Support NeoGAF

[diaspora]

lol at the people calling him racist, like you haven't said something that would offend/embarrass someone in the past 15 years. he deserves to come back to wwe, no question about it.

I try to make a general rule of not being racist behind closed doors or otherwise.

 

[cartographer]

That it is completely self-serving? It doesn't benefit consumers. It doesn't benefit the creators. All it does give them clicks.

The original reporting of the news that caused them to be blacklisted or informing their readers about being blacklisted?

Because the former is absolutely newsworthy and shouldn't need defending. The second is because actual Kotaku readers were asking about the site's AC and Fallout coverage, and the article provided the answer.

Nothing wrong with either.

I agreed that it was misplaced in the list, but it's literally the last controversy I remember reading that involved them. I didn't know a whole lot about that specific story but I guess it doesn't actually demonstrate bad journalism. I've edited it out.

OK, I was just wondering.

 

[Euphor!a]

The original reporting of the news that caused them to be blacklisted or informing their readers about being blacklisted?

Because the former is absolutely newsworthy and shouldn't need defending. The second is because actual Kotaku readers were asking about the site's AC and Fallout coverage, and the article provided the answer.

Nothing wrong with either.

A lot of things are newsworthy, that doesn't mean it benefits your readers to know about it. Do you really think learning about the setting of the inevitable fallout/assassin's creed setting is some great scoop that consumers would benefit from learning about earlier? It's not like they leaked some worker's rights scandal, they leaked dumb shit that doesn't benefit anyone but themselves. Which again, is fine. But we aren't arguing whether or not it is fine. But it is completely self-serving, which as a journalist seems pretty shitty.

 

[Alpha Centauri]

Can anyone explain how a 42yr old former editor in chief of gawker only has to his name:

- $1500 in savings
- a handful of worthless stocks
- $40k in college debt
- no car
- no house
- no retirement funds

Wtf has he been doing all this time? I think the typical 25yr old GAFer has more assets than this guy.

Am 25, can confirm. If this is a game of life, he's losing pretty badly.

 

[TheCochese]

Can anyone explain how a 42yr old former editor in chief of gawker only has to his name:

- $1500 in savings
- a handful of worthless stocks
- $40k in college debt
- no car
- no house
- no retirement funds

Wtf has he been doing all this time? I think the typical 25yr old GAFer has more assets than this guy.

37, and I feel loads better about myself right now.

 

[cartographer]

A lot of things are newsworthy, that doesn't mean it benefits your readers to know about it. Do you really think learning about the setting of the inevitable fallout/assassin's creed setting is some great scoop that consumers would benefit from learning about earlier? It's not like they leaked some worker's rights scandal, they leaked dumb shit that doesn't benefit anyone but themselves. Which again, is fine. But we aren't arguing whether or not it is fine. But it is completely self-serving, which as a journalist seems pretty shitty.

The two series this is about are major performers for billion dollar multinational corporations. Reporting details on upcoming installments in these series absolutely serves the readers. It's not all that different than say, scooping that some actor has scored a leading role in a blockbuster movie. Not all breaking news has to be as hard hitting as labor issues.

There's not much to argue here. It's just executing one of the basic functions of journalism to report on projects like this.

 

[Euphor!a]

The two series this is about are major performers for billion dollar multinational corporations. Reporting details on upcoming installments in these series absolutely serves the readers. It's not all that different than say, scooping that some actor has scored a leading role in a blockbuster movie. Not all breaking news has to be as hard hitting as labor issues.

There's not much to argue here. It's just executing one of the basic functions of journalism to report on projects like this.

How does it benefit the readers to learn about the setting of the next assassin's creed a month early or however long it was?

 

[pgtl_10]

People funding other people's lawsuits is not an abuse of power. Just ask the ACLU.

I don't think they operate in the same manner as Peter Thiel.

 

[faceless007]

A lot of things are newsworthy, that doesn't mean it benefits your readers to know about it. Do you really think learning about the setting of the inevitable fallout/assassin's creed setting is some great scoop that consumers would benefit from learning about earlier? It's not like they leaked some worker's rights scandal, they leaked dumb shit that doesn't benefit anyone but themselves. Which again, is fine. But we aren't arguing whether or not it is fine. But it is completely self-serving, which as a journalist seems pretty shitty.

We're talking about video games so outside of stories of accounts being hacked or broken games being released, there isn't much to talk about that physically benefits readers in any remotely tangible way, so if you limited news sites to only report on those things you'd get 2 stories a month. But that's not the reason other stories are reported: they're reported because people find it interesting how the sausage gets made. It's the same reason movie sites report on which scripts have been optioned or are in active development and who's attached to star or produce or direct, or why tv sites report on who's making what pilots with what showrunners and directors and who gets cast. They report it for those who follow the industry (even casually) and find the inside-baseball nature how products get made interesting, even if the vast majority of those in-development projects never seen the light of day. No one's claiming it's a "great scoop" or that it tangibly benefits anyone, but as you readily admit, it is newsworthy to those interested in it, and it doesn't involve violating anyone's privacy or committing some other journalistic faux pas (like the one this thread is about), so I don't know what your objection to it is. (Also I don't know how you can claim that reporting that story was entirely self-serving given that it resulted in them getting blacklisted from one of the biggest game publishers, and they must have known that was a risk they were taking.)

 

[pgtl_10]

That it is completely self-serving? It doesn't benefit consumers. It doesn't benefit the creators. All it does give them clicks.

How does it not benefit consumers.

 

[Euphor!a]

We're talking about video games so outside of stories of accounts being hacked or broken games being released, there isn't much to talk about that physically benefits readers in any remotely tangible way, so if you limited news sites to only report on those things you'd get 2 stories a month. But that's not the reason other stories are reported: they're reported because people find it interesting how the sausage gets made.

This is not what happened here.

 

[Euphor!a]

How does it not benefit consumers.

Because they were going to learn about it anyway?

And all it served to do was screw over someone's marketing plans, aside from giving them clicks of course.

 

[faceless007]

This is not what happened here.

How is it not? It was a story on a game in development.

 

[Armaros]

Because they were going to learn about it anyway?

And all it served to do was screw over someone's marketing plans, aside from giving them clicks of course.

You need to take a step back and stop pretending Kotaku missing up video game marketing is on the same level as Gawker's foibles with invasion of privacy.

 

[Euphor!a]

How is it not? It was a story on a game in development.

This wasn't some grand story about the making of a game. It didn't discuss how it came to be, how it was pitched, how they decided that THIS is where they wanted it to be set and why. It wasn't about "making the sausage" it was "hey, here is the casing the sausage uses before company X has a chance to reveal it".

You need to take a step back and stop pretending Kotaku missing up video game marketing is on the same level as Gawker's foibles with invasion of privacy.

I think we all realize that what kotaku does is a complete joke compared to actual issues. But it is what they do, and if it is done purely out of self-interest, it is still pretty shitty regardless of scale.

 

[Fuchsdh]

Can anyone explain how a 42yr old former editor in chief of gawker only has to his name:

- $1500 in savings
- a handful of worthless stocks
- $40k in college debt
- no car
- no house
- no retirement funds

Wtf has he been doing all this time? I think the typical 25yr old GAFer has more assets than this guy.

As we've established previously (the 'can you pay for a $500 emergency' thread), there's a huge number of adults with decent jobs who just blow all their money. On the other hand this guy might be attempting to hide some assets, so who knows.

 

[Riposte]

From Reddit:

Looks like Hogan made another porno.

 

[Xisiqomelir]

From Reddit:

Magical

 

[cartographer]

How does it benefit the readers to learn about the setting of the next assassin's creed a month early or however long it was?

Because news about these titles are of substantial public interest. And given there are no ethical issues at play in this instance, it's really that simple.

You seem to have acknowledged both the newsworthiness and public interest, so I believe you have a grip on the base facts here but don't want to take those into account when deciding to describe it as only self-serving. Can't help you there. Only so many different ways to explain it.

 

[faceless007]

This wasn't some grand story about the making of a game. It didn't discuss how it came to be, how it was pitched, how they decided that THIS is where they wanted it to be set and why. It wasn't about "making the sausage" it was "hey, here is the casing the sausage uses before company X has a chance to reveal it".

I can't tell if your objection to the stories is that they weren't incisive and detailed enough -- not "grand" enough to use your word, though I don't really know what you mean by that, as the vast majority of news stories published daily by every major publication aren't exactly "grand" -- or that they were published at all against the likely wishes of the publishers' departments. But it can't be both.

If the former, that's not a reasonable standard to hold any journalistic outlet to. No outlet ever has gotten by solely on publishing detailed exposes of long-running events. For every one of those, there are a hundred shorter and less detailed stories essentially reporting a couple facts and giving some context to them but that don't require talking to dozens of witnesses and writing five thousand words. This isn't true just in games journalism, but in every realm. Again, see my examples of film outlets reporting on which scripts are in development and who's in the running to be cast for which parts. Rumors and insider gossip about such things are reported daily in the film industry, and they don't need 5,000-word stories to do it. Why should they? Sometimes a piece of news is just that.

If the latter, I think it should be trivially obvious why journalists in any field should not be beholden to the whims of PR departments and anyone suggesting that they should has absolutely no understanding or interest in real journalism.

 

[norm9]

Dudes definitely hiding his assets somewhere.

Then again, he thought being a jackass in court was a good idea too.

 

[Xisiqomelir]

These jurors were great:

Apparently referring to the pauper-ish Daulerio, one of the jurors asked Judge Campbell on Monday if they could impose a penalty of community service—not in a civil trial, the judge answered—evoking the image of the former Gawker editor trudging up and down Florida’s I-4 Corridor, picking up road kill.

 

[Kinyou]

I don't know what this is supposed to prove. Of course they'd call their own shitty brand of reporting "journalism". Talk about a biased source. The defense I'm seeing from their article is "if we're not journalism, then why have so many other websites reported on similar things that we reported on?" What kind of rebuttal is that? Gawker media is what a trashy tabloid would be if it tried to pretend to be a serious news source.

Let's talk about a few things Gawker media has done over the years, shall we?

1. Gizmodo purchased a stolen iPhone prototype, then deliberately outed the name and face of the employee who lost it.

2. Deadspin published nude photos of footballer Brett Favre from an off-the-record source.

3. Gawker posted an alleged account of a one-night stand with a female politician in order to slander her through sexism.

4. Gizmodo intentionally ruined press events they were invited to by fucking with the TVs because...of some reason.

5. Gawker advocated for the right to stalk celebrities.

6. Gawker gay-shamed a married CFO and outed him because they could.

7. They've had editors admit it was ok to lie for clicks.

8. They love to write about the private lives of just about everyone, but play it silent when one of their own editors is arrested on domestic abuse charges.

9. Jezebel's blatant hypocrisy over the takedown of a celebrity's nudes despite being part of a network which advocated for it.

10. They built a script that fed lines of Mein Kampf into one of Coca-Cola's Twitter campaigns because of...some other reason?

In terms of grimy shit they've done as a company, they're constantly whining about companies not be transparent while they themselves are registered in the Cayman Islands, hid assets, and defended the publication of children pornography if it were 'newsworthy'.

I really just don't have any patience for people who legitimately try to defend them.

Not to forget about spreading made up rumors about James Franco being a rapist.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-womack/james-franco-gawker_b_7816032.html

 

[Euphor!a]

Because news about these titles are of substantial public interest. And given there are no ethical issues at play in this instance, it's really that simple.

You seem to have acknowledged both the newsworthiness and public interest, so I believe you have a grip on the base facts here but don't want to take those into account when deciding to describe it as only self-serving. Can't help you there. Only so many different ways to explain it.

So they wouldn't be of public interest when the publisher or developer wants to talk about it? Because if it would then all it does is hurt the plans of people working hard on the game. Because the public would have found out about it anyway. That is why it is purely self-serving.

I can't tell if your objection to the stories is that they weren't incisive and detailed enough -- not "grand" enough to use your word, though I don't really know what you mean by that, as the vast majority of news stories published daily by every major publication aren't exactly "grand" -- or that they were published at all against the likely wishes of the publishers' departments. But it can't be both.

If the former, that's not a reasonable standard to hold any journalistic outlet to. No outlet ever has gotten by solely on publishing detailed exposes of long-running events. For every one of those, there are a hundred shorter and less detailed stories essentially reporting a couple facts and giving some context to them but that don't require talking to dozens of witnesses and writing five thousand words. This isn't true just in games journalism, but in every realm. Again, see my examples of film outlets reporting on which scripts are in development and who's in the running to be cast for which parts. Rumors and insider gossip about such things are reported daily in the film industry, and they don't need 5,000-word stories to do it. Why should they? Sometimes a piece of news is just that.

If the latter, I think it should be trivially obvious why journalists in any field should not be beholden to the whims of PR departments and anyone suggesting that they should has absolutely no understanding or interest in real journalism.

My only objection is that it is cheap "journalism" designed only for hits and you comparing it to people wanting to know how a something is made. Which as I have explained, that isn't what this is. And it doesn't even have to be some long detailed report about intricacies of this or that, sometimes reporting is just reporting and that information is useful to people however concise.

I'll try and make my position as simple as possible.

Kotaku gets information on day 1 and they know on day 3 that information will be officially released. They decide to leak said information on day 2 so they can make money.

That's the long and short of it. This is not information that was going to be kept out of the public eye. This was not information that benefited anyone if they learned about it on day 3 rather than day 2. But it would benefit Kotaku if that leaked it on day 2. And that is all it benefited. Which is why it is entirely self-serving.

 

[Kuros]

Dudes definitely hiding his assets somewhere.

Then again, he thought being a jackass in court was a good idea too.

Almost certainly. He probably stripped his assets before the court case started. Given even a chance of this happening (and I realise they didn't think they would lose)

 

[Milchjon]

99% of everything you ever hear about Peter Thiel makes him sound like one of the most wrong-headed, destructive and despicable people out there. Nothing Gawker has done or could do comes close to how dangerous he and his money is. I'm convinced he is a true sociopath.

It's hard to impossible to defend Gawker on the Hogan issue. But using that as a reason to side with Thiel is idiotic.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

99% of everything you ever hear about Peter Thiel makes him sound like one of the most wrong-headed, destructive and despicable people out there. Nothing Gawker has done or could do comes close to how dangerous he and his money is. I'm convinced he is a true sociopath.

It's hard to impossible to defend Gawker on the Hogan issue. But using that as a reason to side with Thiel is idiotic.

You don't have to side with anyone on that level in this case. Nobody is saying Theil or Hogan are saints. That's irrelevant.

 

[Euphor!a]

99% of everything you ever hear about Peter Thiel makes him sound like one of the most wrong-headed, destructive and despicable people out there. Nothing Gawker has done or could do comes close to how dangerous he and his money is. I'm convinced he is a true sociopath.

It's hard to impossible to defend Gawker on the Hogan issue. But using that as a reason to side with Thiel is idiotic.

You are conflating multiple issues as one. Someone can be right about one thing and wrong about another. That doesn't mean you are right or wrong about everything.

 

[SlipperyFishes]

A lot of things are newsworthy, that doesn't mean it benefits your readers to know about it. Do you really think learning about the setting of the inevitable fallout/assassin's creed setting is some great scoop that consumers would benefit from learning about earlier? It's not like they leaked some worker's rights scandal, they leaked dumb shit that doesn't benefit anyone but themselves. Which again, is fine. But we aren't arguing whether or not it is fine. But it is completely self-serving, which as a journalist seems pretty shitty.

Jesus. This is not The News of the World hacking cellphones to listen to voicemail scandal level shit — that's the sort of dishonesty you should protest because that was illegal and the U.K. Courts let those fuckers get away with it. This? They didn't steal personal or trade information. It landed in their lap and they let their readers decide for themselves what to do. Read or don't read — if they didn't post it they'd be essentially playing into the marketing plan of publishers.

Back in 09 my colleagues and I stumbled into the entire roster of characters pre-release via a debug menu at the public demo of ME2 at Gamescom. We didn't know better then but when EA asked us not to run the story after we reached out we believed them when they said we'd get an exclusive interview but we got nothing. One very well respected journalist in the field who worked with us at the time can confirm that story.

Publishers play the game and you either take the stories you can while doing so in the most legal of ways. Nothing Kotaku has ever done is illegal and I say that as a vocal critic of the site at times. If you have beef with Big K then fine, but just admit it and stop looking to make shit up so you can feel better about that because nobody here is buying.

 

[alfredofroylan]

BTW, have you guys checked Gawker's last site?
The cuck

 

[BrutishMrFish]

That's the long and short of it. This is not information that was going to be kept out of the public eye. This was not information that benefited anyone if they learned about it on day 3 rather than day 2. But it would benefit Kotaku if that leaked it on day 2. And that is all it benefited. Which is why it is entirely self-serving.

If a leak that was a day early from an official announcement was actually damaging, then wouldn't it be fair to say that leaks that happened earlier (like the various Super Smash Bros. leaks, E3 leaks, Scorpio leaks, NX leaks, etc.) that various outlets reported on would also be damaging? What about insider rumors that end up being true? If that's the case, then you're holding Kotaku to a standard that no other outlet lives up to. The same applies to Kotaku being self-serving, as true as it is. Gaming journalism as a whole is and always has been about generating revenue.

 

[Euphor!a]

Jesus. This is not The News of the World hacking cellphones to listen to voicemail scandal level shit — that's the sort of dishonesty you should protest because that was illegal and the U.K. Courts let those fuckers get away with it. This? They didn't steal personal or trade information. It landed in their lap and they let their readers decide for themselves what to do. Read or don't read — if they didn't post it they'd be essentially playing into the marketing plan of publishers.

Back in 09 my colleagues and I stumbled into the entire roster of characters pre-release via a debug menu at the public demo of ME2 at Gamescom. We didn't know better then but when EA asked us not to run the story after we reached out we believed them when they said we'd get an exclusive interview but we got nothing. One very well respected journalist in the field who worked with us at the time can confirm that story.

Publishers play the game and you either take the stories you can while doing so in the most legal of ways. Nothing Kotaku has ever done is illegal and I say that as a vocal critic of the site at times. If you have beef with Big K then fine, but just admit it and stop looking to make shit up so you can feel better about that because nobody here is buying.

I'm not protesting anything, someone asked a question and I gave my opinion on why Kotaku's article could be perceived as shitty.

 

[pgtl_10]

Because they were going to learn about it anyway?

And all it served to do was screw over someone's marketing plans, aside from giving them clicks of course.

That's not a legit reason. Consumers get it earlier benefits them.

 

[Euphor!a]

If a leak that was a day early from an official announcement was actually damaging, then wouldn't it be fair to say that leaks that happened earlier (like the various Super Smash Bros. leaks, E3 leaks, Scorpio leaks, NX leaks, etc.) that various outlets reported on would also be damaging? What about insider rumors that end up being true? If that's the case, then you're holding Kotaku to a standard that no other outlet lives up to. The same applies to Kotaku being self-serving, as true as it is. Gaming journalism as a whole is and always has been about generating revenue.

I would agree that those leaks could be damaging to their respective companies, but this topic was about Gawker so that's why we're not talking about those?

But as an aside, I think the Scorpio and the PS4 counterpart type leaks do have a real benefit to consumers and some justification could be made for leaking those before official announcements as consumers should know that an updated version of a piece of hardware is coming if they are considering purchasing an older model.

 

[Euphor!a]

That's not a legit reason. Consumers get it earlier benefits them.

Why is learning about the new Assassin's Creed location slightly earlier a benefit to them?

 

[pgtl_10]

Why is learning about the new Assassin's Creed location slightly earlier a benefit to them?

Why is it not? When has news ever been solely for benefits.

When I use to pay more attention to gaming, I loved leaks. What's with this listen to the publisher nonsense?

 

[cartographer]

So they wouldn't be of public interest when the publisher or developer wants to talk about it? Because if it would then all it does is hurt the plans of people working hard on the game. Because the public would have found out about it anyway. That is why it is purely self-serving.

The publisher eventually revealing the same or similar information does not invalidate the benefit to reporting the information as soon as the outlet or reporter feels comfortable reporting it. Getting accurate information out the door as soon as is reasonable matters. It sates the public interest earlier, it informs earlier etc.

if all they were interested in was ruining marketing campaigns, then they would have spoiled For Honor and Steep before their respective reveals. Kotaku knew about both beforehand, and if they just wanted to be self-serving, they would have leaked on both beforehand.

 

[Syriel]

You sure you're okay with billionaires controlling the media? You really sure about that? We saw what almost happened with Mother Jones. A Las Vegas newspaper was heavily critical of Sheldon Aldelson, so he just bought the paper.

You're fine with this?

You're OK with yellow journalism? Because that's what Gawker is/was.

We're talking about an outlet that violated pretty much every single line in the SPJ code of ethics.

When it outed an exec at a rival publisher (itself a clear CoE violation), and got called to the mat for it, editors across the company banded together to support outing the guy and used it as a rallying cry to form a union.

This isn't big money going after a poor, defenseless news outlet that only seeks the truth.

This is a company that thrived on yellow journalism and tabloid reporting that finally crossed one too many lines and got caught up in its own muck.

As a journalist, I have zero sympathy for Gawker here.

So thank God they did it to a billionaire as nobody else was able to stop them, with even most of their editors being completely tone deaf when their own legal department tried to stop them from outing people.

People love to push the "a billionaire ruined Gawker, that's not okay!" narrative but the truth is, Peter Thiel simply funded a lawsuit. His actions didn't ruin Gawker. Gawker's actions ruined Gawker.

This isn't a case of a billionaire using his wealth for corrupt means to bury a media organization. This is a case where a billionaire was the only one with the means to actually fight back.

A billionaire didn't just do this to an INNOCENT Gawker. Gawker did shitty things. Gawker continued to do shitty things. Gawker knowingly did this and continued to do this because they knew lawsuits were EXPENSIVE even for celebrities, and the most they'd likely suffer was a cash settlement.

The wrong here is that it takes absolutely enormous amounts of money to effectively use the court system. THAT IS WRONG. Not that a Billionaire was able to use the court system effectively. Even the poorest of the poor should be able to have their day in court against a large corporation.

The fact that people think large corporations should be able to use their vast wealth to shield them from court, to the point that only Billionaires have a shot at using the court is just absolutely crazy IMO.

If Gawker didn't do this shitty thing there would have been no court case for Hogan. PERIOD. So Billionaire or not it wouldn't have mattered.

All of these things are true.

Can anyone explain how a 42yr old former editor in chief of gawker only has to his name:

- $1500 in savings
- a handful of worthless stocks
- $40k in college debt
- no car
- no house
- no retirement funds

Wtf has he been doing all this time? I think the typical 25yr old GAFer has more assets than this guy.

Most likely hiding assets. He was very likely earning more than $100k as EIC. The only way you have nothing to show for that is if you are hiding it, or if you are a compulsive gambler. He may be very self-centered, but he's not an idiot. Hubris, not stupidity, brought him down.

 

[pgtl_10]

Kotaku might be the most ethical site Gawker has. I think most of the anger towards them in the gaming community comes from Gamergate. I find that ridiculous.

 

[Euphor!a]

Why is it not?

Because it isn't.

The publisher eventually revealing the same or similar information does not invalidate the benefit to reporting the information as soon as the outlet or reporter feels comfortable reporting it. Getting accurate information out the door as soon as is reasonable matters. It sates the public interest earlier, it informs earlier etc.

if all they were interested in was ruining marketing campaigns, then they would have spoiled For Honor and Steep before their respective reveals. Kotaku knew about both beforehand, and if they just wanted to be self-serving, they would have leaked on both beforehand.

I've asked like a dozen times and no one has been able to tell me, what is this benefit you are talking about? Outside of the benefit to the people profiting from it.

I never said they were interested in ruining marketing campaigns.

 

[Kuros]

You're OK with yellow journalism? Because that's what Gawker is/was.

We're talking about an outlet that violated pretty much every single line in the SPJ code of ethics.

When it outed an exec at a rival publisher (itself a clear CoE violation), and got called to the mat for it, editors across the company banded together to support outing the guy and used it as a rallying cry to form a union.

This isn't big money going after a poor, defenseless news outlet that only seeks the truth.

This is a company that thrived on yellow journalism and tabloid reporting that finally crossed one too many lines and got caught up in its own muck.

As a journalist, I have zero sympathy for Gawker here.







All of these things are true.



Most likely hiding assets. He was very likely earning more than $100k as EIC. The only way you have nothing to show for that is if you are hiding it, or if you are a compulsive gambler. He may be very self-centered, but he's not an idiot. Hubris, not stupidity, brought him down.

If I was in his position I would have signed over everything to my wife pre trial. They can't touch that. Or anything jointly held afaik.

 

[Euphor!a]

Kotaku might be the most ethical site Gawker has. I think most of the anger towards them in the gaming community comes from Gamergate. I find that ridiculous.

"You don't agree with me, you must hate women"

God, sometimes people are a complete joke lol.

 

[cartographer]

Because it isn't.




I've asked like a dozen times and no one has been able to tell me, what is this benefit you are talking about? Outside of the benefit to the people profiting from it.

I never said they were interested in ruining marketing campaigns.

Helping sate public interest. At least two people have answered you this in various ways. You either ignore it or don't agree, but you've absolutely been answered.

Your answer in the first part of this post to somebody asking you a question is humorous when presented alongside your assertion in the second part of your post.

 

[A Link to the Past]

"You don't agree with me, you must hate women"

God, sometimes people are a complete joke lol.

Erm, yeah, much of the hate for Kotaku does come from a shitty element of our gaming communities. The amount of vitriol some articles will get, even on here, for rather small "infractions" is absurd.

 

[Euphor!a]

Helping sate public interest. At least two people have answered you this in various ways. You either ignore it or don't agree, but you've absolutely been answered.

Your answer in the first part of this post to somebody asking you a question and then your assertion in the second part are humorous when presented so closely together.

This is not an argument when this sating of public interest would have literally the same benefit to the consumer if it was done by the publisher/developer. What changes specifically from leaking it early, that is the question that no one will answer.

 

[SlipperyFishes]

This is not an argument when this sating of public interest would have literally the same benefit to the consumer if it was done by the publisher/developer. What changes specifically from leaking it early, that is the question that no one will answer.

So they should not report it?

I have all the info on the iPhone 7. Won't tell you now so wait for Apple.

Guess what? We have the inside in this great new Tesla car that has a 4x improvement in battery power. But fuck well let's just sit on it.

Legitimate news is shared, they didn't pay for the "leak" but someone wanted it to be told. It can either be through Kotaku or on Twitter but that shit is coming out sooner than later.

 

[Euphor!a]

So they should not report it?

I have all the info on the iPhone 7. Won't tell you now so wait for Apple.

Guess what? We have the inside in this great new Tesla car that has a 4x improvement in battery power. But fuck well let's just sit on it.

Legitimate news is shared, they didn't pay for the "leak" but someone wanted it to be told. It can either be through Kotaku or on Twitter but that shit is coming out sooner than later.

You can do whatever you like. I'm not making a legal argument.

 

[cartographer]

This is not an argument when this sating of public interest would have literally the same benefit to the consumer if it was done by the publisher/developer. What changes specifically from leaking it early, that is the question that no one will answer.

Something I also answered in a previous post. Reporting earlier has the benefit of informing your readers earlier, setting their expectations earlier etc. Again, you either ignore it or don't agree, which is fine, but you were answered on this, too.

 

[Euphor!a]

Something I also answered in a previous post. Reporting earlier has the benefit of informing your readers earlier, setting their expectations earlier etc. Again, you either ignore it or don't agree, which is fine, but you were answered on this, too.

No, this is not an answer wtf, you are just tacking on "earlier" to various things. That is not inherently a benefit, I am asking why in this specific instance is it a benefit.

 

[Syriel]

No, this is not an answer wtf, you are just tacking on "earlier" to various things. That is not inherently a benefit, I am asking why in this specific instance is it a benefit.

Reporting on a leak regarding an upcoming title is both newsworthy and ethical, so long as the leak is a genuine leak and not a violation of an NDA signed by the outlet or based on information that was illegally obtained.

There are many things to slam Gawker for. This is not one of them.