Support NeoGAF

[Mononoke]

Kotaku got a lot of flak for running that story based off a (Tumblr/Facebook?) post. Now, a few months on, they've *not* run a story based on an Internet post. That's not disingenuous, that's them realising it was a mistake to do so first time around and not repeating that same mistake.

It's exactly the "better journalism" that people are asking for. .

Well that's fair enough. But I'll be upset if they cover another story based on allegations later down the line, when they decided to overlook this one. And I'm still curious as to why Hernandez didn't disclose her relationship to her Editor.

 

[unbias]

Strict social media guidelines should arguably be in place for gaming press websites, I think. It's not even just berating consumers that gaming press tends to do so well-- it's picking fights with colleagues where all parties involved wind up looking awful and embarrassing the sites they work for.

That said, it'll never happen. The first to do such a thing will get called out by others (not bound by said guidelines) for infringing on the right to express opinions. They'll argue that a person's opinion is his/her own and does not necessarily represent the employer.

You'd like to think that some modicum of civility would come from professionals-- or, at least, that they'd know when to respond, when to self-censor, and when to just close that social media program for awhile and do something else. It's obvious to me that this just isn't the case, and it's most unfortunate.

Oh, it is probably already in place for some places and will continue to grow. The suits will probably, eventually, start paying more attention, and then you will see rules in place similar to ESPN(I would hope). There is a reason most people on ESPN are not getting in fights, beyond them getting paid better and not needing the social platform to spread their name around. Of course, judging by some of the game press, video game consumers are worse then sports consumers, per capita.

 

[MHWilliams]

Painting gamers with a broad brush based on the actions of a few is bad, but doing the same to the press is good?

 

[jschreier]

Painting gamers with a broad brush based on the actions of a few is bad, but doing the same to the press is good?

I was just thinking the same thing!

 

[Erevador]

Painting gamers with a broad brush based on the actions of a few is bad, but doing the same to the press is good?

Yes! Great post.

 

[unbias]

Painting gamers with a broad brush based on the actions of a few is bad, but doing the same to the press is good?

I dont know what you are talking about. I made it clear in my earlier posts, that this is from a select group of people in the press.

This is quite the assumption, to assume that the few websites actually linked to most of this shit, is sending an "equality agenda" message or for trying to obtain some form of utopia. All I'm seeing out of all of this is clicks and following the leader. The big sites, IGN/Gametrailers/Gamespot/Escapist(the co-founder actually coming out and saying some of the tweets and ect are irresponsible) and ect are not caught up in any of this, so I do agree this message isnt a conspiracy about the media. I do, however, think there is a lot of circling the wagon(among this small group),

I actually clarified my talking points, earlier. And even mentioned this is already in place at some places(which should have been the give-a-way that I wasnt talking about all the press).

 

[Gsak]

Painting gamers with a broad brush based on the actions of a few is bad, but doing the same to the press is good?

The "contact the advertisers" campaign going on in #GamerGate is about specific sites and writers.

 

[Jarate]

Painting gamers with a broad brush based on the actions of a few is bad, but doing the same to the press is good?

Gaming Journalists are not only professionals and should be held to a higher standard, but they are also readily shown and not random twitter trolls.

I apologise if I paint broad strokes on people, but im not a professional writer.

Also, Schreier, me and you dont get along but your twitlonger that you posted was very good. Hopefully you can use your contacts to pass that off to some of the people who are doing this shit.

 

[MHWilliams]

I dont know what you are talking about. I made it clear in my earlier posts, that this is from a select group of people in the press.

I actually clarified my talking points, earlier. And even mentioned this is already in place at some places(which should have been the give-a-way that I wasnt talking about all the press).

You weren't quoted and you aren't the only one in this thread.

There is a tendency in the Us vs. Them mentality to paint the "other side" as a conglomerate in full agreement with the offending parties at the head, while your side is a group of concerned individuals.

If gamers are a group of self-identified people that should not be tainted by a few bad apples, it stands to reason that the same is true of developers and press. If I must take responsibility for something another journalist wrote, then the same should be true in reverse.

Journalism works the same as any other service: Find the outlet that resonates for you. In fact, drill that down: Find the writers that work for you. Most sites make it real easy to follow a single writer by bookmarking one page. Here's Jason's. Here's Jim Sterling's. You get the idea. We are not some faceless conglomerate any more than gamers are. You like a writer's coverage, read that writer's work. Editors notice these things and site coverage can change accordingly.

 

[unbias]

You weren't quoted and you aren't the only one in this thread.

There is a tendency in the Us vs. Them mentality to paint the "other side" as a conglomerate in full agreement with the offending parties at the head, while your side is a group of concerned individuals.

If gamers are a group of self-identified people that should not be tainted by a few bad apples, it stands to reason that the same is true of developers and press. If I must take responsibility for something another journalist wrote, then the same should be true in reverse.

Journalism works the same as any other service: Find the outlet that resonates for you. In fact, drill that down: Find the writers that work for you. Most sites make it real easy to follow a single writer by bookmarking one page. Here's Jason's. Here's Jim Sterling's. You get the idea. We are not some faceless conglomerate any more than gamers are. You like a writer's coverage, read that writer's work. Editors notice these things and site coverage can change accordingly.

Oh, well I agree. Sorry, thought you were talking to me, I lost track of other people who were posting, outside of who I was talking to, shocking I know. But ya, People need to stop clicking on the articles that generalize(I know it can be hard, it's called click bait for a reason) without actually showing anything substantive.

 

[RockTurtle]

You weren't quoted and you aren't the only one in this thread.
.

:

Duly noted.it does suck being lumped with a stringent few right?

I wanna know Jasons feelings to being labeled a lapdog or bending over to mras etc by the same industry people who share his proffesion and are on the same thought process that is going on just because kotaku decided to iron out their ethical prowess

 

[Marsyas]

I think the coverage of harassment can be improved although some websites already do a good job by making it visible (not just threats and insults on Twitter, but also things like swatting and doxxing). I'd like it if some outlet would run a story on Twitters lax harassment policies and their hesitance to improve them. They changed it recently but they are still very lax.

Journalists definitely should stop harassing and/or insulting people over Twitter (the once who do). Better guidelines from employers would probably help.

People care about this shit, amd thats why you get conspiracy theorists and ms paint imgur compilation pics to cover this story, because professionals refuse to cover it objectively. Thus youre giving an audience to idiots who also want to push an agenda, but since they are the only people actually covering this shit, then they are becoming important players in this entire ordeal.

I agree with this and think it helps me to have a better understanding of the situation. So I'm genuinely glad you wrote this answer, even if we strongly disagree on other things.

 

[Syriel]

The way that I see it is that the press only has one thing to lose. And that is their relationships with people at other outlets, and people who are in the development community. This one mind speak where there is a blanket adoption of terms and ideology across outlets has never been healthy, but it is defended.

This is where it gets sticky, because there is so much cross over from press to dev/publishing that those that are "mainly" in San Fran are jammed between a rock and a hard place. Whether it be actual coupling across the lines, or just regular buddy access, it's a bit threatening to even consider cutting ties when most have no clue how to actually be journalists. The constant in fighting and public campaigning against outlets and their viewerships that some Writers use to gather their flocks with does not help at all either.

These are not people trained to do things like go out and find the other side of the story. They simply aren't paid enough to take risks. There is a reliance on access by not asking questions that are hard to answer.

I mean really, Kotaku trys to sets standards for what their writers can and should contribute towards, and Journalists and devs all over the place lost their freakin' minds, even when they don't work for that outlet. This isn't about being impartial for them. This is about exposing that English and so- and so- study majors do not a journalist make.

More so, there should be separation. But no one has approached just how much is reasonable and needed to this point.

Anyone who has worked on the media side of the industry for awhile knows that there is nothing to fear from annoying a PR person at a gaming company. So long as you don't break any established agreements, anything is fair game.

Ex. If I get an early look at a game under embargo and then break the embargo, the anger is deserved (and the reputation hit will be real).

If I find out information through other means and report on it, an individual may be annoyed, but in general everyone knows that's part of a writer's job.

Finding stuff out outside of PR isn't easy. It's work. It involves things like building up a reputation so that developers know it is safe to leak to you. Or spending time riding a public shuttle bus so that you can listen to what EA employees are talking about as they ride back and forth to work. Or buying developers a few rounds of drinks when you're at a convention and chatting them up.

That is basic, entry level stuff. But most writers won't even bother. Especially that last one.

Once you have a reputation as someone who is fair and ethical, it becomes a lot easier to dig into new stories. If you put in the time an effort though, the rewards are worthwhile. And when some PR person does try to stupidly blackball you? It never lasts.

You do need a thick skin though, because no matter what, guy or girl, there will be rumors about you if you work in games media for any length of time.

Also, that. I mean, frankly, the openness the rest of the entertainment industry has is kind of surprising, when compared to most of the rest of business in the US. I mean, I would guess, and I could be completely wrong, that outside of out-and-out whistleblowing, there's not a lot of "journalism" in the say, shipbuilding industry. There's lots of news that's rewritten PR pieces, hype up about new ships, and so on.

That's the inherent problem of journalism within gaming. It's an entertainment industry where access is assumed, but it's run like a regular industry where secrecy is assumed. So, you have people who just want "objective" reviews of games as if they were stereo systems, people interested in feminist critiques of games, and people who just look at the score, and that's it.



Um, why is "a developer's PR person may be a bit of an ass" a news story. I'm sure if you got Jeff Gerstmann or Adam Sessler drunk in a room, they'd have stories about dozens of asshole PR people.

Have to agree with that last point. Most PR people are great. But, like like media folks, there are a handful of assholes everywhere.

My approach over the years has simply been to avoid them. Eventually the true assholes go away because no one will talk to them and they in turn can't get PR work because if no one is covering their games, then they're not very good at PR.

 

[Fantastapotamus]

I'm so god damn sick of this topic. No, that's not right, the topic is fine. The way it is being discussed is just...stupid. And sad. We drift from one hyperbel into the next declaring all gaming "journalists" (never forget the quotation marks to signify that they are not real journalists cause we all know real journalists automatically mean they are intelligent and smart) being corrupt, on the take and basically aweful human beings.....and on the other side we have journalists calling gamers perverts, assholes and basically aweful human beings.

And any reasonable discussion, that actually should and could happen here, is drown out by a sound of Youtube conspiracy videos on the one hand and keyboards typing articles about how "gamers" are the worst things that ever happen to the earth. While nobody learns anything. It's like a line in the sand and on one side there are assholes and idiots and idiots and assholes on the other side, then somebody puts a gun to you head and yells "CHOOSE!"

I'd love to have a discussion with some dudes in the industry and say "Hey, I don't think it's okay that Patricia Hernandez writes about that indie dev she's a close friend with" without some people randomly running in, shouting "Yeah, fucking Totillo, fuck this SJW and his band of white knights" while I also would like to say stuff like "I don't really like Anita's videos cause I think they are pretty overexaggerated and not that usefull" without being a called a rapist, misogynist or black knight. (or whatever).

But that's not happening, and it won't happen. And to some degree, yes I can absolutely understand it. If I were a journalists and random people just start insulting me I probably also would prefer to stay quiet and not give them any more fodder. Cause, let's be honest here, there really is nothing one can say to deal with this without being torn apart by some group. So fuck it, I'm just gonna ignore this from now on. Good job, nobody wins except for me. I win. I will continue to trust the people I trusted before and as long as somebody doesn't give me a good reason to think he's "on the take" I will not asume it. It's not like I bought hundreds of crap games because of this "bribery". And that's how I roll. Stupid but happy. I chose the blue pill. Whatever

Cause fuck, I have real problems in my life. Videogames are supposed to be my hobby. And at this point it's just dumb, y'all realise that right? Also I'm drunk and my english is probably terrible but whatever. It's not like it matters to anybody but me.

 

[Lime]

Proof of how insular and boneheaded the decisionmaking and defense of the Patreon thing has been at Kotaku.

 

[jschreier]

Proof of how insular and boneheaded the decisionmaking and defense of the Patreon thing has been at Kotaku.

Yet The Guardian now has an update on the bottom disclosing the connection: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/sep/01/how-to-attack-a-woman-who-works-in-video-games

 

[CambriaRising]

Proof of how insular and boneheaded the decisionmaking and defense of the Patreon thing has been at Kotaku.

Hardly proof.

 

[Myggen]

Yet The Guardian now has an update on the bottom disclosing the connection: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/sep/01/how-to-attack-a-woman-who-works-in-video-games

Well, we should probably ask Jenn Frank herself for the reason. My guess is that she insisted on it after the fact, the lawyers aren't gonna change their minds after the article was posted because it's clearly not a conflict of interest when you write an op-ed.

 

[LordJim]

Proof of how insular and boneheaded the decisionmaking and defense of the Patreon thing has been at Kotaku.

Your idea of proof is baffling.

I am surprised how so many people go against this with reasoning 'everyone is just a writer with an opinion'.

 

[Lime]

Hardly proof.

Your idea of proof is baffling.

I am surprised how so many people go against this with reasoning 'everyone is just a writer with an opinion'.

Indicative then.

Patreon is hardly anything that matters and completely removing the option for journalists/reviewers to use it is super duper imprudent.

 

[jschreier]

Well, we should probably ask Jenn Frank herself for the reason. My guess is that she insisted on it after the fact, the lawyers aren't gonna change their minds after the article was posted because it's clearly not a conflict of interest when you write an op-ed.

Or maybe it's clear that ethics are never about black and white or right and wron, and that every professional publication, from the New York Times to TMZ, has to decide for themselves what standards they feel most comfortable adhering to.

 

[Riposte]

Indicative then.

Patreon is hardly anything that matters and completely removing the option for journalists/reviewers to use it is super duper imprudent.

What are the gravest possible consequences of their decision?

It looks like a symbolic decision, except people seem to be taking it to symbolize an anti-Zoe Quinn gesture.

 

[zhorkat]

Yet The Guardian now has an update on the bottom disclosing the connection: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/sep/01/how-to-attack-a-woman-who-works-in-video-games

"Jenn Frank has purchased and is a supporter of Zoë Quinn’s work, although this is the first article she has written on the developer. Frank has also briefly met Anita Sarkeesian."

What a funny disclosure.

 

[Gsak]

Or maybe it's clear that ethics are never about black and white or right and wron, and that every professional publication, from the New York Times to TMZ, has to decide for themselves what standards they feel most comfortable adhering to.

If people wanna be called Journalists and be looked upon as such, then they don't get to choose, modify or bend the principles on which Journalism was founded and built upon. It's a matter of trust, impartiality, objectivity and integrity.

This may be sounding utopian, but there are many people in the industry that could at least try. But many are not even bothered with keeping up appearances.

If people do not want to uphold journalistic principles, then they have no business calling themselves "journalists".

 

[JMargaris]

People are really struggling with what exactly Patreon is. It is a purchase? Is it a recurring purchase? A donation? A subscription?

Zoe's Patreon is a good example of the more problematic ones. When you give to her Patreon you don't get anything specific in return - you may get a game, or you may not. You get a "crazy amount of stuff" but that can mean anything. It's certainly not the same as a purchase or a pre-order.

Jenn's, by comparison, is somewhat confusingly worded but it seems to be saying that you get one essay per month - in that case calling it a subscription plan is reasonable and comparable to a purchase.

Whether or not you view Patreon as a purchase is at the heart of the issue. Personally I don't. Some are structured such they are basically purchases, but Patreon isn't inherently a purchasing model.

If Patrons were called "subscribers" and Patreon users filled out a standard form explaining exactly what the subscribers get I don't think I'd have an issue with it.
---

The main reason I don't have a problem with Kotaku's Patreon policy is that game developers can just sell the games they make. Writers can't really sell essays to consumers. People compare Patreon to pre-ordering or purchasing, but a game developer can just offer their game for purchase or some sort of early access.
---

Now, here is a question for Jason that I think deserves response (I saw someone make this argument online, I didn't think this up myself):

What if a freelance writer pitches something to Kotaku (is this even a thing that happens at Kotaku?) and that writer gives to some Patreons of game developers? Can they not do a piece for Kotaku? Can they not do a piece on whoever they give to? Do they simply have to disclose?

I don't really know how Kotaku works wrt to freelancers at all, so maybe what I'm asking doesn't make sense.

 

[Zaph]

If people wanna be called Journalists and be looked upon as such, then they don't get to choose, modify or bend the principles on which Journalism was founded and built upon. It's a matter of trust, impartiality, objectivity and integrity.

This may be sounding utopian, but there are many people in the industry that could at least try. But many are not even bothered with keeping up appearances.

If people do not want to uphold journalistic principles, then they have no business calling themselves "journalists".

These (apparently stringent) "journalistic principles" you speak of don't just magically apply themselves to every industry in a tidy and simple way. Every publication has to look at its subject matter, target market, realistic revenue streams, and the realities of the power structures/hierarchies in the industry it covers. Then it's up to the EiC (and potentially other staff) to internally debate how those principles apply.

There are no short cuts or catch-all approaches here. Ethics are a malleable and complex problem to 'solve', with publications needing to each consider how its content is perceived by readers and what are their expectations in regards to impartiality?

Which is exactly why it bothers me when editors from one publication criticises another. It's not a brotherhood - in fact it's incredibly presumptuous to think you're aware of the culture and ethos behind the decision or assume your jobs are remotely similar.

 

[jschreier]

Now, here is a question for Jason that I think deserves response (I saw someone make this argument online, I didn't think this up myself):

What if a freelance writer pitches something to Kotaku (is this even a thing that happens at Kotaku?) and that writer gives to some Patreons of game developers? Can they not do a piece for Kotaku? Can they not do a piece on whoever they give to? Do they simply have to disclose?

I don't really know how Kotaku works wrt to freelancers at all, so maybe what I'm asking doesn't make sense.

I don't think donating to any Patreon would ever prevent someone from writing something for Kotaku, no -- we take freelance submissions from just about anyone, including game developers.

The reasoning behind the Patreon policy, as I've explained a few times, is to prevent one of Kotaku's reporters from getting stuck in an uncomfortable position where we might have to cover a story about someone we donate money to. Freelancers would never be stuck in that position.

But I can't answer the specifics of your freelance questions definitively, so you might want to try asking Stephen.

 

[The Adder]

@leighalexander I'm a gamer. Have been for years. Paint me with whatever brush you want, but it's not a reflection on me.

@leighalexander I am what I have done in my life, not what value you wish to assign me based upon one of the many ways I identify myself.

@leighalexander And I address you only to say this. For the hateful generalizations you've made about me, and about many people I love

@leighalexander I forgive you.

And with that, whether it's replied to or not, whether it's even read or not, I'm over it and it feels good. I'd advise the same for everyone else.Don't bother burning yourself out on vitriol.

 

[JMargaris]

I don't think donating to any Patreon would ever prevent someone from writing something for Kotaku, no -- we take freelance submissions from just about anyone, including game developers.
...
But I can't answer the specifics of your freelance questions definitively, so you might want to try asking Stephen.

That's good enough for me. I brought it up because I thought that was the strongest part of the "Payola" piece that Lana Polansky wrote.

I'm genuinely trying to see the perspective of people opposed to the Kotaku Patreon policy but I'm finding it hard. It suffers from the same problem as "gamersgate" stuff - a lot of vitriol, accusations and assumptions but not much meat, with accusatory language ("how about those Dumbocrats and their smellfare reform?") doing the heavy lifting in place of logic.

I wish someone opposed to Kotaku's policy could write out their objections without leaning on things like "shrieking nerds" or Iraq War style "with us or against us / aiding and abetting / do this or the terrorists win" stuff. That's one thing that I find fascinating about this and recent "liberal" causes - a lot of the language is textbook conservative rhetoric. Like putting Ann Coulter essays and George Bush Jr national addresses into a blender. (Not to get too political)

 

[Deitus]

And with that, whether it's replied to or not, whether it's even read or not, I'm over it and it feels good. I'd advise the same for everyone else.Don't bother burning yourself out on vitriol.

Very mature and respectable response to this whole situation. I doubt she would respond to that, but I do hope she at least reads it. I think your approach is ultimately the right way forward.

I'm not pleased with many (so so many) of the things that went down these past couple of weeks, from people on every "side" of this dispute. A lot of bad things were said by a lot of different people, and everyone used that as an excuse to wage a war of personal attacks and insults, collateral damage be damned.

But where we are now is not a very good place either. No one is discussing anything, merely yelling very loudly, because everyone is convinced that the other guys are hateful bigots who aren't "worthy" of discourse, and the situation just continues on getting more hateful. Actually, that's not quite true; there is actually a lot of interesting discussion that has come out during these events, but it's ultimately drowned out by all of the anger and spite. I think it's time everyone lays down their swords.

That doesn't mean stop pushing for better ethical policies and disclosure in games journalism. That doesn't mean stop fighting for better representation in games, games media, and acceptance of all genders, races, orientations, etc. among gamers. It probably means letting the other guy get away with scoring the last hit, instead of going in for one more "gotcha" though.

Because ultimately, the only way anything at all is going to change is if people can actually talk to each other, rationally, and understand where the other side is coming from. That's not happening right now, and it will continue to not happen as long as people insist on "winning". You don't have to agree with what they have to say, and you don't even have to hold your tongue when they say something wrong. But if people can consistently be respectful in their discussions about these subjects, I think we'd have much more of an actual discussion.

Now I know some of you are thinking "but I was respectful about this, and then the other person insulted me." That was wrong of them, make no mistake. But if people use that as an excuse to turn around and harass them, it's never going to stop. Someone needs to break the cycle, and if it's not going to be them, it might as well be us. Think how weak their argument would look if they were going on about how bad gamers are, if gamers were respectfully disagreeing and not harassing them (note, I am not saying that the harassment they get is the fault of gamers as a whole, but they obviously feel that way when they write articles about it, and people harassing them over those articles do nothing to change their mind). Let's be better than they seem to think we are.

 

[Gsak]

These (apparently stringent) "journalistic principles" you speak of don't just magically apply themselves to every industry in a tidy and simple way. Every publication has to look at its subject matter, target market, realistic revenue streams, and the realities of the power structures/hierarchies in the industry it covers. Then it's up to the EiC (and potentially other staff) to internally debate how those principles apply.

There are no short cuts or catch-all approaches here. Ethics are a malleable and complex problem to 'solve', with publications needing to each consider how its content is perceived by readers and what are their expectations in regards to impartiality?

Which is exactly why it bothers me when editors from one publication criticises another. It's not a brotherhood - in fact it's incredibly presumptuous to think you're aware of the culture and ethos behind the decision or assume your jobs are remotely similar.

 

[Andrew J.]

And with that, whether it's replied to or not, whether it's even read or not, I'm over it and it feels good. I'd advise the same for everyone else.Don't bother burning yourself out on vitriol.

I don't think she was talking about you.

At least, I've been playing video games since I was in pre-school, and her article never felt it was talking about people like me.

 

[Cyrano]

I can't really remember a time when the last three ever applied to the gaming press.

If we're going by these standards, I doubt the gaming press will ever have any journalistic integrity.

 

[MHWilliams]

I can't really remember a time when the last three ever applied to the gaming press.

If we're going by these standards, I doubt the gaming press will ever have any journalistic integrity.

You honestly believe that the gaming press routinely:

- Fabricates or plagiarizes
- Alters a still or moving image to the point that it changes the accuracy of the image
- Pays for stories and accepts bribes

 

[The Adder]

I don't think she was talking about you.

At least, I've been playing video games since I was in pre-school, and her article never felt it was talking about people like me.

My issue with her article is that it's a shotgun, not a scalpel. It was a statement of "this is what people who call themselves gamers are" instead of "this is a problem in the community of gamers".

So yes, she was talking about me, because I am, indeed, a gamer, and have identified myself as such for well over a decade now. Despite her assumptions about me being wildly incorrect.

But like I said, I'm cool.

 

[Cyrano]

You honestly believe that the gaming press routinely:

- Fabricates or plagiarizes
- Alters a still or moving image to the point that it changes the accuracy of the image
- Pays for stories and accepts bribes

Routinely? No. More frequently than news from a standard site that covers more than games? Yes.

It's definitely often enough that it spoils the pot regarding the trust of any random news-related article.

I also find it a bit disturbing that respecting people's right to privacy isn't in the code of ethics for a site like Reuters. Unsure if that can be avoided, but it would be nice if it was at least encouraged.

 

[Gsak]

You honestly believe that the gaming press routinely:

- Fabricates or plagiarizes
- Alters a still or moving image to the point that it changes the accuracy of the image
- Pays for stories and accepts bribes

Especially after the last 2 weeks? Certainly yes. Not all of the vg press, but a lots of shady dealings have been brought into light recently.

Many writers and many "journalists" can't be even bothered to show any kind of will to approach this subject and sit down to discuss. They just thought that attacking their audience, will somehow make this go away. 2 weeks later, and it still rages.

 

[Ponn]

Are you perhaps confusing random gaming blogs with the gaming press?

Maybe IGN can do a video piece on it in their Sony provided studio setup. BEYOND.

 

[MHWilliams]

Routinely? No. More frequently than news from a standard site that covers more than games? Yes.

It's definitely often enough that it spoils the pot regarding the trust of any random news-related article.

Yeah, that's not the case. At least from my experience. Perhaps I'm a lonely island, but I doubt it.

I also find it a bit disturbing that respecting people's right to privacy isn't in the code of ethics for a site like Reuters. Unsure if that can be avoided, but it would be nice if it was at least encouraged.

The right to privacy vs. the public's right to know is a thing that's long been argued in the journalism world. There's clear lines that shouldn't be crossed - harassment, intrusion, and theft - and a victim's right to privacy is generally upheld. Beyond that it starts to get fuzzy and a journalist has to question is digging is within the public interest. That tends to cover crime, corruption, or general incompetence. We generally only have to deal with the last one.

 

[Cyrano]

Yeah, that's not the case. At least from my experience. Perhaps I'm a lonely island, but I doubt it.

I had quite the opposite experience for the short time I worked at a larger press company, and it was part of the reason why I left. But yeah, maybe I'm the lonely island.

 

[daegan]

I'm genuinely trying to see the perspective of people opposed to the Kotaku Patreon policy but I'm finding it hard.

K! Here's my issues:

- it punishes smaller creators for seeking alternative avenues for their games by making it a situation where they either must give their work away to writers -or- accept that nobody from a site that has a similar policy in place will play their work.

Now, not everyone on Patreon uses it the same way, but if person y makes a game and it's only available there, it will never be written about - again, unless they give it away. (Which, of course, people have argued for years is ALSO a distasteful practice :/ )

- it encourages support of traditional or somewhat traditional developers and publishers instead. There's nothing stopping a Kotaku writer from buying four life-size Link statues and still writing about a new Zelda game, or even (and possibly more likely) something like the Symphony of the Goddesses that toured. When it's clear someone has an attachment to a series, to a company, to a genre, why is that more tolerable than supporting a small dev with a couple bucks a month?

- it all happened so quickly and with very little time to discuss. I don't like the idea of "negotiating with terrorists" - I don't know that I personally would have blinked until after things calmed down.

Obviously no dev should be in a position where they are entirely dependent on journalist contributions to a patreon to survive; but i think an amount restriction or disclosure policy would be much better and more inclusive of further innovations in how people pay for games. This feels, to me, weighed down by the traditional methods of doing things.

(And I should clarify here as well: I enjoy Kotaku quite a bit and have never been shy about saying so. I still read them, I just would have personally gone a different way with this.)

 

[Gsak]

By the way, one of the best videos I've seen on the matter. Calm, reasonable and logical. This is the way to do it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TV6XZwd43vY&feature=player_detailpage

 

[Andrew J.]

My issue with her article is that it's a shotgun, not a scalpel. It was a statement of "this is what people who call themselves gamers are" instead of "this is a problem in the community of gamers".

I think perhaps we have irreconcilably different interpretations about who and what she was addressing.

 

[The Adder]

I think perhaps we have irreconcilably different interpretations about who and what she was addressing.

Perhaps we do. To quote Eminem;

"Words are a mother fucker..."

 

[MHWilliams]

K! Here's my issues:

- it punishes smaller creators for seeking alternative avenues for their games by making it a situation where they either must give their work away to writers -or- accept that nobody from a site that has a similar policy in place will play their work.

Now, not everyone on Patreon uses it the same way, but if person y makes a game and it's only available there, it will never be written about - again, unless they give it away. (Which, of course, people have argued for years is ALSO a distasteful practice :/ )

- it encourages support of traditional or somewhat traditional developers and publishers instead. There's nothing stopping a Kotaku writer from buying four life-size Link statues and still writing about a new Zelda game, or even (and possibly more likely) something like the Symphony of the Goddesses that toured. When it's clear someone has an attachment to a series, to a company, to a genre, why is that more tolerable than supporting a small dev with a couple bucks a month?

- it all happened so quickly and with very little time to discuss. I don't like the idea of "negotiating with terrorists" - I don't know that I personally would have blinked until after things calmed down.

Obviously no dev should be in a position where they are entirely dependent on journalist contributions to a patreon to survive; but i think an amount restriction or disclosure policy would be much better and more inclusive of further innovations in how people pay for games. This feels, to me, weighed down by the traditional methods of doing things.

(And I should clarify here as well: I enjoy Kotaku quite a bit and have never been shy about saying so. I still read them, I just would have personally gone a different way with this.)

The bolded one seems to be the biggest complaint that I've seen online.

 

[jschreier]

K! Here's my issues:

- it punishes smaller creators for seeking alternative avenues for their games by making it a situation where they either must give their work away to writers -or- accept that nobody from a site that has a similar policy in place will play their work.

Now, not everyone on Patreon uses it the same way, but if person y makes a game and it's only available there, it will never be written about - again, unless they give it away. (Which, of course, people have argued for years is ALSO a distasteful practice :/ )

Giving review codes to writers in hopes of getting press coverage is a standard practice, not a distasteful one. Many of us would love to cover and support as many indies and Patreon-created games as possible, but there are so many games out there that any obstacle in the way of playing one given title will lead to us just playing something else.

- it encourages support of traditional or somewhat traditional developers and publishers instead. There's nothing stopping a Kotaku writer from buying four life-size Link statues and still writing about a new Zelda game, or even (and possibly more likely) something like the Symphony of the Goddesses that toured. When it's clear someone has an attachment to a series, to a company, to a genre, why is that more tolerable than supporting a small dev with a couple bucks a month?

Because a Kotaku writer would never have to cover harassment allegations involving Link. A Kotaku writer would not have to disclose that he/she once went to a Symphony of the Goddesses concert in order to cover a scandal that happened there. These things do not lead to potential conflicts of interest or appearance of impropriety.

- it all happened so quickly and with very little time to discuss. I don't like the idea of "negotiating with terrorists" - I don't know that I personally would have blinked until after things calmed down.

Really, we should have just had a policy like that all along.

 

[web01]

You honestly believe that the gaming press routinely:

- Fabricates or plagiarizes
- Alters a still or moving image to the point that it changes the accuracy of the image
- Pays for stories and accepts bribes

You would be crazy to believe they do not,
There is plenty of evidence to support all of the above.

Giving a guaranteed score above 9 for an early review basically is a bribe and its common practice, leads to monetary gain for both the reviewer in website traffic and game publisher in positive hype and sales.

 

[Cyrano]

You would be crazy to believe they do not,
There is plenty of evidence to support all of the above.

Giving a guaranteed score above 9 for an early review basically is a bribe and its common practice, leads to monetary gain for both the reviewer in website traffic and game publisher in positive hype and sales.

Reviews are not news and thus cannot be held to the standards of journalistic practice. They are effectively OP ED pieces with a slant focusing on one particular media work.

 

[MHWilliams]

You would be crazy to believe they do not,
There is plenty of evidence to support all of the above.

Giving a guaranteed score above 9 for an early review basically is a bribe and its common practice, leads to monetary gain for both the reviewer in website traffic and game publisher in positive hype and sales.

I am part of "they". So unless there's something I do that I don't know about, I'm going to call foul.

Of course, USgamer doesn't do early reviews. In fact, outside of IGN, I can't think of many outlets that do early reviews because the practice is largely frowned upon. Most embargoes are press wide.

 

[Gsak]

Reviews are not news and thus cannot be held to the standards of journalistic practice. They are effectively OP ED pieces with a slant focusing on one particular media work.

Let's ask Jeff Gerstmann about his "Kane & Lynch: Dead Men" review and why it got him fired.