Originally Posted by McBradders
Why don't they? Because they aren't exposed to it. Whose fault is that?
Again, I'm not buying the Twitter excuse. I can certainly understand if your editor is all like "Nope, not on my watch". If that's the case then silence is probably the best reaction rather than "well we're talking about it on Twitter". That's not best serving your audience or yourself/yourselves.
Sorry, I don't mean to take this out on you specifically, but you're the only one here posting in response/defense/whatever.
No it's fine, I've offered myself up. But c'mon mate. Websites don't tell audiences what to be interested in. We often post stories that come from the periphery of gaming - or editorials that talk about areas most don't consider - but if we were to post a news piece about this you'd be happy but 500 other folks would critisise GameSpot for hopping on the bandwagon. "Oooh you weren't being so honest when Kane and Lynch came out!". But neither is the reason we haven't written anything about it (yet - I can't speak for our overseas offices). We're not writing anything about it because it doesn't serve our audience.
I'm fortunate enough to work for a publication that allows me to talk candidly about this stuff on social media. That's why I work for GameSpot. We are not part of a "wolf pack" that tries to stifle conversation about issues important to our industry. If there was I wouldn't be talking about it all.
I honestly don't know what youre talking about. You'd wish we didn't talk about it all or posted long-form editorials on it? But nothing in between? Seems pretty unreasonable.