Just look at how much attention the story is getting on Eurogamer itself. From a purely self-serving perspective, why wouldn't journalists elsewhere want to redirect some of that site traffic to other own sites? ...unless they're afraid to open a can of worms?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Games Journalism! Wainwright/Florence/Tomb Raider/Eurogamer/Libel Threats/Doritos
- Thread starter papersleeves
- Start date
- Status
choaffable
Member
All snark aside, you've done a lot of good engaging in this topic with a level head. The bullshit part is hiding behind your whole "it's just jokes, bro." Tweets are still comments made in public and visible to all, as we saw in the article that kicked this whole thing off. This attitude that your tweets are walled off, completely seperate from views you've expressed here is ludicrous. Your tweets do mean something. There are repercussions even on Twitter; people have been fired over tweets.
And this whole "it's just a joke" is a shitty defense for even a comedian (which you definitely are not). It's the whole excuse that lets hack stand ups disguise racist or homophobic bullshit as "just jokes." As expressed by comics like Patton Oswalt, even it it's a joke, you should still be able to stand by it. So man up. Stand by your opinion, tweet jokes and all. You know, do the same thing that Florence did before he lost his job.
arglebargle
Member
i agree this this, pretty much completely. something that has been sort of alluded to several times in this thread is that journalism can also control what is relevant, which seems appropriate to mention in this context.
also, i would argue that if kotaku actually covered interesting stories like this then maybe more of the gaf-type readership would visit kotaku. i go to kotaku approximately zero times a month, but if they did stories like this i would go there more.
Wait a minute. I read a bit of that story, and it seems to be a piece about high-level executives walking away with huge paydays while average dairy farmers get nothing. That is the very *definition* of something that would be interesting to everyone. A story about the little guy getting screwed? Shady conspiracies?
From the Times:
This is not inside baseball! This is a crazy story! I don't think the issues we've discussed in game journalism are even close to as interesting to average readers. I think there are many more interesting stories out there to tell.
But look, it's okay if you disagree. And yes, sometimes it's important for us to cover stories that might not be interesting to everyone (like the Silicon Knights piece). I didn't say that lack of widespread interest was the *only* reason I haven't covered this. I gave more than a few reasons last night. I also said it was nuanced and complicated, and that I have mixed feelings about whether we should be covering it. I could very well be wrong! Read through the rest of my posts for more on that.
Snowden's Secret
Banned
I just scrolled down Kotaku's front page, not a single article has more than 40K pageviews.
The Silicon Knights article? 39,543
G4 canceling shows? 56,598
And yet, somehow, the argument is being made that people are more interested in those stories than this one.
I challenge any outlet who says their audience doesn't care to put a poll up on their website asking their readers if they care whether or not their game reviewers get paid (in kind or otherwise) by the publishers of the games they review.
I've a feeling 'the audience doesn't care' because they've never thought about it, never been exposed to it. Probably because these things only get an airing on message boards and more industry orientated outlets.
But I think the vast majority of people who read game reviews would like to know about it if unseemly stuff was going on between game reviewers and publishers.
'People don't care', yet the original article sparking all this was pinned to the top of Eurogamer's most popular for days.
I've a feeling 'the audience doesn't care' because they've never thought about it, never been exposed to it. Probably because these things only get an airing on message boards and more industry orientated outlets.
But I think the vast majority of people who read game reviews would like to know about it if unseemly stuff was going on between game reviewers and publishers.
'People don't care', yet the original article sparking all this was pinned to the top of Eurogamer's most popular for days.
DangerStepp
Member
Jeff just referenced Bill Hicks.
That's a great bit about Leno he does.
That's a great bit about Leno he does.
Neato_Jinkins
Banned
someone already said it better, but yeah: if the primary motivation behind what you publish is ensuring that your audience is never enlightened to new information or challenged in any way, you're not much of a consumer advocate.
not that i'd ever accuse games writers of consumer advocacy.
not that i'd ever accuse games writers of consumer advocacy.
You got me! Didn't I mention this before?
If you think that a dumb mistake is enough to "write me off as a games critic forever," that's a shame! I'm proud of the work I produce every week, and I continue to try to learn from mistakes like that incident in order to make sure they don't happen again.
ChosenPredator
Banned
I do give you credit for jumping into the warzone and actually talking about it here but just awaiting that article!
This is true. You guys should check the live stream (-edit, He even mentioned neogaf and topic is still on) lol
arglebargle
Member
i agree with your point, but 56,598> 40k
edit: unless that wasnt on the front page, then i apologize for correcting you.
Hm, there seems to be a whole new discussion going on at this point in the thread. So is this the wrong place to post this?
http://rpgland.com/humor/pro-game-journalism-episode-won/
Or is it like, new thread stuff or...?
http://rpgland.com/humor/pro-game-journalism-episode-won/
Or is it like, new thread stuff or...?
Snowden's Secret
Banned
That wasn't on the front page; I had to search for it. But yes, clarity could have been higher.
SolidSnakex
Member
Yeah, i'm not sure why gamers wouldn't be bothered by that. Especially if previews and reviews influence their purchases. That's a major part of this story.
DangerStepp
Member
We could have had Jeff Green back in the press?
At GamePro?
At GamePro?
I can't tell whether or not this is a joke post.
billy beane
Banned
Was this when John Davidson was at GamePro?We could have had Jeff Green back in the press?
At GamePro?
That year he was there was such a great time for that magazine.
To which I say, "So what?"
The NYT story has all the elements that we've heard and read about dozens of times before - same tale, different industry. There is nothing inherently more interesting in this story than a similar tale about Wall Street, the defense industry, etc.
It's a little bit more nuanced and significant than that.
Hey folks, for what it's worth, I'm still iffy about covering the Eurogamer/Wainwright story, but I *do* think it could benefit Kotaku's readership if we write something about our own ethical standards as reporters, which I believe are very high. That sort of thing is not up to me, though.
I've gotta run in a bit and apologies if I can't get to anyone's posts, but again, thanks for hearing me out. Special thanks to those of you who stayed civil.
I've gotta run in a bit and apologies if I can't get to anyone's posts, but again, thanks for hearing me out. Special thanks to those of you who stayed civil.
papersleeves
Member
Of course. Why would you risk giving your take on a situation you guys are deeply rooted in? It's better to ignore and wait for it to disappear by itself. You guys love this whole PR situation and they do too. Why would want it to change when you are so comfortable in it?
Then you read comments like "Sadly this is how the industry works". Sadly my ass. YOU ENJOY IT. You don't want it to change.
It's sort of depressing to think about a hobby you enjoy whose greater dialogue in the media is mostly controlled by conflicted media hacks who cannot stand up under even slight scrutiny, judging from Jason Schreier's halfhearted have-it-both ways responses in this thread.
Context is important, however. There are greater offenders like Malcolm Gladwell who is listed as 'third-party media representative' of the tobacco industry. The stuff that goes on in games journalism is pretty much just Baby's First Conflict of Interest spread to a really wide degree. Don't forget that it's really easy to shove this stuff under a rug when there are press releases to cover! Or GAF stories to poach for your own aggregate blog!
Context is important, however. There are greater offenders like Malcolm Gladwell who is listed as 'third-party media representative' of the tobacco industry. The stuff that goes on in games journalism is pretty much just Baby's First Conflict of Interest spread to a really wide degree. Don't forget that it's really easy to shove this stuff under a rug when there are press releases to cover! Or GAF stories to poach for your own aggregate blog!
It's not. I just think that journalists could be a little more careful with product placements.
Delusibeta
Banned
Honestly? I'm surprised no-one's decided to make a Shit Game Journalists Say blog in the wake of this, or something along the same lines.
You're right: I love having the freedom to write about whatever I want without ever worrying about how a publisher or PR person will react. And the only way that I can really convince you that's true is through my work, which I believe stands for itself. As I already pointed out, Kotaku is constantly publishing interesting, challenging stories that don't always align with the interests of the companies that we cover. I feel extraordinarily lucky to be a part of that.
It already exists, although the author doesn't do much for it anymore: http://gamejournos.com/
The author's definition of a game journo pretty much covers this whole fiasco: Game journalist: n - An individual who writes professionally about computer and video games, although may not adhere to a professional work ethic. May not research or fact-check stories. May be more interested in hyperbole than actual constructive criticism of media. May be incapable of determining the mathematical average of a 0-to-10 scale. May be unable to handle criticism. May claim to be "just a blogger" or "not a journalist really", which is at least partially true. See also: Game PR.
DangerStepp
Member
The person who it is up to unfortunately doesn't agree it seems...
Stephen Totilo said:
That's a shame, I really do think that there are some serious issues here that should be reported about. On another note, I do appreciate you coming in to discuss this with us Jason.
MushroomSamba
Member
Man, you guys are brutal. I'm actually surprised people like Jason are showing up to defend themselves, since it's clearly just making it go from bad to worse.
Some of you are treating games journalism as if it were some noble profession or a higher calling. They're a business like any other, with employees concerned about getting the most out of their piece of the pie. Sure, it'd be nice if they conducted their profession with integrity, but their job is to hook readers, and I doubt corrupt behavior and bias reporting will ultimately affect their hits, since the majority of their audience don't know/don't care about it in the first place.
I see a lot of people try to relate it to other fields and businesses (I worked in med/pharm research before, so I know if we had that kind of relationship with vendors, we'd be out the door in a heartbeat), but that doesn't apply here. No one's really in harm's way. Readers keep clicking and coming back for more, which I'm guessing means they agree with the reviews. And if they don't agree, they're obviously coming back for something. In either case, they get what they want out if it. I don't suspect game journalism will change unless it starts biting them in the sales. And honestly, they have no reason to either. Again, they're in the business of simply getting hits, no matter how they get it, and no matter how badly a select few want something more of them.
That might be unfortunate and cynical, but it is what it is. I just feel bad someone lost their job over this.
Some of you are treating games journalism as if it were some noble profession or a higher calling. They're a business like any other, with employees concerned about getting the most out of their piece of the pie. Sure, it'd be nice if they conducted their profession with integrity, but their job is to hook readers, and I doubt corrupt behavior and bias reporting will ultimately affect their hits, since the majority of their audience don't know/don't care about it in the first place.
I see a lot of people try to relate it to other fields and businesses (I worked in med/pharm research before, so I know if we had that kind of relationship with vendors, we'd be out the door in a heartbeat), but that doesn't apply here. No one's really in harm's way. Readers keep clicking and coming back for more, which I'm guessing means they agree with the reviews. And if they don't agree, they're obviously coming back for something. In either case, they get what they want out if it. I don't suspect game journalism will change unless it starts biting them in the sales. And honestly, they have no reason to either. Again, they're in the business of simply getting hits, no matter how they get it, and no matter how badly a select few want something more of them.
That might be unfortunate and cynical, but it is what it is. I just feel bad someone lost their job over this.
so you won't bother them with all the ugly conventions which permeate the industry and make it near impossible for a game journalist to make completely honest criticism, due to both the positive coercing influences and the negative pressures resulting from the incestuous symbiotic relationship the critic has with the object of criticism; but you will make an auto-fellating piece declaring your own infallibility?
when's the cut off date for the pulitzer?
ZanzibarBreeze
Member
This post by Shawn was pretty dope. I feel like people missed it.
No, my point is that it could be worthwhile to bring up those influences and pressures and discuss how we deal with them. Transparency is key.
Rockstar were and probably still are completely insane. And yet, GTA 4 got 9 or 10 from almost every reviewer so their methods were effective.
I did miss that, and I'm glad you brought it up again. Shawn is spot on. I enjoy reading and participating in discussions like this because I think people should be constantly criticizing the press. It keeps us honest and helps us do better jobs. There have been some comments in this thread that were out of line, but I appreciate most of what's been said, and it's definitely made me think.
That said, I think sites like Kotaku are often condemned and accused of things that aren't quite true. The idea of Kotaku as a press release rewrite factory is rather inaccurate.
ZanzibarBreeze
Member
"Conan O’Brien Knows How To Save Zynga" constitutes important games journalism to Stephen Totilo.
EternalGamer
Banned
Jeff Green pimping Doritos on Oktoberkast http://www.tested.com/original/449638-octoberkast-live-now/
I'm glad this is getting mocked and satirized. It deserves to. But a lot of game writers are defending it like these comments from Weekend Confirmed:
Jeff Cannata said:
Garnett Lee said:
Andrea said:
Andrea said:
Andrea said:
I want to talk about this last concept that this is a "perfect relationship that benefits gamers" line because it is the exactly same thing that Keighley says in that ridiculous video.
It in no way "benefits gamers" for Mountain Dew and Doritos to be offering "double exp" with their products. This bullshit needs to be called what it is. If the designers of the game wanted people to level up faster in the multiplayer, they could simply increase the experience rate themselves rather than having people buy a bunch of junkfood to accomplish this task.
Furthermore the direct way they are trying to manipulate the audience into thinking this is some great ideal relationship and have Master Chief out there shilling for their soda is fucking insulting to the intelligence of their audience. It is embarassing to me as a consumer who has actually bought all the Halo games thus far. It makes me not want to buy this one because, frankly, my intelligence is being insulted by this kind of marketing.
Advertising needs to exist, obviously. But there is no reason Microsoft has to pimp out Master Chief; the Halo franchise makes piles of money; that's just plain greed. Furthermore, on the games media side, there is a big difference between requiring advertisers and becoming an outright shill for their products saying things that you goddamn know aren't true like "This Mountain Dew double XP is great for gamers."
I like Keighley. I hope he takes these knocks and moves on and maybe even learns a bit of a lesson. But I am very happy that at least this part of the story is getting deservingly satirized by some. It is troubling that is being so vehemently defended by others. It makes me really wonder what kind of standards they have. Not to mention how trashy their tastes are.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Stephen Totilo said:
Oh man. -
Jason, man, you're officially off the hook, I guess. You can stop rollin in here to try and engage. Your boss straight up called this a non-story.
Thanks for the link, Ath.
"We won't report on it, because you guys come up with stupid myths like blacklisting and corporate pressures. We won't do any of the actual work to dispel or find out if these myths are true because it would be too hard and our readers who come for stories about cosplay cleavage won't give us enough clicks for Gawker to pay us a living wage."
- Status