It's a valid assumption/interpretation, though. Out of all of the articles to link and recommend, he chose that one. "I can't talk about the case but here's an article I want you to read". Well, why do you want me to read it? Also, the link he posted in the prior page as a follow-up is much more neutral in its language, which is nice.
Is Kotaku in danger of shutting down?
- Thread starter dex3108
- Start date
It's a valid assumption/interpretation, though. Out of all of the articles to link and recommend, he chose that one. "I can't talk about the case but here's an article I want you to read". Well, why do you want me to read it? Also, the link he posted in the prior page as a follow-up is much more neutral in its language, which is nice.
Those articles in themselves do not lean any one way or another, they're laying out the technical details of the case going forward. It's basically creating a strawman to attack, by making those assumptions.
Honestly though it's a decent look at the character of the people making the decisions at the company. If he's cracking jokes during that questioning why should we believe they posted that video to better the public good. It seems like a way to prove they posted the video to profit off of and nothing else.
Riposte
Member
Sounds like "They are a slut, so I don't see why I can't host their sex tape online and refuse to take it down".
There were sites that merely reported on it, including nothing more than screenshots, and these sites were not sued. The closing arguments on Hulkster's side (the video link escapes me) seem pretty definitive to me, enough to how I can't see it wouldn't hold up in an appeal, but I wouldn't know.
It seems silly to me people want there to be a somber moment for the loss of game journo jobs, but here we have the same employees effectively defending Gawker's capacity as a sex tape distributor (something apparently universally agreed to be abhorrent, although with some users thinking the blow should be softened because Hogan is a white male) or remaining totally silent on the issue until its time to send out a "please pity me, my thoroughly corrupt employer may be in trouble" tweet.
EDIT: Déjà vu from when they outed a competitor as a gay man, and that was newsworthy because...
RadarScope1
Member
Former journalist here. The reality is that there are no hard and fast rules. It's all about how you want to treat people, how sensitive the story is, and any number of other factors on a case-by-case basis. Most of the time BOTH parties come to these sorts of agreements. It's rarely just on one person or other to define the boundaries. This is why journalism is a craft, not profession like medicine or law. You can't script these kinds of things. It's different each and every time.
SolidSnakex
Member
To me the best part of the video comes when the lawyer has Daulerio read off quotes he or Denton have said in the past. Particularly ones where he's talking about how he probably wouldn't run the types of stories he does on Gawker if he didn't work there. He talks about how people want them to basically adhere to ethics of general society, but he has to instead adhere to those that Gawker sets. He tries to paint the picture that Gawker is okay with running pretty much anything even if it's illegal as long as it gets traffic.
No, no that's not correct. It's not a strawman fallacy at all. Language has connotation. My point was that the connotation of the article paints Gawker as being wronged by a biased Florida jury, I guess because they "didn't get" or understand Gawker's style. You're free to debate that point, and I'd actually like to know how you interpreted the article and why he posted it, but to just tell me I'm wrong is kind of dickish.
Tell me. In your time as a journalist did you ever ask a question, receive a reply, and then ask the other party "by the way, did you want this to be off the record?" Or any variation of that?
Hopefully not. It's a journalists job to get information from questions. If you're in the midst of the interview, you as the journalist should never have to ask if something is off the record UNLESS it's said in relation to something else that was already off the record. If the interviewee was unaware of how an interview works, they should ask that at the start. But I interview folks often that normally have no reason to be interviewed and they occasionally tell me when something is off the record.
Does this have to mean the end of Kotaku? Maybe Gawker can sell it whole to some company. Sure, Kotaku writers wouldn't have as much freedom as they have now (they mention in a tweet they can pursue stories whether it pisses off someone or not), but at least most jobs would be kept.
My takeaway from the two articles is that the case is not yet settle despite early celebrations on Hulk's end. That's kind of hard to miss as the main point of those links. Construing them as Jason's thoughts about the case one way or another is assumptive. Hey may or may not be. He very well could be supporting or not supporting Gawker. He hasn't given anything to indicate. The links don't show his allegiance as you are trying to imply.
privitsan02
Member
Given the nature of them promoting negativity within the gaming community and jumping to conclusions, I don't see much of a loss here in terms of losing this media outlet.
Hopefully the likes of Patrick Klepek and others find opportunities elsewhere. They have the connections anyway.
Best wishes.
Hopefully the likes of Patrick Klepek and others find opportunities elsewhere. They have the connections anyway.
Best wishes.
Banjo-Kazooie
Member
Good. Gawker is pretty scummy. No tears shed in my part.
I'm aware of this fact, I just wanted someone with some kind of authorative knowledge on the matter to put it... on the record.
Given that some people posting have no idea how things work but insist on saying Patrick violated journalistic ethics.
Scientist Supreme!
Banned
Explain.
RadarScope1
Member
No, not that I can recall. It all typically happens up front. I'm in PR now and it's the same deal now that I am on the other side. Both parties set expectations up front. Usually. As the media relations rep for my current employer, I always tell my people that they should operate as if there is really no such thing as "off the record." However, if they have a good relationship with the journalist or if the topic is not that controversial, then they can set those rules and large expect them to respected. BUT there is always a chance you'll get burned.
Thank you.
I'm not a journalist but from what I have seen on TV, interviewees must state that something is off the record before actually saying it. If they let something slip and retroactively say that it is off the record then it is still on the record.
RadarScope1
Member
That's generally true, but again, it's not as if there are hard and fast rules. It's not a sport or a video game with rulesets. These things are come down to essentially the same rules as we all use in daily human interaction. It's all about how a journalist wants to treat someone and the topic, plus some other factors on a case-by-case basis.
And "on TV" is about a reliable as for medical or courtroom dramas - in other words, not very realistic.
Coolio McAwesome
Member
I think Kotaku is one of the worst gaming websites on the Internet, but they still have value and I wouldn't expect them to disappear. The worst case scenario is that Gawker manages to hold onto them. The other scenario that they would be sold to another media company. If this happens, there would likely be significant changes made to how the company is run. Personally, I'd like to see them stick around. I'd liken them to FOX News in that it's really easy for me to ignore them.
Gawker needs better lawyers. Gawker lost this case on account of being unethical and sleazy. They had no way of winning, but their lawyers couldn't have fucked up harder if they tried.
It boggles my mind that they didn't have the comment about child sex tapes removed following the deposition. There is a mechanism to remove the comments, and they chose not to. It was obviously a joke made in bad taste, but the notion that they were just pretending to be child pornographers was obviously not going to go over well with any jury. They had the opportunity to remove that comment, but they signed off on it. It's one thing for a smug "journalist" to make a horrible joke under oath, but I can't believe that the lawyers would be so smug as to sign off on such an inappropriate comment.
On a related note, I am blown away by how vocal some Gawker's employees are being right now. In any job I've ever held, employees are clearly instructed not to comment about any ongoing legal proceedings. It boggles my mind that Gawker's lawyers haven't told everyone to keep their mouths shut. Given the propensity for Gawker employees to make inappropriate comments, their lawyers should have gagged them months ago.
Gawker needs better lawyers. Gawker lost this case on account of being unethical and sleazy. They had no way of winning, but their lawyers couldn't have fucked up harder if they tried.
It boggles my mind that they didn't have the comment about child sex tapes removed following the deposition. There is a mechanism to remove the comments, and they chose not to. It was obviously a joke made in bad taste, but the notion that they were just pretending to be child pornographers was obviously not going to go over well with any jury. They had the opportunity to remove that comment, but they signed off on it. It's one thing for a smug "journalist" to make a horrible joke under oath, but I can't believe that the lawyers would be so smug as to sign off on such an inappropriate comment.
On a related note, I am blown away by how vocal some Gawker's employees are being right now. In any job I've ever held, employees are clearly instructed not to comment about any ongoing legal proceedings. It boggles my mind that Gawker's lawyers haven't told everyone to keep their mouths shut. Given the propensity for Gawker employees to make inappropriate comments, their lawyers should have gagged them months ago.
Andrew Korenchkin
Member
I'm not a Kotaku fan, but I really don't want the website to shut down. I don't know why people would want this to happen and these journalists are out of a job.
I know Kotaku has a bad reputation for clickbait but I actually like them. I don't use the site often, just when it is linked on NeoGAF.
However, those linked articles either contain new information that other sites don't bother with (e.g. Schrier's Destiny and Assassin's Creed exposes) or are just good reads. I also respect their stance on review scores. I don't read their reviews because of this but I respect it. Oh and sticking it to Ubisoft on ridiculous embargos and calling them out was pretty cool.
I don't care if Kotaku shuts down since those people aren't going to suddenly die and produce nothing ever again but I do like Kotaku.
However, those linked articles either contain new information that other sites don't bother with (e.g. Schrier's Destiny and Assassin's Creed exposes) or are just good reads. I also respect their stance on review scores. I don't read their reviews because of this but I respect it. Oh and sticking it to Ubisoft on ridiculous embargos and calling them out was pretty cool.
I don't care if Kotaku shuts down since those people aren't going to suddenly die and produce nothing ever again but I do like Kotaku.
InsaneTiger
Member
The verdict will probably be reversed or reduced. Juries typically don't like the media, most people don't like the media. The appeals court is just 3 people and generally a little more neutral. This will be interesting.
SaintMadeOfPlaster
Member
I'm not a huge fan of Kotaku, so I wouldn't be bummed at all to see it shut down, as long as it doesn't happen so suddenly that tons of people are out of work (I'm looking at you, Defy Media).
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Many people are just angry and empty.
LeeRoyBrown
Banned
Lost interest in Kotaku years ago when people like Brian Ashcraft started writing articles about cosplay non stop instead of you know.. Games? One article was grasping at straws when he wrote one about a transgender girl doing cosplay.
I mean great Brian. But what does this have to do with games she's in an Xmen outfit and no Xmen games are coming out right now?
"her distant cousin works in the games industry "
Umm ok Brian. Sick justification for an article. Totally about games and not just someone you find attractive.
I mean great Brian. But what does this have to do with games she's in an Xmen outfit and no Xmen games are coming out right now?
"her distant cousin works in the games industry "
Umm ok Brian. Sick justification for an article. Totally about games and not just someone you find attractive.
They have never been a 100% gaming website ever.
A Link to the Past
Banned
What negativity does Kotaku promote within the gaming community?
Journalist and lawyer here; I agree with this 100%.
Kobun Heat
Member
This is basically the "assume every gun is loaded" rule of PR. It doesn't mean every gun is loaded, it means that if you treat them as if they are, you'll never accidentally shoot someone. (It also doesn't apply to what happened here, which is what I wanted to say.)
Kotaku
Otaku
That should clue enough people in on that it's not all about games but also a lot of nerdy media. There's also IGN that doesn't fully focus on games, Gamespot that doesn't fully focus on games, USgamer that doesn't fully focus on games, Polygon that doesn't focus fully on games, and the list goes on for awhile. It's also happening even more now too.
I remeber a Totilo story from several years ago that was just a straight transcription of a dude telling the story of how his house got hit by lightning. He was a game developer? Or maybe it was just that his game consoles got fried? It was the most inane thing I'd ever read; I took Kotaku off my RSS and kept them on probation for a while bit after that, lol.
Kobun Heat
Member
jesus tapdancing christ
Incorrect. The journalist must agree that the conversation will be off the record.
Messofanego
Banned
Klepek is talented as hell, he'll land on his feet. One of the best gaming journalists.
_Spr_Drnk
Banned
Well no matter what happens, I'm sure Jason Schreier will find work elsewhere. Obviously I wish the best to the rest of the crew too, but he has done some really amazing pieces IMO, and I would hate to see him out of the industry the most. I'm not so familiar with Klepeks work.
Even then there are no guarantees. The only way it would be is if they signed a written contract stating it would be off record.
Feel bad for the good journalists at kotaku, but some of the people at gawker absolutely deserve this. Too bad that gawker's crap will have to drag them down
No matter what people have done in a journalistic space, it's unlikely that they deserve to lose their jobs, period. That's a shitty thing to say.
Kobun Heat
Member
True, but only in the sense that there are no guarantees in life. Eventually you have to start figuring out who can be trusted.
Like, I don't think this would ever come up, but I bet you Patrick would go to jail to protect a source if it ever came to that. Keeping your obligations to your sources is one of the most fundamental tenets of good journalism.
Fantastical
Death Prophet
I'm sorry, what? Journalists aren't magically immune to firings.
RadarScope1
Member
Yes, we are probably getting a bit far afield. I didn't mean to imply I'm trying to explain this specific situation. I was just getting down the road of explaining how things work since a lot of folks seem to think there are hard and fast rules, or are getting their knowledge from TV, or worse.
Well, yeah, that goes without saying and lines up with what I've seen on TV. It seems that TV has taught me well. 😎
RoninChaos
Member
Everybody bitching that kotaku runs more than just game articles is hilarious. No one is forcing you to read the other stuff.
Right? They also remind us every two posts about great deals, and awesome belts and hoodies.
*Gawker Media may receive commission for this post.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
If you conduct shitty, unethical, abhorrent journalism, yes you deserve to lose your job, and no that's not a shitty thing to say.
Xisiqomelir
Member
On a serious note, there is no violation of journalistic privilege here. Denton and his fucknozzle "oh I'm okay with nudes of 5 year olds" editor had ample opportunity to remove the intimate, personal video from their sordid shitpile "media empire", but they deliberately chose not to because of this noxious "for the lulz" culture that they engender and foster.
Shut it all the fuck down.
On another note, there are several avenues of delay and appeal I'm sure the Gawker attorneys will pursue. This probably won't be over-over for another 1-2 years.
A Link to the Past
Banned
On a serious note, there is no violation of journalistic privilege here. Denton and his fucknozzle "oh I'm okay with nudes of 5 year olds" editor had ample opportunity to remove the intimate, personal video from their sordid shitpile "media empire", but they deliberately chose not to because of this noxious "for the lulz" culture that they engender and foster.
Shut it all the fuck down.
On another note, there are several avenues of delay and appeal I'm sure the Gawker attorneys will pursue. This probably won't be over-over for another 1-2 years.
Why do you even want Kotaku to be shut down?
I don't know what you're trying to say with this but Alex Navarro is certainly not gonna be happy about this. He and Patrick are friends.
Xisiqomelir
Member
I can remember a glorious GAF where we had it on the banned list, and I can envision a GAF where we return to those halcyon days.
A Link to the Past
Banned
It was on the ban list because of a consistent poor quality of articles made by people who do not work at Kotaku anymore.