His whole bit on "How do we report on it?" is very odd to me. He doesn't know who to interview, and to a degree I understand why he is confused, but he's acting like interviews are the be-all end-all of journalism. That's what journalism has become I guess. They care more about clashing opinions than the facts. He talks about how he needs someone with "credentials", but we don't need credentials to talk about the facts of GG, which is the most important part since we're a leaderless movement and not an echo chamber. GG is almost entirely fact-based, and all of our evidence is archived and independent verifiable whenever someone independence put in some effort to simply look at the evidence.  It's like if you came to me looking for a cat and I pointed to a box labeled "cat" and you heard meowing, but you refused to simply open the box and check because you couldn't verify whether I was a cat expert or not. The problem is he is looking for an expert on the culture of the "movement" and not an expert on the facts. Journalists who can't figure out who to interview want people who will tell them about #gamergate as this dramatic moment in history, instead of about the reason #gamergate exists, which is easily verifiable ethical failings.