ort ur ously ▁complex ". ▁As ▁a ▁movement , ▁it ▁had ▁no ▁official ▁leaders ▁or ▁clearly ▁defined ▁ag enda . ▁Because ▁of ▁its ▁anonymous ▁membership , ▁lack ▁of ▁organization ▁and ▁leader less ▁nature , ▁sources ▁differ ▁as ▁to ▁the ▁goals ▁or ▁mission ▁of ▁G amer gate ▁and ▁defining ▁it ▁has ▁been ▁difficult . ▁Frank ▁L ant z ▁of ▁NY U ' s ▁Game ▁Center ▁wrote ▁that ▁he ▁could ▁not ▁find ▁" a ▁single ▁explanation ▁of ▁a ▁coh er ent ▁G amer gate ▁position ". ▁Christopher ▁Grant , ▁editor - in - ch ief ▁of ▁Pol ygon , ▁told ▁the ▁Columbia ▁Journal ism ▁Review : ▁" The ▁closest ▁thing ▁we ' ve ▁been ▁able ▁to ▁divine ▁is ▁that ▁it ' s ▁noise . ▁It ' s ▁cha os   [ ...] ▁all ▁you ▁can ▁do ▁is ▁find ▁patterns . ▁And ▁ultimately ▁G amer gate ▁will ▁be ▁defined — I ▁think ▁has ▁been ▁defined — by ▁some ▁of ▁its ▁bas est ▁elements ." ▁ ▁As ▁the ▁thre ats ▁expanded , ▁international ▁media ▁focused ▁on ▁G amer gate ' s ▁violent , ▁mis og yn istic ▁element ▁and ▁its ▁in ability ▁to ▁present ▁a ▁coh er ent ▁message . ▁Bob ▁Stuart , ▁in ▁The ▁Daily ▁Te legraph , ▁reported ▁that ▁" G amer gate ▁has ▁since ▁sw elled ▁into ▁an ▁unw ield y ▁movement ▁with ▁no ▁apparent ▁leaders , ▁mission ▁statement , ▁or ▁a ims ▁beyond ▁calling ▁out ▁' social ▁justice ▁war riors '.   [ ...] ▁When ▁members ▁of ▁the ▁games ▁industry ▁are ▁being ▁driven