It's also weird how he refers to GAF like if it's an entity. Afaik were those rumors never faked by some gaf mod or admin. When some guy walks onto times-square and shouts into a microphone that the apocalypse is coming you wont hear anyone say: "New York says the apocalypse is coming"
Hey, uh, has this ever happened? (McElroy: GAF has actively tried to fool the press)
- Thread starter shadyspace
- Start date
Visualante2
Member
Patrick is like the only investigative journalist out there I see regularly. Sorry to all the small timers. It's a shame so many shysters get into news reporting positions.
also
http://gamejournos.com/
I don't think so, not actively. But it's weird that we are in a position of power in the game. If something is posted that is true or not, the website is so big that EZ mode journalism reports it anyway and then companies are forced into a stalemate. Issue a press release commenting or risk further misinformation.
also
The fuck? GAF isn't their fact checker. Are we like the Jon Stewart to their Fox News?
http://gamejournos.com/
No way, there's no editorial control in the way threads are locked and closed. And users aren't allowed to discredit posts with cats anymore.
This is the best post in this thread
john_trent11
Member
Seems like most of the time GAF will ridicule any rumor as "obviously fake," "terrible photoshop," etc. GAF is the most cynical and skeptical audience.
I suspect this announcement was done by McElroy to get some publicity and then milk it as long as he can. You figure this has to be better than his previous claim-to-fame (the notorious "dancing with Skyrim.gif").
Did this guy get on the defense because his site was the first one to publish the questionable rumor? I mean, I thought half the the things game journos did was post rumors, even if they're out there. The credible articles are usually the ones that go in depth, and those don't happen often, and if they happen on places like Kotaku, they're done with very little accuracy.
Never thought GAF trolls journos, though. I thought they just pointed and laughed at their incompetence from time to time.
Never thought GAF trolls journos, though. I thought they just pointed and laughed at their incompetence from time to time.
entremet
Member
That wasn't Justin McElroy.
Bboy_Izilla
Banned
What?
It always makes me laugh.
It was. I've posted the link to the thread twice now, in the OP its specified that it originally came from his Twitter account, just like this thread's topic.
Yeah it was, someone already linked the thread a couple of pages back.
vitaminwateryum
corporate swill
I once managed to fool an actual newspaper when a sperm whale was beached. They asked for pictures, so I sent them pictures of a wooden sperm whale on the coast of another country. It was the first Google Images result for sperm whale and I sent it via a mail address that had the word fake in the name. It was online on their website for three hours before they were alerted it was fake. (The coast was an hour away from their headquarters so they weren't even willing to send a reporter themselves.)
After that they sent me an angry mail that they would ban me and that they saw through my mail adress. I sent them back research is an elementary quality for a journalist, never did get a response.
After that they sent me an angry mail that they would ban me and that they saw through my mail adress. I sent them back research is an elementary quality for a journalist, never did get a response.
VeryGooster
Banned
Pretty sure McElroy blocked me after I called him and some of his peers condescending during the ME3 ending (or Consumerist/EA) craziness.
I think one of the things to keep in mind is that people in "the industry" often have very negative opinions on online communities, and typical internet users as a whole—so this isn't just a "hate on GAF" kind of thing.
I got my start as part of the fan community. I was making fanzines, or I was going onto the newsgroups and posting on places like rec.games.video.sega (long before message boards, or easy access to websites, even existed). That was just part of my culture, so I've always been somebody who felt like I belonged to those kinds of groups.
So, when I started working for magazines and starting talking to a variety of people, I was pretty shocked at the opinions people had for "those kinds". It wasn't just the people working at publishers or those on the development side—I found a lot of my fellow writers also held a lot of contempt for people who would go for things like newsgroups, message forums, etc.
Even to this day, it's still kind of shocking to me the attitudes that I run into quite often. I mean, back in the day, only the hardcore had access to get onto the internet and join into what communities existed. Now, with the internet being so widespread, you'd think that it would be common place to expect that people might go online and join into communities or conversations. And yet—without naming any names—there are still plenty of people who will talk about how much they hate such communities (online or otherwise), or who will dog even the communities specifically built up around the magazines or websites that they work for. (And I'm not just referring to comments made about "bottom of the barrel" types who you wonder how they can post online when they seem to have so few brain cells.)
I think there's just this level of superiority that some claim to have. They come into the industry in whatever way they did, and that process makes them feel like they're better than the "fans" out there. Like I said, I specifically got to where I am now through that fan community, so I've always felt more a part of that than I do the "industry". I've meet some totally awesome and fantastic industry people who I'm now glad to call my friends–but I've also met plenty who gave me the "I'm better than you" attitude, when supposedly we're both part of the same "family" or whatever.
I'm not sure I've ever met Justin McElroy, so I wouldn't even begin to say anything about him personally. Looking over his last batch of twitter posts, though, they kind of rub me the wrong way.
I got my start as part of the fan community. I was making fanzines, or I was going onto the newsgroups and posting on places like rec.games.video.sega (long before message boards, or easy access to websites, even existed). That was just part of my culture, so I've always been somebody who felt like I belonged to those kinds of groups.
So, when I started working for magazines and starting talking to a variety of people, I was pretty shocked at the opinions people had for "those kinds". It wasn't just the people working at publishers or those on the development side—I found a lot of my fellow writers also held a lot of contempt for people who would go for things like newsgroups, message forums, etc.
Even to this day, it's still kind of shocking to me the attitudes that I run into quite often. I mean, back in the day, only the hardcore had access to get onto the internet and join into what communities existed. Now, with the internet being so widespread, you'd think that it would be common place to expect that people might go online and join into communities or conversations. And yet—without naming any names—there are still plenty of people who will talk about how much they hate such communities (online or otherwise), or who will dog even the communities specifically built up around the magazines or websites that they work for. (And I'm not just referring to comments made about "bottom of the barrel" types who you wonder how they can post online when they seem to have so few brain cells.)
I think there's just this level of superiority that some claim to have. They come into the industry in whatever way they did, and that process makes them feel like they're better than the "fans" out there. Like I said, I specifically got to where I am now through that fan community, so I've always felt more a part of that than I do the "industry". I've meet some totally awesome and fantastic industry people who I'm now glad to call my friends–but I've also met plenty who gave me the "I'm better than you" attitude, when supposedly we're both part of the same "family" or whatever.
I'm not sure I've ever met Justin McElroy, so I wouldn't even begin to say anything about him personally. Looking over his last batch of twitter posts, though, they kind of rub me the wrong way.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
You know sometimes, like with the "Modern Warfare 2 removes dedicated servers" controversy, I wonder if that type of thought process makes people in the journalism industry want to take the side opposite the fans because "obviously those people don't know anything about the industry because they aren't a part of it like we are". Like they have to go a step above the fans because that's where they feel their position should be.
Of course it can never really be proven, and its not like its impossible to take the other side of any of those issues. Its just an overall feeling I get.
EmCeeGramr
Member
I have always wondered why so many writers for the industry have such... contempt for the people who share their interests. I mean, yeah, there's a lot of nasty subcommunities and unfortunate examples of stereotypes come to life on the internet. Duh.
But there's this air of superiority that a lot of them seem to have, where anybody who uses the magical entity known as "The Internet" (which is definitely not same as the internet they make their livings on and use to communicate their thoughts every day) is beneath them and can be disregarded as ignorant rabble.
But there's this air of superiority that a lot of them seem to have, where anybody who uses the magical entity known as "The Internet" (which is definitely not same as the internet they make their livings on and use to communicate their thoughts every day) is beneath them and can be disregarded as ignorant rabble.
Freeza Under The Shower
Member
I imagine they spend a lot of time around bad role models, e.g. publisher CEO's.
And that they come from the best of us, e.g. 4chan.
Combine and mix to the appropriate level of toxicity.
edit: I find this episode, combined with his opinions on 'ME3 gamer entitlement', enough to put him on the "manchildren I will avoid" list.
The Leveson Inquiry are looking into asking for Gaf's PM's to be made public...probably.
Imagine the pants crapped if there actually was something like Leveson for gaming journalists. Or even, imagine if there was such a thing as Gaming Journalism.
daemissary
Member
This. I'm a huge fan of all of the podcasts Justin is on but for some reason, on Twitter, he constantly gets up on his high horse and talks down to his audience. I don't get it.
Tackling "serious" games journalism issues just isn't a good look for him. Or anyone for that matter.
To be fair, the contempt goes both ways.
And, of course, game fans are not the most tolerant lot, not even toward their fellow game fans.
Wander into your average game review thread and you'll find out why.
EmCeeGramr
Member
Read the rest of my post and you'll find something too!
I've noticed this as well and I might sound like a first semester humanities student when I say this, but I think it has a lot to do with the negative feedback they get on their work (comments sections are almost universally awful, for a variety of reasons) and the general failings of human cognition. Anything negative is weighted heavier in our minds, we tend to think of groups as single entities, we are prone to a bunch of fallacies that foster misconceptions, the industry on the press side is very close knit (so when they talk to their peers on podcasts for instance, they reinforce whatever notions they have about their audience), etc. etc.
Basically: circumstances make it so things appear different to them than they appear to us and circumstances make it so whatever notions they have about The Internet are reinforced and vice versa.
It is what it is. I try not to get worked up about these things, as there's no solving it, short of everyone thinking a whole lot more about what they say before they say it and how they say it, but... That's life, I suppose.
Haunted
Member
What's the context for that Patrick picture?
Not sure how I'm supposed to read his expression.
LowEndTorque
Member
lolz this thread is now bigger than the thread about the leaked/fake document itself.
SouthernDragon
Member
Tom Warren handled this correctly. He would do well to teach McElroy how it's done.
entremet
Member
For some reason I thought it was the EIC of joystiq. Carry on.
We're a gaming forum.
He's a journalist.
What the hell are we doing that we're making his job hard? We posted a rumour and began discussing it and he's over there pissed off at us? wtf?
Dictator93
Member
LOl, where did this post come from?!
Dwight Schrute
Member
I guess he lacks common sense.
Hey justin my dad works at Nintendo but I can't say his name or he'll get fired, but the Wii U will be compatible with PS4 and XBOX720 games 1!1!!!
Is your dad's name Veggie Gleason Ray?
Their unscientific scoring system is what creates that situation. Placing objective numerical values on subjective evaluations. The reaction in review threads are an expected result of this practice if not the purpose of the practice of scoring games. That is no reason to feel superior. You will very rarely see a vicious reaction to reviews without a number or symbol representing the review. The overall discourse on video game forums are lowered by these outlets for the purpose of driving traffic.
Why would anyone think the numbers were objective?
Jake Tower
Banned
Who said numerical values are objective?
Because they represent a value that is easily understandable and are inherently placing it a game on a scale to compare with other games. This game is worth 6, while this game is worth 8. Those are objective statements. There is no room for subjectivity. It also is there to be representative of the entire review text. It often receives a prominent placement on the review and is larger than the text of the review. It is what is most important and the score obscures the points you make in your review. The idea that the author of the review feels is most important is the number, due to the size and placement of the number. It purposely leaves itself open to responses that have nothing to do with the text in the review.
Ding ding ding ding ding! We have a winner! If you're going to measure or weigh a review with objective values, then the title being reviewed must be analyzed objectively.
Easily solved. They aren't there to be compared. Not only that, but the same people don't review every game. Would it be easier to just go to a star system or a thumbs up/down scale? Maybe, but it's not hard to put the 1-10 scaled systems in context.
Maybe this is why no one covered my Panasonic Jungle discovery. I didn't list any of the sources (for fear of them getting in trouble) but they're very easy to find.
No one reported on my Jungle discovery because no one gives a shit.
There is no such thing as an objective review unless it's related to assessing a piece of medical equipment for use in a hospital or something. [And even then, there is some potential for bias.] The key thing with reviews is finding that reviewer which seems to have similar tastes to you and paying attention to his/her opinion while considering others' takes on the subject.
The fact that the guy spazzes out over Skyrim is neither here nor there. He should, however, call it out for any issues it has - or, you know, if it ran like shit on one of the platforms it was initially released on.
Even then he's free to fondle his cock whilst thinking about it. I don't care. So long as he's fair in handling its faults.
The fact that the guy spazzes out over Skyrim is neither here nor there. He should, however, call it out for any issues it has - or, you know, if it ran like shit on one of the platforms it was initially released on.
Even then he's free to fondle his cock whilst thinking about it. I don't care. So long as he's fair in handling its faults.
Just to clear it up: Justin was the reviews editor at joystiq at the time, so that might have been the cause of your confusion.
What? The score is simply the reviewer's opinion quantified. If the review is not objective the score that results from the thoughts laid out in that review can also not be objective.
I don't think you can use an objective scoring system that's purpose is not comparison. You compare the value of one game over another using numbers. The context provided is a cop-out because the only reason the score is there is because their readership likes to get angry and fight over scores. The scores are unimportant if they are not there to be compared. Why give them prominent status on the review page other than to generate page views and get on Metacritic?
GhostWriter24
Member
This is the man GAF is now dealing with:
How about we just lock this thread and ban his reviews/articles from the board entirely? Problem solved.
How about we just lock this thread and ban his reviews/articles from the board entirely? Problem solved.
Hey guys.
Tom Warren here (Senior Editor at The Verge). I posted this story at The Verge yesterday. I just wanted to clear up a few things and address some points I've seen posted elsewhere etc. The Xbox 720 leak was covered by The Verge at The Verge, not Polygon at The Verge. I know the temporary home can be confusing at times, but thought it was important to point that out.
As for how we check these types of stories. I have been reporting on Microsoft for around 12 years now. That's not to say I know everything about Microsoft and its processes, but I have a fairly good idea of what is and isn't an internal doc usually after the first few pages. This document in question is from August 2010, prior to iOS 4.2 (mentioned in the PPT notes) and when certain team members (mentioned in doc notes) were still at the company in engineering roles. The document references several employees by name and uses one of Microsoft's internal "CSG_Pres" PowerPoint templates (an early example of their Metro style PowerPoint templates that are used regularly internally now).
Couple this with the fact it aligns with other information I've seen about Nextbox over the past year, it aligned perfectly. The document also references Microsoft's SmartGlass technology (announced at E3). I went through a number of other ways to verify the information was as accurate as other stories we would report on - I'm not going to outline the exact processes because I like to keep those secret
We make every attempt to ensure this type of data is accurate. I ran a number of stories ahead of this year's E3, and they were all accurate:
Microsoft to bring full Internet Explorer browsing to Xbox 360 with Kinect controls
Exclusive: Kinect Play Fit to offer universal exercise tracking with 'Joule' heart rate monitor
Exclusive: $99 Xbox 360 + Kinect bundle launching next week with two-year subscription
Exclusive: Microsoft to preview 'Woodstock' Xbox music service at E3
Hopefully this clears up any questions over how we vet this type of information. I don't typically report on Xbox or gaming news (its not my core knowledge) but I do enjoy reading Neogaf threads from time to time. You guys have an amazing community here so keep it up
Thanks,
Tom
Professional response, not that sarcastic twitter bullshit you get from Justin or Jim Sterling. Thanks!