Somewhat related: I'm sick of a number of these journalists hiding behind this line/logic:
'The REASON gamers are upset is that they are no longer the majority/'in power' of the gaming scene or story and that they are dying off and losing their hold on the culture they helped to create. So this makes them mad!'
Or maybe they are just mad because you (and some ((certainly not all)) of your colleagues) really want to write 'important' novels and articles that get acclaim from academia and the intlligencia and are trying to force your obsession with being known as intellectuals* onto a hobby/medium that -for the most part- doesn't give 2 shits about you.
*Note that ACTUALLY BEING an intellectual is a very different thing than WANTING TO BE KNOWN as an intellectual. Here's a tip: if you have a desire to be known for being an intellectual, you probably aren't one.
Related: One the loudest reporter voices on this 'new game journalism' side has several times written about how 'old' game designers can't handle the 'new game scene' and are lashing out.
Frankly, as an 'old' game designer, I don't really care about the new or old game scene. These types of journalists are clearly and truly deep up in their own rectums if they think I (or many of my colleagues) give 2 shits about being featured on NPR or some such shit. I'd trade 10 profiles of how 'important' and 'cutting edge I am in The New Yorker for a MONTH of our new game staying on the front page of NEOGAF.
And newsflash: if new game journalists inspire gamers to demand 'more' to such an extent that my 'non-more' games (and thus my career in games) becomes obsolete, that is OK! For some reason, some of these writers seem to think 'going out of style' is the ultimate horror show for so many of us (which clearly says much more about them). But it's not that big of a deal to many of us because we can make games whether we are paid or not, just like so many of us have been doing since we were kids.