Originally Posted by aegies
This ... this is kind of disingenuous. GAF is hostile to press. Or at least, a very, very, very, very vocal contingent of GAF is hostile to the press. Asking a group of people that GAF regularly shits on and makes personal attacks against to talk to GAF members as normal human beings is actually asking kind of a lot. You might not have said anything negative, ever. Most of the posters here haven't. But there's a contingent that sets GAF's tone as perceived by the outside, and that tone is, like I said, hostile.
You acknowledge that there's a tense relationship, but I don't see anyone at GAF that's particularly influential or with the ability to guide conversation making an effort on this end to make any sort of peace. Even those of us who are posters here suffer some pretty hateful personal shit at the hands of other members, but it's totally fine, because, you know, whatever. We're press. So we deserve to be called giant pieces of shit. Meanwhile, if we were to come here and point out when we are absolutely positive that someone is a PR plant or a schill for a game, we'd get banned.
That kind of behavior, which I've watched get more hysterical over the last five years, has made GAF a thing that most press avoid, and tell other members of the press to avoid, instead of engaging with the forum the way they used to. I don't think I should automatically have your respect because I get paid to write about games, but some decency from people here as a human being would be a good start. And I don't see that very often.
The funny thing is, with regards to this thread topic, I'm in the same camp as GAF. I think the shit that went down was gross, and that a great deal of the ass-covering is shameful.
Covering this story for most outlets is writing about the competition, which is a really difficult thing to navigate. Are you being too negative? Is it because it's to your competitive advantage to make another site look bad? Can you be a trustworthy source on another site? What if your report is wrong? Like, completely, 100 percent wrong? What are we actually exposing? This isn't dateline. We're not taking down a major corporation that's dumping chemicals into the river.
Going negative about other sites is toxic, and most readers don't like that kind of content. It's lose lose. None of which stopped me from going on an extended twitter tirade about it, which I still don't know if I should have done, because it's more complicated than "write the story idiot."
This is not particularly fair. Your definition of hostility seems to begin and end with ad hominem attacks on your person, which by and large I agree with your view, but they also seem extremely rare and are called out when they happen. So, as near as I can figure, you're extending that definition of hostility to, for example, questioning your journalistic integrity over things like Press Reset. Not just over that specific example, but things like
that. Am I wrong? I don't have a good history with you answering questions I ask like this, but I am legitimately asking if this is what you mean and it will help clarify your position and my understanding of said position if you expound upon that.
Your hypothetical of calling someone out as a PR shill - has this been an issue in the past? Are you implying that a member of the press has been banned, or threatened with a ban, for exposing someone like this? Did they have proper evidence? What made them so sure? I want to make sure myself that this is simply not a hypothetical and that you have a reasonable expectation that you would in fact be banned if you participated in any such naming and shaming.
I am struggling to understand the hostility you feel. While I have no doubt that some people here can be insulting and overzealous, to even imply that's representative of any larger group, especially when the majority of people here are making pleas for sanity, is completely inaccurate. I feel like there's an inherent hypocrisy in what you're doing here and what you're accusing this board of doing.