Altered Juice
Member
It's only gonna get worse.
![]()
I imagine there would be more duplicate threads from people rushing to be first, but yeah
It's only gonna get worse.
![]()
Wait, is there a Nintendo conference tonight?
We need a massive checklist thread of what ended up being true or false.
We need a massive checklist thread of what ended up being true or false.
Kotaku said:I am constantly worried about that, Dale told me during a recent interview. That is honestly the most tiring thing about doing leaks, is the sitting and waiting and wondering, Am I gonna lose all credibility because all of this is gonna turn out wrong?
Something about this quote just kind of bothers me. I feel like most of the apprehension about this would go away by merely aspiring to exercise proper journalism. If you're nervous that this leak might not pan out, maybe don't report it? Or contextualize it as well as you can without burning your source so that it's more readily understood why that particular bit of information wound up incorrect?
It's only gonna get worse.
![]()
Well said.Something about this quote just kind of bothers me. I feel like most of the apprehension about this would go away by merely aspiring to exercise proper journalism. If you're nervous that this leak might not pan out, maybe don't report it? Or contextualize it as well as you can without burning your source so that it's more readily understood why that particular bit of information wound up incorrect?
It's only gonna get worse.
![]()
Something about this quote just kind of bothers me. I feel like most of the apprehension about this would go away by merely aspiring to exercise proper journalism. If you're nervous that this leak might not pan out, maybe don't report it? Or contextualize it as well as you can without burning your source so that it's more readily understood why that particular bit of information wound up incorrect?
It's only gonna get worse.
![]()
Or contextualize it as well as you can without burning your source so that it's more readily understood why that particular bit of information wound up incorrect?
Something about this quote just kind of bothers me. I feel like most of the apprehension about this would go away by merely aspiring to exercise proper journalism. If you're nervous that this leak might not pan out, maybe don't report it? Or contextualize it as well as you can without burning your source so that it's more readily understood why that particular bit of information wound up incorrect?
Felt similarly reading that section. It'll be interesting to see if all of her stuff comes true (unlikely), or if things are wrong, how confident she was about the things that she got wrong.Something about this quote just kind of bothers me. I feel like most of the apprehension about this would go away by merely aspiring to exercise proper journalism. If you're nervous that this leak might not pan out, maybe don't report it? Or contextualize it as well as you can without burning your source so that it's more readily understood why that particular bit of information wound up incorrect?
Something about this quote just kind of bothers me. I feel like most of the apprehension about this would go away by merely aspiring to exercise proper journalism. If you're nervous that this leak might not pan out, maybe don't report it? Or contextualize it as well as you can without burning your source so that it's more readily understood why that particular bit of information wound up incorrect?
Fixed that for you.
It's only gonna get worse.
![]()
Something about this quote just kind of bothers me. I feel like most of the apprehension about this would go away by merely aspiring to exercise proper journalism. If you're nervous that this leak might not pan out, maybe don't report it? Or contextualize it as well as you can without burning your source so that it's more readily understood why that particular bit of information wound up incorrect?
That guy who did that is probably crazy.
Please Credit Me.
When Patrick Klepek reported that Microsoft was reversing its Xbox One DRM, he said he felt "sick to his stomach" after posting his story, despite having gone through multiple sources he had known for years. So no, there's considerable stress in putting something out there, even if you take necessary precautions, because you're just twisting in the wind until something official happens. Until then, you're on the hook.
Something about this quote just kind of bothers me. I feel like most of the apprehension about this would go away by merely aspiring to exercise proper journalism. If you're nervous that this leak might not pan out, maybe don't report it? Or contextualize it as well as you can without burning your source so that it's more readily understood why that particular bit of information wound up incorrect?
I'm not saying that there is never any cause to be reticent about people not believing you, or even perhaps a fear that even if I know that what I'm reporting is true now it might change tomorrow and I'll look foolish. But what I'm saying is that if you're following a good protocol for verification and properly contextualizing information, your reputation won't live and die based on every report. You're probably going to get some things wrong. People may lie to you. Information may change before officially revealed. That's fine. But hopefully you've presented yourself in such a way that your entire reputation shouldn't rest on being right with one piece of hot insider gossip.
All the proper journalism in the world can't account for changes of plans behind the scenes. The leaks she gets (provided they're legit, which I believe they are) are snapshots of a moment in time in the development process. And I'd say she does a fine job contextualizing her reports; she constantly tells everyone to take her information with a grain of salt. But you and I know that won't prevent her from getting savaged if a lot of her info ends up being either wrong or out of date.
It's only gonna get worse.
![]()
Yeah, BG&E2 isn't even remotely validated. She's alone on that front and the rumour has been revised twice:
Originally: In production, Switch exclusive, 2017
Then: In pre-production, Switch exclusive, 2018, teaser during the Switch reveal (after Ancel announced that Ubi had greenlit the project)
Now: Temporary Switch exclusive and maybe a teaser during the Switch media event (after the Switch reveal)
The lack of consistency sticks out like a sore thumb -- every single detail she's provided has changed at least once. I'll be quite shocked if the rumour is on the mark as it looks to me like she/her source has been evolving the rumour in response to facts that cast doubt over it.
I want to first note that I'm not talking about any one leaker. My interest in this topic has nothing to do with praising or denigrating any one persona. I just used her quote as a springboard to speak broadly about the subject. Having said that, the bolded does not give you cover to report any information that comes your way. Providing a catchall disclaimer to treat something as a rumor is not how you properly contextualize information. Proper contextualization involves explaining your level of confidence in this information. Are you hearing this from one source? Multiple sources? Without burning your contact, can you give me some idea as to why you believe this person? What's their position? Are they likely to be privy to this information?
That's what I mean by proper journalism. So many times I feel like people just think the goal of this stuff is to keep score and that determines how trustworthy you are. If person A broke 5 stories and 4 of them are right, that makes them better than someone who got 3 out of 5 correct. And I honestly don't think that's a good way to look at things. If you don't want to be taken seriously and just want to dump information with a disclaimer of "do with this what you will," then so be it. But if you do want to be taken seriously I honestly don't think it's really that big of a mystery in terms of answering the question of "what's the proper way to break this news?"
All the proper journalism in the world can't account for changes of plans behind the scenes. The leaks she gets (provided they're legit, which I believe they are) are snapshots of a moment in time in the development process. And I'd say she does a fine job contextualizing her reports; she constantly tells everyone to take her information with a grain of salt. But you and I know that won't prevent her from getting savaged if a lot of her info ends up being either wrong or out of date.
Do you have an example of Laura not properly presenting her leaks or are you just assuming that since she's afraid that she did a bad job? The latter seems like a inane stance to have, but I'm not sure why you would be concerned about her interview statement, otherwise.
According to one of our sources, From Software has Dark Souls 3 running on the Nintendo Switch with a level of performance they are happy with. They have not committed to releasing it yet, but discussions internally at the company have discussed the financial viability of re releasing the main three Dark Souls titles on the Switch with their DLC bundled in.
Good journalistic practices:
0) Don't make things up
1) Ensuring at least two sources for claims
2) Ensuring one of your sources isn't using your other source as a source, because that would just be one source.
3) Employing proper validation of the sources identities as employees of firms in a place to know what they are saying
4) Being very careful to separate what you heard, what you inferred, and what you speculate
5) Being very careful to understand what your sources know, what they infer, and what they speculate
6) Not falling for the tendency of low-ranking sources to represent themselves as more central, connected, or knowledgeable than they are.
7) Not using the fact that other journalists are reporting things as additional coroborration without being sure that their sources are not your sources
8) Being clear when you're repeating a claim another journalist made and when you have independent confirmation about a claim another journalist made
9) Reporting honestly without baiting, teasing, hyping, or withholding
10) Not trying to claim plaudits when you're right if you don't take lumps when you're wrong--"take this with a grain of salt" is absolutely not professional in any capacity, because if you turn out right, you're not going to say "No, no, I was wrong, I didn't know it".
11) Not taking excessive credit for reporting something that a reasonably informed speculator with no information would have concluded.
LPVG are very clearly not making up everything they write whole cloth! It's also quite obvious that as a former Destructoid writer and enterprising blogger-journalist, LKD is capable of seeking out sources--some of which she had probably cultivated before all this. And I take her at her word that her "master list of claims she's made" actually do have the sources she claims they do, and further that she's smart enough not to fall for a faker.
Where I think they are hurt is participating in the circular group of Twitter/YouTube/blog leaker-speculators, who frequently violate 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and especially 9, 10, and 11.
For example, if you have a source in Bethesda Germany who tells you cuts are being made to the new Wolfenstein for the country, that's very plausible. But you might want to verify that they know this for a fact, instead of assuming it to be the case because everyone knows Germany's laws require cuts to Nazi-related content. And then you might further verify that the person's claim is specific to Germany. And if your source also tells you that Elder Scrolls VI is not being worked on, but the source is a QA tester in Bethesda Germany on Wolfenstein, then maybe they aren't in a position to know that Elder Scrolls VI is being worked on or not, and they are making an inference based on what they've seen and heard that is not true. And if you report it as "SOURCE: New Wolfenstein Being Censored", you need to be mindful that what your source was telling you was probably only true for Germany, if at all. And you don't get to weasel out of it by saying "Take with a grain of salt"--and anyway, in the end, if you're right, you've just told people the most obvious thing that anyone could have guessed even without knowing anything.
The good thing about LPVG is that although some of their claims are the normal wishy-washy Nostradamus bullshit, they've made specific claims about specific games and specific claims about those games being prepped for this presentation. There's an obvious W and an obvious L that we can take away tonight. That kind of transparency is good, and I think JSchreier was getting at that.
Oh, and one final thing--someone being correct in the past may well mean that they are not totally full of shit and making up things whole cloth because their psychic premonition told them that Zelda: Valley of the Flood is M rated and b-b-b-based, but it doesn't mean that they are exercising discretion and good practices going forward. The opposite is definitely true--if someone goes out on limb and says StarTropics III by Retro Studios is going to blow your socks off and they announce Donkey Kong, you write them off forever. That's not a "things change", that's a "full of shit". But someone being right does not establish that they will continue to be, and that's why constant vigilance, skepticism, and holding people accountable for errors rather than just remembering successes matters.
How? Is she patrolling the streets with a bazooka or something?Laura has the streets on lock.
Yeah, BG&E2 isn't even remotely validated. She's alone on that front and the rumour has been revised twice:
Originally: In production, Switch exclusive, 2017
Then: In pre-production, Switch exclusive, 2018, teaser during the Switch reveal (after Ancel announced that Ubi had greenlit the project)
Now: Temporary Switch exclusive and maybe a teaser during the Switch media event (after the Switch reveal)
The lack of consistency sticks out like a sore thumb -- every single detail she's provided has changed at least once. I'll be quite shocked if the rumour is on the mark as it looks to me like she/her source has been evolving the rumour in response to facts that cast doubt over it.
Something about this quote just kind of bothers me. I feel like most of the apprehension about this would go away by merely aspiring to exercise proper journalism. If you're nervous that this leak might not pan out, maybe don't report it? Or contextualize it as well as you can without burning your source so that it's more readily understood why that particular bit of information wound up incorrect?
It's only gonna get worse.
![]()
I can't wait to see how Sony copies the Nintendo Switch LOL...
In the words of Reggie
Because they can be true one day, plans change the next, and she has no control over it.Why is Laura Kate Dale nervous? If she was tweeting truthful rumors she has nothing to be worried about.