-
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
Because their news stories are sometimes short and sarcastic. Like he said.
v0mitg0d
Member
Frankly, I think it's a bit tacky to throw sarcasm around when THQ is trying to save itself from imploding. Even if you don't like the products, at least have respect for the unfortunate situation. There are (or were) hundreds and hundreds of people affected by it's demise who are now on unemployment, still trying to find jobs. I know some of these people.
The jokey, sarcastic head like almost comes across as juvenile schoolyard behavior: "Ha-Ha, oh look guys, Tommy slipped in the mud, can't get up and is now grasping for air. Everyone point at him and laugh Ha-Ha-Ha".
It's not funny, like at all.
Come on. Did you tell others in this forum the same when jokes were being made about thq's financial situation? If you don't like the writing style don't read it, there are lots of "serious" sites out there for you.
Kind of funny that in a thread started because journalists were getting too cozy with the companies they cover, the current complaint is that a journalist is being too mean to a company he covers, don't ya think?
We're talking about a corporation going broke, not making fun of people who lost their jobs. When we make fun of bad games, we're making fun of bad games, not the people who made them. See what I'm saying?
We're talking about a corporation going broke, not making fun of people who lost their jobs. When we make fun of bad games, we're making fun of bad games, not the people who made them. See what I'm saying?
v0mitg0d
Member
You know what, perhaps you're right. I use to visit the site every once in a while but I think the disrespectful tone you have in the THQ piece is a fairly big turnoff for me.
On to more a more mature, thoughtful approach to reporting.
v0mitg0d
Member
That's the point I'm trying to make, and since Jason is here I'm communicating that to him.
There's a difference between being critical of game corporations that try to manipulate you and making fun of a large publisher going broke, resulting in a lot of lost jobs, losing some great developers, and a lot of IPs being relegated to obscurity.
v0mitg0d
Member
(Let me just say, Jason I think you've done some great work at Kotaku in the past. I've not read everything you've written but the stuff Ive come across was great. However, this time I take issue with how you approached this, that's all)
So you can't be mean enough to a fault?
You're talking sarcastically---poking fun--in a news piece about a major company trying to save itself, that in turn is affecting its employees (real people Jason, not some statistics). My brain is making this connect when yours is not.
I don't think we're going to see eye-to-eye on this.
So you can't be mean enough to a fault?
You're talking sarcastically---poking fun--in a news piece about a major company trying to save itself, that in turn is affecting its employees (real people Jason, not some statistics). My brain is making this connect when yours is not.
I don't think we're going to see eye-to-eye on this.
Especially guys here acting like moralizers as if everyone here on GAF discusses without using sarcasm, satire etc. Inb4 "well but I'm not a journalist".
v0mitg0d
Member
Nah, we all make mistakes. I'm sure I've done annoying and lame stuff on the interwebs. The point is I was wrong when I did. Hopefully I was mature enough to realize it, apologize and move on. Wouldn't you agree?
It's not about doing annoying things but using stylistic devices. The said news on kotaku is obviously not insulting anyone directly but just stating the current state of thq in a lax way.
Gentleman Jack
Member
What does he have to apologize for, and to whom?
You take such high ground here, I'm wondering where that comes from.
Anonymous esoteric forum posters and popular game journalists with a lot of exposure should obviously be held to the same standards, yes.
faceless007
Member
I kind of think the way you're getting ragged on for this particular headline is a little overblown, and some of the posts about it toward you are rather harsh. That said, I think the broader criticism is just that the tone, as is Kotaku's in general, is one of snark and gloating, which is not really compatible with being fair-minded and objective journalists looking to accurately report a story. Obviously I don't expect you to change the tone of the whole site, as that's the site's entire MO and it obviously does very well with for you guys. But writing like that is at odds with whatever aspirations you may claim to have to be a legitimate journalist, and saying it's what your readers want to see isn't really a good defense.
I got the irony in your post. But you are really right to some degree. We're talking bout game journalism. I didn't know that humor is forbidden within this profession.
Edit: removed the 'not'
He could say "I'm sorry that THQ executives mismanaged their company to the point where it can be used as a bad punchline."
I don't consider writing a satire piece about a company's dire financial situation mean-spirited or something in that vein. Satire, humour, or sarcasm, even in their scathing forms have value in any context. But my issue with Schreirer's news post is it's terribly written for such a purpose.
Here's an example of what I would look for: http://www.oldmanmurray.com/news/329.html
Here's an example of what I would look for: http://www.oldmanmurray.com/news/329.html
Cat in the Hat
Member
You're a cunt. See what I'm saying?
EDIT: Nevermind, you corrected the sentence.
False. No one is saying that all humour is forbidden within game journalism. I was suggesting that it might be a bit more appropriate to pay respect to something that involves a lot of job losses when you are working as a popular news site within your field by acting a bit more professionally.
Chill out.
I totally get your point but think Jason's posting isn't disrespectful or wasn't intended to be. But maybe I'm reading it in another way cause english is not my first language.
Gentleman Jack
Member
Went back and googled their coverage of THQ circling the drain. They're being pretty respectful of these details when they are part of the story and aren't going after any of the employees losing jobs.
The humblebundle story can be covered without the snark but Jason's done nothing wrong in mentioning THQ's dire finances when covering it. It's not even disrespectful.
You have got to be the daftest journalist ever if you don't see what's wrong with what you wrote about the THQ Humble Bundle. Here's a couple of pointers:
a) You say you were not interested why THQ did a Humble Bundle and yet you clearly make up a reason in the headline. Making claims without proof and then saying "I don't care about proof" is not good journalism.
b) Your logic about this thread's turn against a journalist being too harsh against a game company is quite dumb. The problem with games journalism was never that people were good towards game companies and that it could be fixed by being naughty and against them. The problem was journalists not being fair and making stuff up their asses just like you admitted doing just there.
There are no aspirations or claims here. I am a journalist. Period.
Now, Kotaku's writers write a lot, and it's not my job to only write the longer, in-depth pieces that I'm most proud of writing, but I can show you some more of those, if you'd like. Clearly the folks in this thread would rather ignore them in favor of my shorter, snarkier posts, which is why I'm starting to feel like posting here is a no-win situation. If you have a problem with me writing those shorter posts, or if you think they undermine my bigger stories, or if you don't like Kotaku's sometimes-snarky tone, there's nothing I can say or do to change your mind. Like I said before, if you want only trade-style or longform writing, there are plenty of sites for you out there.
But you should know that our tone is not consistent, because we are not the type of site that is consistent in tone. Our writers all have individual voices, and we change them up situationally. When I write an obituary for a games writer who killed himself, my tone will be rather different than when I write a post like this. I don't think that inconsistency is a bad thing; in fact, I think it's what makes Kotaku so unique and interesting.
faceless007
Member
Right, and I think that's unfair of them, and I appreciate your continuing to post in this thread. I appreciate the good pieces you guys do and I don't want to throw the entire site under the bus. But my broader point is that snarky, gloating writing like that does in some way diminish the credibility of the whole publication, even if not every piece is written like that. The New York Times, or to keep it within the field, Gamasutra, wouldn't publish a news headline like that. I'd guess your reply would be "Then go read those sites," which is totally valid, but my argument is that the site does have a tone and an identity, and the perception by and large, by both fans and detractors, is that it's snarky and unserious and ironic and caters to lowbrow tastes--and if you want to be perceived as a legitimate news site, having material like that does not help your cause, even if you also put quality content up right next to it. Whether you think it's fair or not, headlines like that and stories about booth babes and penises do characterize and establish the personality of the whole site.
I mean, whenever this thread points out a lowbrow story like that, your response isn't even to try to defend it, but to (justifiably) point instead to the actual journalism pieces you have done as examples of better content. Which is true and understandable, but it almost seems like you're trying to run away from the trashy pieces and would prefer not to acknowledge them. So why run them in the first place? Oh, because it's what your readers want. Well, there's the rub, if your primary criteria for what stories to run is what your readers want, then you're not a journalism site, you're a tabloid. So your defenses seem a bit schizophrenic--when you do real journalism, it's because you're a real journalist; when you neglect to do important stories, it's because your readers wouldn't care.
I'm reminded of Ricky Gervais in the Extras series finale, where his agent asks him whether he wants to be respected and admired for doing important work, or rich and famous for doing lowest common denominator stuff like Big Brother. I appreciate the good work that you guys do publish, but in some respect you're still trying to have it both ways.
Incendiary
Banned
The problem is you can't really have it both ways. You can either be the New York Times or you can be The National Enquirer. There's nothing wrong with being one or the other, but if you post shlock or sarcastic pieces on a regular basis don't expect to be taken seriously as a journalist website when you try to post a more serious entry.
Essentially, you're trying to be the movie that's an action-drama-comedy-romance-mystery-thriller-horror film. If you try to be everything, you're going to come out worse for it than if you had stuck to one genre.
I don't think that's fair. As long as it's clear which hat a writer is wearing at the time, they can be goofy or dead serious at different times. I like a writer knowing that a writer is free to choose their tone when they approach a new article.
The headlines they use are more SEO-friendly. It's going to take priority.
Gentleman Jack
Member
I like a lot of gawker's headlines. Behold:
Michael Wilbon Is A Gutless, Starfucking Crybaby Troll
You cannot get more straightforward than that. I wish more Kotaku headlines were this good!
I cannot imagine the amount of butthurt whining there would be if a headline was written on Kotaku about a person or god forbid someone's favorite console.
I hope it happens so I can read the thread and be entertained by it.
28 Posts Later
Member
Indeed. RPS is often harboured as a good example of games journalism, yet they as much as anyone will gleefully engage in articles of a goofy or satirical nature reasonably often. This tonal shift is acceptable, especially on a site with a vast array of varied content and reporters like Kotaku.
Squidofman
Member
Maybe, but (and this is Luke from Kotaku), I disagree. I think part of the reason people read Kotaku in the numbers they do is precisely because of that "split personality", and the various writers catering to various tastes and subjects. Lots of people are obviously getting different things out of the site from that different content.
At least that one has the opinions, research and substance to back it up. It's not a piece by someone who, by his own admission, doesn't care about the news that much.
Gentleman Jack
Member
I think we can presently be grateful that there are few game industry personalities as publicly repellent as Michael Wilbon. If there were (and I'm not about to start nominating anybody) I'd happily read any site that called them out on their bullshit in undiplomatic terms.
Media outlets shouldn't sound like message board posts.
Just to go off on a related tangent for a second, I want say that "snark" is my least favorite default tone for organizations to take towards news stories. This isn't to say that I can never enjoy it; Sean O'Neal at The A.V. Club, for example, is often very funny. The problem is that most of the people aren't that funny with these things, and when it's not funny, all that's left is a vague sense of mean-spiritedness and apathy towards the subject matter.
To pick two simple and concrete examples: on GiantBomb, compare the news articles written by Alex to the articles written by Patrick. Patrick's are often simple and informative, sometimes including thoughts about the story's broader implications or maybe some extra information that he dug up. Alex's... well, they can feel pretty forced at times.
To pick two simple and concrete examples: on GiantBomb, compare the news articles written by Alex to the articles written by Patrick. Patrick's are often simple and informative, sometimes including thoughts about the story's broader implications or maybe some extra information that he dug up. Alex's... well, they can feel pretty forced at times.
In this parallel universe where you are not reading this thread, but another one... yes, I guess so?
Who is losing their shit?
Imp the Dimp
Member
I'm feeling a little sympathetic with jschreirer although he clearly hasn't given a great account of himself so far in this. It feels like he's in denial about how Kotaku is perceived. That said, I can see how it's hard to admit that you're basically an online gaming tabloid with little credibility and lot of sensationalism interspersed with decent articles that are tainted by the low quality output Kotaku is infamous for.
Just got home. Will try to respond to as much as I can.
Good points, but I disagree with both of your premises. Why can't we have our cake and eat it too? It works for us. Even on GAF, where we seem to be disliked by a disproportionate number of people, when have you ever seen someone not take a Kotaku news story or long feature seriously? People constantly make threads about our stories. People might not think of us like they think of the New York Times -- although we are, coincidentally, responsible for most of the game reviews in the New York Times -- but I don't think we don't want to be thought of like the New York Times. We want to be thought of like Kotaku.
While some people might not like our snark, or disagree with our tendency to make headlines *grabby*, we are respected in the industry not just because we're big, but because we are professional. We hold ourselves accountable. We have a track record of being fast and being right, and when we are wrong about something, we always correct it and make sure our readers get the right information.
We have done well for ourselves by offering this mixture of snarky news, links to other outlets, and awesome original features and news you won't get anywhere else (unless they aggregate us). What's wrong with that?
I'm sorry to hear that, but my message here has never changed. I care deeply about journalism. I just don't think every single story needs to be approached the same way.
Hi Luke! I think this is spot on. Some of our readers come because of Kotaku East; some of our readers come because of Luke's fantastic Fine Art feature; some of our readers come because of Stephen's great longform reporting, etc. A lot of people like the variety we have to offer!
Good points, but I disagree with both of your premises. Why can't we have our cake and eat it too? It works for us. Even on GAF, where we seem to be disliked by a disproportionate number of people, when have you ever seen someone not take a Kotaku news story or long feature seriously? People constantly make threads about our stories. People might not think of us like they think of the New York Times -- although we are, coincidentally, responsible for most of the game reviews in the New York Times -- but I don't think we don't want to be thought of like the New York Times. We want to be thought of like Kotaku.
While some people might not like our snark, or disagree with our tendency to make headlines *grabby*, we are respected in the industry not just because we're big, but because we are professional. We hold ourselves accountable. We have a track record of being fast and being right, and when we are wrong about something, we always correct it and make sure our readers get the right information.
We have done well for ourselves by offering this mixture of snarky news, links to other outlets, and awesome original features and news you won't get anywhere else (unless they aggregate us). What's wrong with that?
I'm sorry to hear that, but my message here has never changed. I care deeply about journalism. I just don't think every single story needs to be approached the same way.
Hi Luke! I think this is spot on. Some of our readers come because of Kotaku East; some of our readers come because of Luke's fantastic Fine Art feature; some of our readers come because of Stephen's great longform reporting, etc. A lot of people like the variety we have to offer!
CambriaRising
Member
Jason, you could have used a little more cushion in your article title, but it was just written to let people know about the sale so I didn't have any issue with the content. I don't know what people are getting so up in arms about.
GAF gets accused of witch hunting plenty, but this is one of the odd occasions where it's actually happening. Yes, THQ is imploding and a bunch of people are going to be out of work. But no one expected them to show up, virtual hat in hand, at the humble bundle stoop. It's black humor to a T, and there's nothing wrong with Kotaku doing a quick blurb about it. When the company finally keels over I'm sure they'll also have some appropriately solemn pieces up as well.
I think people don't like that The title sounded like something written in a snarky twitter or forum post. I understand that snark is part of Gawker and Kotaku's style, but I'd like to ask this. Is it possible for Kotaku to have writers who are supposed to write long-form, objective pieces not have to write articles on the same outlet that undermine their professionalism and image of objectivity?
Let one set of writers surf twitter and forums for news, while allowing another set of writers to work exclusively on researched, originally sourced pieces.
PedroLumpy
Member
Damn, you really made that analogy huh? Journalistic integrity is not about 'being mean' to a company. That title speaks for itself, no matter what you think you're saying.
Not like it's the most offensive thing I've ever seen, but yikes.
- Status