Originally Posted by stephentotilo
Nope. It wasn't because we were worried about upsetting fellow reporters. It came down entirely to what our decision to do any story that requires a decent amount or reporting entails: a sense of how many people will find the story interesting vs. the amount of time and effort it will take to report it well vs. other demands on our time. I can't speak for others, but that's how it came down at Kotaku.
Folks here are clearly extremely interested in the topic. If Kotaku was the NeoGAF Times and I was EiC of it, I'd be negligent in my job if I didn't have us cover this whole affair. But stories about the media, while interesting to those who care about the media, are often rather small-fry and just not that compelling to a lot of people. I fully admit that the interest in the story here is intense, so I'm sure it seems strange that we didn't cover it. But given the aforementioned formulation and my sense that there wasn't a whole lot of new revelations to be gleaned from reporting the story, we held off. As I've said before, the nice thing about journalism is you can look into something just about any given day and do something new at any moment. So, given the passion about this topic I'm seeing here, I'm reconsidering whether maybe we should revisit the old "problems with games journalism" story. If we do, it seems to me that it should include the seemingly unshakable disdain and suspicion that some gamers, including some folks here, have for and of the gaming press.
I've appreciated the back and forth and glad some of my zingers hit the mark! I gotta go, though.
Do you think the story would have been covered more extensively if it had been a publisher that had sued a journalist rather than another journalist?
I seriously have a hard time understanding why this story isn't even mentioned on many sites.