Support NeoGAF

[PedroPanache]

Actually, it's pretty easy to say "hey, this Forbes blogger should have reached out to Kotaku for comment before writing about Kotaku" without giving my thoughts on the actual content of his article or our article. Which is what I did.

If you're going to demand better journalism - which you should! - then don't just ignore the tenets of journalism because you happen to agree with a writer's opinion. Unless you want all of games media to turn into Forbes-like content farms full of writers who just look at what NeoGAF or Reddit are talking about on any given day and then echo whatever opinion most people seem to agree with.

I don't think anything in that opinion piece is invalidated by the writer's decision not to reach out for a comment from kotaku; as a basic tenant, it need not be applied across every opinion piece or critique that someone decides to write. I'd be more concerned if his piece was invalidated by poor research more than anything else, which is a far more important tenant of journalism.

 

[jschreier]

If it weren't an aside at the end of an opinion piece covering a factual event, and actually happened to be an integral part of the article, I would.

Is it a journalism faux pas? Yes it is. On the other hand, the main thrust of the article, pointing out a serious problem in the industry is fairly well written and legitimate. And it shows far greater journalistic standards and ethics than the Kotaku article.

I disagree. The main thrust of the article is criticizing Kotaku. If you are going to write an article criticizing any company or organization - and you consider yourself a journalist - you should always reach out to that company or organization for comment. Reporting 101.

The funny thing is, when I think of Forbes, I remember the fact they (via Erik) did some quality reporting, when your organisation and the industry as a whole was dismissing many valid complaints about ME3's ending, acting like a bunch of shills, and generally bitching.

This is disingenuous and straight-up wrong. Kotaku published multiple articles about the faults in ME3's ending:
http://kotaku.com/5892676/why-mass-effect-3s-ending-was-so-terrible
http://kotaku.com/5898743/mass-effect-3s-ending-disrespects-its-most-invested-players

I also think to call them content farms compared to the kind of crap we see quite often out of Kotaku and other sites in the industry - aside from it seeming extremely unprofessional given that you haven't provided anything to back that up - is hilariously ironic.

You're right, I should back that up. Check this out: http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/...-of-contributed-content-means-for-journalism/

 

[Son of Cervantes]

What makes you think I hold Erik Kain to higher standards than anyone at Kotaku? Because I'm not publicly criticizing my own co-workers? Think for a second, will you?

And yet you criticize an article that criticizes him, therefore tacitly endorsing his original article, or at the very least, giving the appearance of doing so.

Maybe you should stop commenting on this thread, as it's not doing you or Kotaku any favors....you're criticizing other sites for adhering to standards resembling those of Kotaku, after all.

 

[Cerebral Assassin]

I disagree. The main thrust of the article is criticizing Kotaku. If you are going to write an article criticizing any company or organization - and you consider yourself a journalist - you should always reach out to that company or organization for comment. Reporting 101.

Perhaps you should inform your collegues of this, they seem unaware of "reporting 101" (I'll ignore the hole in your argument as you have repeatedly shown you have no interest in actually discussing this issue, you just want to shift the focus from your site).

 

[jschreier]

Perhaps you should inform your collegues of this, they seem unaware of "reporting 101" (I'll ignore the hole in your argument as you have repeatedly shown you have no interest in actually discussing this issue, you just want to shift the focus from your site).

We all make mistakes sometimes. I've certainly posted stories without asking for comment from people that I should have reached out to before publication. Live and learn.

 

[Delusibeta]

Kotaku journalist complains about an article criticising Kotaku for failing to ask Kotaku for comment before publishing, in the wake of a Kotaku article criticising a game developer and failing to ask aforementioned game developer for comment before publishing.

 

[jschreier]

Kotaku journalist complains about an article criticising Kotaku for failing to ask Kotaku for comment before publishing, in the wake of a Kotaku article criticising a game developer and failing to ask aforementioned game developer for comment before publishing.

Did you actually read the article? Go ahead: http://kotaku.com/5974039/the-guy-who-made-bayonetta-is-clueless-about-valve-and-pc-gaming

Except for the original headline, which was changed because, as Stephen wrote, it was a poor choice of words, is there a single line in that article that criticizes Kamiya? If so, please point it out.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

Of course my posts are 100% personal. Does it seem like I'm spouting some corporate company line? I think I've been pretty candid in this thread, and I think I've been honest about both my mistakes and Kotaku's flaws. That said, hopefully you folks can understand why I have no interest in publicly criticizing any of my co-workers.

It's not spouting corporate lines, no, I've not seen you do that.

What I meant was more that you either defend or make no comment, as you can't openly criticize kotaku for something you disagree with, It's a losing battle.

You will always appear to be supportive of everything kotaku prints, as you can only be open and honest to a point.

That isn't your fault. But it is a problem.
As much as I and others appreciate your input to something like this issue, it will always be taunted by that 'honest to a point' position, that you actually have to take.

I hope that makes sense.

 

[Delusibeta]

Did you actually read the article? Go ahead: http://kotaku.com/5974039/the-guy-who-made-bayonetta-is-clueless-about-valve-and-pc-gaming

Except for the original headline, which was changed because, as Stephen wrote, it was a poor choice of words, is there a single line in that article that criticizes Kamiya? If so, please point it out.

Yes I did. Calling anyone "clueless" is criticising (especially considering some of Platinum's previous statements on the platform), the implication was that everyone in Japan doesn't care about PC games based on one guy saying he doesn't care about PC games and that "apology" really rubs me up the wrong way.

hope that, now that we've changed the headline, those who couldn't get past that will be able to read the piece.

Implication: anyone who got upset by the use of "clueless" should GTFO. It's pretty much the dictionary definition of a non-apology.

 

[Photolysis]

I disagree. The main thrust of the article is criticizing Kotaku. If you are going to write an article criticizing any company or organization - and you consider yourself a journalist - you should always reach out to that company or organization for comment. Reporting 101.

It depends on several things, including the type of piece you're writing, and its nature. It's not a golden rule which you should never break, unless you're writing from a completely neutral perspective.

It's good practice, but not necessary in an opinion piece providing the facts you're dealing with are reported accurately, and any sources used to back up your opinion are given in context.

This is disingenuous and straight-up wrong. Kotaku published multiple articles about the faults in ME3's ending:
http://kotaku.com/5892676/why-mass-effect-3s-ending-was-so-terrible
http://kotaku.com/5898743/mass-effect-3s-ending-disrespects-its-most-invested-players

I did remember this post from you in this very thread however.

Until I can find anything that implicates Kotaku in that mess, I'll retract that part of my comment.

You're right, I should back that up. Check this out: http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/...-of-contributed-content-means-for-journalism/

A freelance-based journalistic model does not automatically equate to a content farm. A content farm is a site that generates articles (usually of poor quality) purely for maximum SEO / advertising impact.

Now, you're free to debate the pros and cons of the Forbes model and suchlike - they certainly exist, as with pretty much any journalism model - but unless you can actually back the claim up that the site is operating in bad-faith, that's a very, very, damning claim to make.

 

[Cerebral Assassin]

Did you actually read the article? Go ahead: http://kotaku.com/5974039/the-guy-who-made-bayonetta-is-clueless-about-valve-and-pc-gaming

Except for the original headline, which was changed because, as Stephen wrote, it was a poor choice of words, is there a single line in that article that criticizes Kamiya? If so, please point it out.

Can we point out all the factual inaccuracies in the original article instead,because that would be easy (well perhaps not easy for someone who is paid to do so,obviously otherwise the article wouldn't have gone up in such a shambolic state).
Also as you now wish to discuss the original article why was Kamiya not contacted to explain what he meant by "cloud" as the original articles assumption has not been justified in the text of the article at all. Or why no mention of Inaba visiting Valve was in the article(which clearly explains Platinums official stance when t comes to PC gaming)?

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

Except for the original headline, which was changed because, as Stephen wrote, it was a poor choice of words, is there a single line in that article that criticizes Kamiya? If so, please point it out.

You say "Except for the original headline" like it was something innocous that can be forgiven with a quick apology, when it was clearly an intentional click bait headline which denigrated Kamiya.

And then Plunkett was all I RON'T ROW RAGGY when Kamiya told him where to get off.

 

[Coxy]

not to mention while not criticizing him, it held him up as some sort of representative of some kind of japanese hivemind which is completely offensive bullshit itself and if you're going to defend it in a thread where you've asked for doritogate not to represent games journalists...

 

[Jackpot]

What makes you think I hold Erik Kain to higher standards than anyone at Kotaku? Because I'm not publicly criticizing my own co-workers? Think for a second, will you?

Yeah, think! It's easy to criticise people when there are no consequences. No way you should criticise someone when there's the slightest chance of negative blowback.

 

[Neuromancer]

This line, for example:

I’ve no idea who even came up with this headline (or how post-titling works at Kotaku)

He has no idea how our headline process works and makes no effort to reach out to Kotaku to find out. Instead, he just says "oh, I dunno how they do this." This is the type of blogging you guys want to encourage? Yeesh.

I agree with Jason on this one. Kain probably should have reached out to someone at Kotaku for comment. It would have made for a more interesting and well-rounded piece.

 

[Oersted]

Jason, I think we get your point. Yes, Erik Kain should have reached out to Kotaku, I agree. But you know, this very line you mentioned

I’ve no idea who even came up with this headline (or how post-titling works at Kotaku)

Tell us, how does it work? Why does Kotaku choose headlines like " The guy who made Bayonetta is clueless about Valve and PC gaming"?

 

[JDSN]

Unless you want all of games media to turn into Forbes-like content farms full of writers who just look at what NeoGAF or Reddit are talking about on any given day and then echo whatever opinion most people seem to agree with.

Im sorry, Are you being satirical?

 

[Zaph]

I agree with Jason on this one. Kain probably should have reached out to someone at Kotaku for comment. It would have made for a more interesting and well-rounded piece.

Yup, could have gotten some really interesting insight into the headline style that is encouraged at Kotaku, and how headlines translate into hits and hits into writer's earnings.

Then again, judging by the really pissy update Totilo posted at the bottom of the Kamiya article, I'm not so sure how willing he would have been to be straight with Kain. Don't hurt to ask though.

 

[jschreier]

It's not spouting corporate lines, no, I've not seen you do that.

What I meant was more that you either defend or make no comment, as you can't openly criticize kotaku for something you disagree with, It's a losing battle.

You will always appear to be supportive of everything kotaku prints, as you can only be open and honest to a point.

That isn't your fault. But it is a problem.
As much as I and others appreciate your input to something like this issue, it will always be taunted by that 'honest to a point' position, that you actually have to take.

I hope that makes sense.

I wouldn't call it "honest to a point." I try not to be intentionally dishonest about anything. But you're right: I'm not going to publicly call out or criticize my co-workers - all of whom are smart and talented writers - when they make mistakes. It's crazy that some of you think I should.

not to mention while not criticizing him, it held him up as some sort of representative of some kind of japanese hivemind which is completely offensive bullshit itself and if you're going to defend it in a thread where you've asked for doritogate not to represent games journalists...

I am not defending the article, nor am I attacking it. I hope I've made that clear.

Tell us, how does it work? Why does Kotaku choose headlines like " The guy who made Bayonetta is clueless about Valve and PC gaming"?

I can't comment on that headline specifically (I was asleep when it went up), but our process for headline writing varies. Sometimes writers just come up with headlines themselves; other times we brainstorm and piece together a headline together.

When writing a headline, my goal is simple: to make you interested enough that you want to read the story, because I want people to read the articles I write. I try to do that without being misleading or inaccurate. During that process, sometimes I make mistakes. If I do make a mistake, I try to fix it and be as transparent as possible about that.

In this case, as you saw, Stephen changed the headline because he felt it was a poor choice of words. I'm sure if Erik Kain or any other reporter asked him, he'd be happy to explain more.

Yup, could have gotten some really interesting insight into the headline style that is encouraged at Kotaku, and how headlines translate into hits and hits into writer's earnings.

There seems to be an assumption that hits have something to do with my salary. They do not. I am not paid based on traffic. We have goals and bonuses based on traffic, but I get a normal paycheck just like I would with any other job.

 

[Heavy's Sandvich]

No one's immune to criticism.

Talent/intelligence has no bearing on that, if they're wrong, they're wrong.

 

[Zaph]

There seems to be an assumption that hits have something to do with my salary. They do not. I am not paid based on traffic. We have goals and bonuses based on traffic, but I get a normal paycheck just like I would with any other job.

I said earnings. Bonuses are still earnings. That's a really pedantic response, you know what I meant.

 

[Cerebral Assassin]

I wouldn't call it "honest to a point." I try not to be intentionally dishonest about anything. But you're right: I'm not going to publicly call out or criticize my co-workers - all of whom are smart and talented writers - when they make mistakes. It's crazy that some of you think I should.

Everything you have posted about the Kain article makes you look like a complete hypocrite, & your flip-flopping on whether you will discuss the original article(either discuss it or don't) brings your integrity into question (i.e bad journalism is fine as long as you profit from it).

 

[jschreier]

No one's immune to criticism.

Talent/intelligence has no bearing on that, if they're wrong, they're wrong.

Of course. And when I make mistakes, I try to be transparent and honest about them. But I can think of quite a few reasons why it'd be way inappropriate for me to publicly criticize any of my co-workers when they make mistakes.

I said earnings. Bonuses are still earnings. That's a really pedantic response, you know what I meant.

No, I didn't know what you meant. A lot of people believe I'm paid based on the traffic I bring in, since that's how some outlets pay. I wanted to clarify.

 

[Heavy's Sandvich]

There are subtle ways of doing so, even to acknowledge that you wouldn't necessarily have written it in those terms.

Something to stop those baying for blood.

 

[Weltall Zero]

No, I didn't know what you meant. A lot of people believe I'm paid based on the traffic I bring in, since that's how some outlets pay. I wanted to clarify.

If you (as you yourself put it) get bonuses based on the traffic you get, are you not "getting paid based on the traffic you bring in"? The fact that you get a base paycheck doesn't belie this fact.

 

[Zaph]

No, I didn't know what you meant. A lot of people believe I'm paid based on the traffic I bring in, since that's how some outlets pay. I wanted to clarify.

My original reply was expressing interest in the headline culture Kotaku encourages and how it directly affects traffic which in turn allows you to meet targets and receive bonuses. I never suggested you were paid 'per hit', merely how those sensational headlines ultimately translate into earnings.

Also if there were any assumptions made you may be, incidentally, responsible due to statements like this:

I'm glad you're willing to read the news I break but not willing to give me the clicks that help me pay for meals. You seem like a very good person!

 

[faceless007]

Jason, surely the irony doesn't escape you of you criticizing a Forbes blogger for the exact same failing that Eisenbeis is guilty of in a far more egregious and disingenuous way? At worst, Kain's sin is not getting a perspective from Kotaku that would have added interesting supplementary information to his post, but which wasn't crucial to the point he was making (it's utterly peripheral to his argument who actually wrote the headline, because he's criticizing Kotaku's practices as a whole). But Kain didn't insult or misrepresent anyone in lieu of that information or impugn the intelligence of his subject in his headline, so his failing (if you can even call it that) isn't nearly as damaging as Eisenbeis'.

If it helps, just imagine every single defense that a Kotaku writer has ever used to defend their shoddy posting practices--we're just a blog, we like to be attention-grabbing, our posts are opinion pieces, etc.--coming from Kain instead to defend his post. It'd be equally if not more valid coming from him. So why are you holding him to a higher standard than your own site?

 

[funkystudent]

I see this thread has gone back to jschreier defending his employer every 2nd post.


I want Wainwright back or for IGN do something shitty again, getting bored of all the Kotaku talk.

 

[jschreier]

If you (as you yourself put it) get bonuses based on the traffic you get, are you not "getting paid based on the traffic you bring in"? The fact that you get a base paycheck doesn't belie this fact.

Well, sure. I don't want to argue semantics. But the implication in this conversation is that I need to trawl for traffic in order to pay my bills, which isn't true. We simply get a bonus based on performance, as is standard at most jobs.

My original reply was expressing interest in the headline culture Kotaku encourages and how it directly affects traffic which in turn allows you to meet targets and receive bonuses. I never suggested you were paid 'per hit', merely how those sensational headlines ultimately translate into earnings.

Also if there were any assumptions made you may be, incidentally, responsible due to statements like this:

Haha. Fair enough. That's an exaggeration to prove a point. If nobody reads the website, I don't have a job.

Let's talk about this "headline culture" you brought up. I believe that a good headline is honest, attention-grabbing, and clear to as many people as possible (in other words, I might use something like "The People Who Made Metroid Prime" because more people know what Metroid Prime is than what Retro Studios is). My goal with a headline is to get you to read the article, not just because I want your traffic but because I want people to read the things I write. A good headline gets your attention without being misleading, dishonest, or using gimmicks to get you to click.

As with all writing, headline-writing at Kotaku can be tricky, and sometimes we make mistakes. When we do, we try to fix them.

So all that said, what are your issues with this approach? Other than the "clueless" thing, are there any specific Kotaku headlines you take issue with?

 

[MrHicks]

Well, sure. I don't want to argue semantics. But the implication in this conversation is that I need to trawl for traffic in order to pay my bills, which isn't true. We simply get a bonus based on performance, as is standard at most jobs.

"performance" = who can make the most effective trollbait/flamewar inciting articles
nothing brings in the clicks like retarded (on purpose) articles that set the forums on fire

 

[jschreier]

"performance" = who can make the most effective trollbait/flamewar inciting articles
nothing brings in the clicks like retarded (on purpose) articles that set the forums on fire

You can see our 25 most popular articles of 2012 right here: http://kotaku.com/5970190/our-25-most-popular-stories-of-the-year-according-to-math

Some are pieces of breaking news, some are lists of games that we update every few months, and some are cool things that people felt compelled to share. I don't think any of them are "retarded" or "trollbait/flamewar inciting." But I'll let you judge that for yourself.

Also, it should be noted, we don't solely write articles to bring in traffic. I spent a great deal of time on this XSEED profile, and we all know a longform profile about a niche localization company isn't going to get hundreds of thousands of views. But it serves readers, which is goal #1.

 

[idlethreats]

But you're right: I'm not going to publicly call out or criticize my co-workers - all of whom are smart and talented writers - when they make mistakes. It's crazy that some of you think I should.

I agree with this. It would be unprofessional to attack your colleague's work. No one should expect you to do that. But you've waded into a discussion that is centered around a piece produced by your co-worker and if you're unwilling to discuss it - as you should be! - then to be honest, you really shouldn't have jumped into the discussion at all. Criticizing one side of the argument, then throwing up your hands and claiming neutrality w/respect to the other is unhelpful at best and makes you appear somewhat hypocritical.

EDIT:

Other than the "clueless" thing, are there any specific Kotaku headlines you take issue with?

Ok, I'm certainly not going to hold you accountable for this one because it happened years ago, but I'll never forget "Jade Raymond Smells Pretty at London Games Fest," a headline that is still up on the site and was written by a guy who is still employed at Kotaku (assuming he came up with the headline for his own piece).

 

[jschreier]

I agree with this. It would be unprofessional to attack your colleague's work. No one should expect you to do that. But you've waded into a discussion that is centered around a piece produced by your co-worker and if you're unwilling to discuss it - as you should be! - then to be honest, you really shouldn't have jumped into the discussion at all. Criticizing one side of the argument, then throwing up your hands and claiming neutrality w/respect to the other is unhelpful at best and makes you appear somewhat hypocritical.

I see your point, but I don't think I was criticizing either side of the argument - I was criticizing Erik Kain for not reaching out to Kotaku for his story. I haven't commented on the actual points he made.

 

[GillianSeed79]

This line, for example:



He has no idea how our headline process works and makes no effort to reach out to Kotaku to find out. Instead, he just says "oh, I dunno how they do this." This is the type of blogging you guys want to encourage? Yeesh.

See, this could be an interesting way to start a "how the sausage gets made" discussion. Readers tend to assume journalists or writers actually write their headlines. I venture a guess that the initial negative reaction to the blog post had a lot to do with "clueless" being in the headline. Readers tend to assume the person who wrote the post assumes authorship of the headline by virute of their byline appearing below it. Now, there have been valid critiques of the actual post in general, but I want to talk about headlines specifically.

In my case, having worked in print before, writers submit a suggested headline with their story when they file it. The person who actually writes the headline is the copy editor or copy desk, who are more concerned about how the headline will fit on a page and how much space they have to work with. They are also more concerned about grabbing a reader's attention with the headline. There are actual press association awards for best headline and page layouts. In a perfect world without space constraints measured in inches, writers would probably prefer that their lead became the headline, but those 20 to 25 words are going to be distilled down to about three to five once it gets to copy desk or completely changed and jazzed up. These guys are also usually getting pages to print at night, hours after you've filed your story and have left.

The thing that can sometimes happen here is that the copy desk can royally fuck up and write an incorrect headline. Since the general public assumes you wrote the headline, the person dealing with the fallout the next day is you. You can try to explain how headlines get written, but often you are the one that has to make the phone call to apologize to whoever the headline offended or wronged and end up writing the correction. The copy desk guys might get called into the editor's office, but they aren't the ones whose byline is on the story.

My question would be does Kotaku's editors write or approve headlines? Or is it something like Gawker has some unrelated team of headline writers tucked away in another office across town whose sole job is to crank out the most attention getting headlines all day for all their sites?

 

[jschreier]

See, this could be an interesting way to start a "how the sausage gets made" discussion. Readers tend to assume journalists or writers actually write their headlines. I venture a guess that the initial negative reaction to the blog post had a lot to do with "clueless" being in the headline. Readers tend to assume the person who wrote the post assumes authorship of the headline by virute of their byline appearing below it. Now, there have been valid critiques of the actual post in general, but I want to talk about headlines specifically.

In my case, having worked in print before, writers submit a suggested headline with their story when they file it. The person who actually writes the headline is the copy editor or copy desk, who are more concerned about how the headline will fit on a page and how much space they have to work with. They are also more concerned about grabbing a reader's attention with the headline. There are actual press association awards for best headline and page layouts. In a perfect world without space constraints measured in inches, writers would probably prefer that their lead became the headline, but those 20 to 25 words are going to be distilled down to about three to five once it gets to copy desk or completely changed and jazzed up. These guys are also usually getting pages to print at night, hours after you've filed your story and have left.

The thing that can sometimes happen here is that the copy desk can royally fuck up and write an incorrect headline. Since the general public assumes you wrote the headline, the person dealing with the fallout the next day is you. You can try to explain how headlines get written, but often you are the one that has to make the phone call to apologize to whoever the headline offended or wronged and end up writing the correction. The copy desk guys might get called into the editor's office, but they aren't the ones whose byline is on the story.

My question would be does Kotaku's editors write or approve headlines? Or is it something like Gawker has some unrelated team of headline writers tucked away in another office across town whose sole job is to crank out the most attention getting headlines all day for all their sites?

Yep. I've also written for print and seen some of the same things you're talking about. But we actually write our own headlines. We'll sometimes collaborate and tweak and bounce ideas off one another in our virtual chatroom, but it's mostly an autonomous process.

 

[Oersted]

I see your point, but I don't think I was criticizing either side of the argument - I was criticizing Erik Kain for not reaching out to Kotaku for his story. I haven't commented on the actual points he made.

You know, you probably would have had more support if you did. If you would have tried to explain why he choosed such a headline. Why such headlines in general get a pass. Or at Kotaku especially. Not instantly attacking those who are critizicing.

And stuff like this don´t help:

"Unless you want all of games media to turn into Forbes-like content farms full of writers who just look at what NeoGAF or Reddit are talking about on any given day and then echo whatever opinion most people seem to agree with."

You know Kotaku made countless articles based on GAF posts? Or on tweets for that matter?

This headline was not just a little happy accident. Kotaku is known for such a behaviour.

EDIT:

Ok, I'm certainly not going to hold you accountable for this one because it happened years ago, but I'll never forget "Jade Raymond Smells Pretty at London Games Fest," a headline that is still up on the site and was written by a guy who is still employed at Kotaku (assuming he came up with the headline for his own piece).

Read the article. Damn creepy. Damn wrong.

 

[idlethreats]

I see your point, but I don't think I was criticizing either side of the argument - I was criticizing Erik Kain for not reaching out to Kotaku for his story. I haven't commented on the actual points he made.

Well my point was that I think that if you can't participate fully in this aspect of the discussion - and for reasons of professionalism, you can't - then you probably shouldn't be a part of it at all. I get that it must be frustrating to see people praising the Forbes piece when it contains some of the problems that they are lambasting Kotaku for in the same breath, but you're really not the appropriate person to be pointing this particular incongruence.

Read the article. Damn creepy. Damn wrong.

Mmmyup. To be fair, I don't think a headline like that would ever be published under Totilo as EIC, but when I think "Kotaku" + "headline," I instantly remember that piece and the fact that, at the time, there was no accountability for it.

 

[Oersted]

Mmmyup. To be fair, I don't think a headline like that would ever be published under Totilo as EIC, but when I think "Kotaku" + "headline," I instantly remember that piece and the fact that, at the time, there was no accountability for it.

Not just the headline, the whole article. Wrong at all encounters. But yeah, its pre- Totilo even if a grownup man shouldn´t be able to write such crap at a major site. And post-Totilo Kotaku already had his fair of crap articles/ headlines. But yeah, its getting better.

 

[Weltall Zero]

Well, sure. I don't want to argue semantics. But the implication in this conversation is that I need to trawl for traffic in order to pay my bills, which isn't true. We simply get a bonus based on performance, as is standard at most jobs.

The very fact that you see nothing wrong in "more hits" <-> "I'm doing a better job" <-> "more money" is slightly troubling to me. I'm not against being paid more for doing a better job, but if Kotaku's only measurement of article quality is "number of hits" (and you yourself simply can't imagine any other metric or way to ascertain the quality of an article) then you're pretty much telling me everything I need to know about Kotaku itself.

Ok, I'm certainly not going to hold you accountable for this one because it happened years ago, but I'll never forget "Jade Raymond Smells Pretty at London Games Fest," a headline that is still up on the site and was written by a guy who is still employed at Kotaku (assuming he came up with the headline for his own piece).

Just read the article. Holy. Crap. That is some seriously disturbing stalker shit right there. Restraining orders have been signed for less.

 

[jschreier]

The very fact that you see nothing wrong in "more hits" <-> "I'm doing a better job" <-> "more money" is slightly troubling to me. I'm not against being paid more for doing a better job, but if Kotaku's only measurement of article quality is "number of hits" (and you yourself simply can't imagine any other metric or way to ascertain the quality of an article) then you're pretty much telling me everything I need to know about Kotaku itself.

.

Also, it should be noted, we don't solely write articles to bring in traffic. I spent a great deal of time on this XSEED profile, and we all know a longform profile about a niche localization company isn't going to get hundreds of thousands of views. But it serves readers, which is goal #1.

 

[eternalb]

If by "nailed it" you mean "wrote a story about Kotaku without reaching out to Kotaku for comment, therefore ignoring one of the basic principles of journalism" then sure!

Woooow. Damage control irony ho!

 

[Yagharek]

I gave the site the benefit of the doubt and that lasted three weeks before another typical kotaku joke article.

What a surprise.

 

[Freshmaker]

Did you actually read the article? Go ahead: http://kotaku.com/5974039/the-guy-who-made-bayonetta-is-clueless-about-valve-and-pc-gaming

Except for the original headline, which was changed because, as Stephen wrote, it was a poor choice of words, is there a single line in that article that criticizes Kamiya? If so, please point it out.

The article uses Kamiya as the voice for all of Japan. I still can't understand why nobody at Kotaku sees a problem with this.

 

[Yagharek]

The article uses Kamiya as the voice for all of Japan. I still can't understand why nobody at Kotaku sees a problem with this.

Maybe they contacted all of Japan for comment?

 

[Freshmaker]

Maybe they contacted all of Japan for comment?

They didn't even contact Kamiya. Instead the elected to use him as in instrument for vague presumptions about the industry as a whole while discussing him like a sociology experiment.

 

[Metroidvania]

Also, it should be noted, we don't solely write articles to bring in traffic. I spent a great deal of time on this XSEED profile, and we all know a longform profile about a niche localization company isn't going to get hundreds of thousands of views. But it serves readers, which is goal #1.

Pretty sure that at the end of the day/bottom line, goal #1 is making enough money to pay the bills and possibly try to generate some form of profit. It has to be, otherwise the business practice isn't sustainable. Serving readers is at best #2 unless monetary funding is somehow a non-concern. Granted, this applies to more than just video game journalism and is part of the whole journalism funding=bias slippery slope, but to throw up a "we're serving readers" as a deflection from the monetary side of things seems kind of disingenuous.

Though I'm sure that's going to be regarded as a cynical take, it's one I've adapted to when viewing any type of news, especially in an environment such as video game journalism with your huge reliance/lack of substantial "clout" regarding the cooperation of publishers/developers to remain relevant/on-top of game-related previews and the like.

 

[jschreier]

Pretty sure goal #1 is making enough money to pay the bills and possibly try to generate some form of profit. It has to be, otherwise the business practice isn't sustainable. Serving readers is at best #2 unless monetary funding isn't a concern. Granted, this applies to more than just video game journalism, but to throw up a "we're serving readers" as a deflection from the monetary side of things seems kind of disingenuous.

Though I'm sure that's going to be regarded as a cynical take, it's one I've adapted to when viewing any type of news, especially in an environment such as video game journalism with your huge reliance on the cooperation of publishers/developers to remain relevant/on-top of game-related previews and the like.

You ignored what I wrote, though. I won't deny that making money is important, as I work for a business, but why would I spend days of my time interviewing, transcribing, and writing a niche profile about Xseed if that was our biggest concern? Why would I write a weekly column about JRPGs?

 

[Metroidvania]

You ignored what I wrote, though. I won't deny that making money is important, as I work for a business, but why would I spend days of my time interviewing, transcribing, and writing a niche profile about Xseed if that was our biggest concern? Why would I write a weekly column about JRPGs?

Why? Because you're getting paid for it. If you get a base salary as you indicated earlier and do a sufficient number good articles to not get your editor-in-chief to get on your case and aren't concerned about commission-based extra funds from pumping out huge click-inducing articles, I'm sure there's some extra time you have to work on something extra that won't necessarily generate as much bonus revenue, but is something you enjoy.

I'm not privy to Kotaku's internal page notification or how you guys divy up your assignments or your quota/pay regarding base pay of the quality/quantity of an article, so I can't comment with any certainty, but I'm sure you do either write enough other articles that generate larger interest in clicks/etc OR get paid enough on your base salary and either aren't concerned about that extra income or just have a passion for what you do that leaves you enough time and desire to work on XSEED or other smaller projects. Otherwise I can't imagine you'd continue to do what you do.

I'm not denying that you can have a passion for reporting on smaller focus articles such as XSEED or a weekly jRPG column , but to deny that click-based monetary rewards have a potential effect on how articles are titled/framed by saying you do niche stuff which obviously wouldn't be generating any progress towards a bonus as well seems to be muddying the waters.

 

[AkuMifune]

Being engaged doesn't mean being a defensive shit. If you do good work that should be enough, and it will get recognized.

Otherwise you're just like that girl at the party insisting she's not a slut right up until someone opens up the door with her on all fours surrounded by homeless dudes.

 

[Jackpot]

The very fact that you see nothing wrong in "more hits" <-> "I'm doing a better job" <-> "more money" is slightly troubling to me. I'm not against being paid more for doing a better job, but if Kotaku's only measurement of article quality is "number of hits" (and you yourself simply can't imagine any other metric or way to ascertain the quality of an article) then you're pretty much telling me everything I need to know about Kotaku itself.

.

Also, it should be noted, we don't solely write articles to bring in traffic. I spent a great deal of time on this XSEED profile, and we all know a longform profile about a niche localization company isn't going to get hundreds of thousands of views. But it serves readers, which is goal #1.

So because not every article is cheap click-bait, that means no articles are? The occasional monthly article that actually has more than 5 minutes work put into it doesn't excuse all the bilge you post.