.

Chandler said that being aware of company practices while on the hunt for a job is especially important.

“I think it’s easy to fall into the trap of, ‘oh, this is such a great opportunity for me… I’ll do anything to earn the opportunity.’” Chandler said. “I think normalizing that there is something that the company needs from you, but there’s something you need from the company too – it’s a two-way street.”

Game development is always going to be hard work, but it can also be very rewarding work. The cost of human capital is high, so even if you love games, neglecting the practices that create them hurts you as a developer and the industry as a whole. Call out your favorite developers and companies when their practices are questionable. Demand transparency and candid conversations about creative practices and company policies. Good games require a sustainable workforce.