Support NeoGAF

[jschreier]

I guess when one person says "Jason mass-banned people!" that becomes part of the lore, whether or not it's actually true? Sometimes I really don't understand you folks. I would never ban anyone anywhere for criticizing me or pointing out a mistake I've made, and I never have.

 

[Dali]

Do you think that mistake mars all of the other work I've done over the past year? Because I find it baffling that the same people who harp on me for that incident are happy to read news I break and post in threads about stories I've written.

Yes I do. Obviously it does. It doesn't negate the other stories but incidents like yours and the numerous other examples force people to look at it all through a very pessimistic and suspicious lens.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

Portal? Bastion? I think these are just good games getting recognised, this sounds more conspiracy theory than anything else. This would only make sense if consumers hated these games, and there was a disconnect with critics.

Portal is slightly different, but I think it would be very hard to argue that both TWD and Bastion didn't benefit from the high level of positive press they received from the North American Press in a way that many similar b-tier / 'indie' titles do not.

Would they have received as much positive coverage if they hadn't been worked on by people that those writing that coverage already knew? I don't know.
Is there any potential conflict of interest there? It's hard to say there isn't.

 

[Ken Masters]

I can't call gaming journalism a job. Even if they get paid for it.

I also have trouble calling it a "job" and my feelings are confirmed with that polygon doc series

 

[Cerebral Assassin]

How is bringing up that example, repeatedly, at all productive? Jason is trying and gets "lol ur that guy" repeatedly. Productive. Helpful. Pertinent.

If GAF wants a better standard of journalism then how about starting with a better standard of discussion about how that's going to be achieved. It's not about demonising Kotaku or Schreier, all that's achieving is making this a circular non discussion and simply another pointless witch hunt for the guy in the thread making an actual effort.

It shouldn't fall to Gaf to suggest how a better standard of journalism can be achieved, that should be the responsibility of the actual journalists/editors. Also any higher standards are highly unlikely to come from any of the major sites, it will have to come from a new outlet/s(in a similar way to the way that it took GB to popularise longer form videos as opposed to the way things used to be done).

Also it isn't about demonising Kotaku, but the failure to understand why some people have no interest in visiting Kotaku(the ratio between "good" stories to trash is terrible), whilst pontificating about the "unrealistically high standards" they have at that site, that is clearly going to rub people up the wrong way (also the use of "witch hunt" seems ludicrous, I see nothing wrong with looking at a writers prior work to judge their standards).

 

[ultron87]

We have a new worst and most sweeping generalization in this thread! Yay!

 

[jschreier]

It shouldn't fall to Gaf to suggest how a better standard of journalism can be achieved, that should be the responsibility of the actual journalists/editors. Also any higher standards are highly unlikely to come from any of the major sites, it will have to come from a new outlet/s(in a similar way to the way that it took GB to popularise longer form videos as opposed to the way things used to be done).

Also it isn't about demonising Kotaku, but the failure to understand why some people have no interest in visiting Kotaku(the ratio between "good" stories to trash is terrible), whilst pontificating about the "unrealistically high standards" they have at that site, that is clearly going to rub people up the wrong way (also the use of "witch hunt" seems ludicrous, I see nothing wrong with looking at a writers prior work to judge their standards).

If you want to judge me and my body of work based on a story from March in which I posted a rumor that turned out to be false, and not based on the hundreds and hundreds of other things I've reported and written all year, then clearly there's nothing I can do or say that will matter.

If you think we don't have high standards because we occasionally make mistakes, then clearly there's nothing I can do or say that will matter.

It's too bad so few people pay attention to the things we don't post that other websites do. And it's too bad nobody sees all the things we vet and throw out every day.

 

[Cerebral Assassin]

If you want to judge me and my body of work based on a story from March in which I posted a rumor that turned out to be false, and not based on the hundreds and hundreds of other things I've reported and written all year, then clearly there's nothing I can do or say that will matter.

If you think we don't have high standards because we occasionally make mistakes, then clearly there's nothing I can do or say that will matter.

It's too bad so few people pay attention to the things we don't post that other websites do. And it's too bad nobody sees all the things we vet and throw out every day.

I wasn't judging you, I was judging the editorial staff (who in that specific incident failed to do their job correctly), also the reason I feel that Kotaku doesn't have particularly high standards isn't solely down to the mistakes(every outlet will eventually make mistakes), it is mainly due to the terrible fluff that is posted (& has been for years).

 

[checkeredknight]

I think I stopped visiting Kotaku since the horrible Gawker layout came into play. That and when all of our passwords leaked from the system. I hear one of the writers over there is a big Lupin the Third fan, though. Can't hate on that.

I still visit Joystiq at least twice a day. They have their moments. I mainly only go there now out of habit. I like Gematsu. I don't know if Sal is lurking in this thread anywhere, but I like what he does. I'd say GAF and Gematsu are my go to places now for games news these days. I browse Gamasutra now and again too. I find a lot of their articles very long though and I don't have enough time to read them.

 

[Jackpot]

You think me posting an article labeled "rumor" with pictures that turned out to be incorrect was "one of the bigger messes in recent years"? Really? I would love to live on that planet.

That sort of mistake - someone publishing something that turns out to be incorrect - happens all the time in every single field of journalism.

It wasn't one mistake, it was a cavalcade of mistakes. This is exactly the sort of wilful misinterpretation I was talking about. To quote a gaffer from the original thread:

How often does stuff like this happen? I ignore gaming "news" websites, and strictly get my info from here and a couple other forums that I trust.

The rumor being false? Often.

This level of awful damage control? I think this is the first for game "journalists". The last that came to mind was the whole Ocean Marketing fiasco, and that was for a peripheral.

It was an hilariously bad photoshop. You demanded people post evidence your gut feeling of it "being plausible" (that's literally the reason he gave for posting it) was wrong and then brushed off the evidence as not good enough. You then retreated to LueLinks where you started responding to gaffers posts there, conveniently where they didn't have accounts and couldn't respond to you, even though you had an active GAF account at the time. You showed yourself up as a hypocrite by having previously criticised people for posting unverified rumours without contacting anyone. You didn't even bother to contact Play.com, the obvious source of any real Play.com site listings. You then decided to still avoid posting on GAF and engage in a circle-jerk on Twitter claiming everyone was out to get you. And after all that you seem to have forgotten it ever happened and that it was all fabrications anyway.

And yes, you banned people.

People started bringing things from other forums into the mix, and somehow a bunch of lies came out about me banning people or attacking people or other such nonsense

Busted! Because every self-proclaimined "journalist" should do his utmost to censor discussion.

 

[jschreier]

Wow, dude, you really don't like me eh? So much vitriol.

It was an hilariously bad photoshop. You demanded people post evidence your gut feeling of it "being plausible" (that's literally the reason he gave for posting it) was wrong and then brushed off the evidence as not good enough.

Not true. As you can see in the initial Kotaku post (http://kotaku.com/5891238/new-grand-theft-auto-final-fantasy-games-could-be-headed-to-vita), not long after I started posting in that thread, I added an update crediting a NeoGAFfer for pointing out some evidence that it was false.

And yes, you banned people.

Busted! Because every self-proclaimined "journalist" should do his utmost to censor discussion.

The Kotaku user NoBullet was banned for reasons that went way beyond posting a screenshot of my blog. If you want to know why, you can look through his recent comment history here: http://kotaku.com/people/NoBullet/

Some examples:

NoBullet @Jesterbomb a month ago 12345
Badly done rts? Youre a god damn fucking idiot.

NoBullet @Raso719 a month ago 12345
Hey fuck face who made you the voice of 300 million people?

I have never banned anyone for criticizing me or for pointing out mistakes I've made, and there were certainly no "mass-bannings."

 

[zkylon]

Speaking of Kotaku, they once used a banner I made and posted on the Gametrailers forums, and I think they used it for their Fallout 3 review and never credited me for it

 

[Gomu Gomu]

https://twitter.com/atheistium
So her twitter account is public now. Anyone of you, who has a twitter account, care to ask her about this thing and this thread?

 

[JaseC]

Speaking of Kotaku, they once used a banner I made and posted on the Gametrailers forums, and I think they used it for their Fallout 3 review and never credited me for it

This sounds so familiar...

 

[Lancehead]

https://twitter.com/atheistium
So her twitter account is public now. Anyone of you, who has a twitter account, care to ask her about this thing and this thread?

To what end? I think she already made some statement in the past.

 

[zkylon]

This sounds so familiar...

Hah, oh wow, that's even worse.

I didn't really mind them using my banner, in retrospective I just didn't like what I had made and felt like shit because they were showing it to millions of people lol.

 

[Oersted]

The main problems still are:

1. Overall decreasing quality. You have to be fast and tabloidish to gain clicks. Getting the story right is not so important.


2. "Gaming journalists" want to be seen as journalists but understand themselves as part of the gaming industry. No critical distance whatsoever. If videogames are critized they rather go into the "argumentum ad hominem"-mode. No real journalist would behave like that. What leads us to point 3.


3. "Gaming journalists " most likely never studied journalism. But I would even say thats acceptable. But the points mentioned above are often enough caused by this.

 

[Oersted]

Pretty important issue.

Did "videogame journalists talk about this? I mean what the hell? Seriously, what the hell?

 

[McBradders]

Yes, there was some coverage.

 

[Oersted]

Yes, there was some coverage.

Links?

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-08-14-the-medal-of-honor-tomahawk

There's one link, at least. I can't be bothered to see if anyone else did anything other than link to that article.

Thank you.

 

[Delusibeta]

Links?

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-08-14-the-medal-of-honor-tomahawk

There's one link, at least. I can't be bothered to see if anyone else did anything other than link to that article.

 

[McBradders]

Links?

You have access to Google, have a dig around.

 

[conman]

Pretty important issue.

Did "videogame journalists talk about this? I mean what the hell? Seriously, what the hell?

I was kind of taken aback by this NYT article, too. I usually outright defend FPSs against calls for their ban. But I'd never even considered this. Kind of surprised by my own oversight, really. Completely gross.

Glad the Medal of Honor thing got some coverage at the time. But it's not like those cross-promotions have stopped. I'd feel better if the gaming press were the ones to tell this story to the world rather than the mainstream press. Seems like a new (and important) way of coming at the very old story of violence in gaming.

 

[ClosingADoor]

The main problems still are:

1. Overall decreasing quality. You have to be fast and tabloidish to gain clicks. Getting the story right is not so important.

2. "Gaming journalists" want to be seen as journalists but understand themselves as part of the gaming industry. No critical distance whatsoever. If videogames are critized they rather go into the "argumentum ad hominem"-mode. No real journalist would behave like that. What leads us to point 3.

3. "Gaming journalists " most likely never studied journalism. But I would even say thats acceptable. But the points mentioned above are often enough caused by this.

Few days late on this, but want to chip in. The thing that actually started to annoy me the last few months are some people at gaming websites and magazines that actively distance themselves from the term journalist, and then for some reason think they aren't responsible when they write wrong stuff. I know I don't do earth shattering reporting and write about videogames and fun stuff, but I sure as hell am a journalist when doing that. If you are a film or music journalist when writing about those fields, then you are a game journalist when writing about games. Whether you are a good one is a seperate issue of course.

The decreasing quality is something you see in every field. Not an excuse, but it comes with the internet. People demand their updates instantly and when you are competing with stuff like Twitter and forums like here to get a story out, fact checking tends to go out the window or just put in a later update. Now when you are in the business for some time, you get used to it and can seperate the fakes from the trues a lot of times, but other times you mess up. Again, not an excuse, but I can see why it happens. It's a difficult issue, since the (active) reader demands the stories quickly but also wants quality, but it is impossible to always offer both.

And no, I haven't studied journalism also. From my colleagues I do see it helps in the early months with better writing quality, structure in the stories, etc, but more important is the overall atmosphere at the website/magazine. If everyone thinks it is acceptable to deliver bad quality, the guys who studied journalism will also slack off, while it is also true the other way around.

 

[28 Posts Later]

According to this Reddit post Kotaku recently posted an article that arguably endorsed the use of hacks / cheats in the now infamous TheWarZ, going as far as to link to the site users could purchase the hacks from. I'm interested to hear what others think of the issue, as it's an interesting dilemma. The majority of criticism isn't regarding the article itself but the link to the hack site that gives it an air of legitimacy.

 

[zkylon]

I think Kotaku having to explain themselves so often is probably indicative that the screening process for their news reporting should be a tad more strict.

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

Yeahhhh, can't be linking to cheat sites.

I think there's a reasonable story here if the game has had a sudden surge of popularity centered around cheats and hacks--i.e. the community has appropriated the game for its own purposes and turned it into something different. But is this really true? I have no idea, but the article sounds a little more like griping about a bad game that deserves to be infected with cheats.

 

[jschreier]

Check out Stephen's full response:

Some readers have criticized Luke and Kotaku for this article, claiming we're promoting cheating and/or were paid by the cheat sites to run this.

Kotaku is a news and opinion site. Much of what we publish is what we consider to be interesting news, and much of that tied to video games. When there is a busted game like WarZ on Steam, that's news. When the game's creators stumble all over themselves to explain their game's defects, that's news. When the game is pulled from Steam, that's news. Since we also provide opinion, if we have the opportunity to play the game and write impressions of it, we do that too. Yesterday, Luke and I noticed that, of all things, paid cheat sites were offering cheats that might make the game more playable. That's a no-brainer to me. It's news.

Luke hates online cheating. We don't advise our readers to cheat. But we also hate self-censorship and hiding information from our readers. We've drawn a few lines on Kotaku. We don't promote piracy or the theft of our peers' reported content, so you'd be hard-pressed to find links to torrents or stolen magazine scans on our site. But self-censorship is a dangerous thing for any news organization to allow and I, as editor-in-chief, am not going to expand the category of what we won't publish to other things our readers may not like. What would come next after not posting about paid cheat sites? Not posting about walkthroughs? Not linking to spoilers? Not writing about fan translations or unofficial mods? Not writing about people who want to ban video games or otherwise legislate against them?

Some might say: fine, write about them; just don't link to them. The decision to do so falls with me, and my decision is not to insult our readers' intelligence nor to begin making implied moral decisions about what to link to in an article and what not to. Either we run the article, or we don't. But we will not try to have it both ways and write about something without allowing our readers to see that which we saw online and judge it for themselves. I'm disgusted by the kind of moralizing I occasionally see in online media and on message boards by authors who seem to care more about heroically spiting the people they are writing about from some traffic than they do about informing their readers.

To not link to what you're writing about is to treat readers like children who can't think for themselves. I prefer to treat our readership like grown-ups.

 

[CambriaRising]

Check out Stephen's full response:

I don't think this qualifies under the "lolgamesjournalismlol" moniker. The source of the information for the story was that site, he wasn't promoting that site....

 

[jschreier]

This paragraph in particular jumped out at me:

The decision to do so falls with me, and my decision is not to insult our readers' intelligence nor to begin making implied moral decisions about what to link to in an article and what not to. Either we run the article, or we don't. But we will not try to have it both ways and write about something without allowing our readers to see that which we saw online and judge it for themselves. I'm disgusted by the kind of moralizing I occasionally see in online media and on message boards by authors who seem to care more about heroically spiting the people they are writing about from some traffic than they do about informing their readers.

It's spot on, I think.

 

[28 Posts Later]

I don't think this qualifies under the "lolgamesjournalismlol" moniker. The source of the information for the story was that site, he wasn't promoting that site....

I think that was the intention - it's just poorly thought out.

The article has a undeniable pro hacking undertone [justifying the hacks existence with the argument "TheWarZ isn't a game that works", claiming "So cheating might just be the only way [...] to have some fun" and describing these cheats as inarguable "improvements" with a lone attempt to mention the problems they cause buried at the end] so I don't see it as unreasonable for readers to view it as little more than promotion of those tools [and in particular ArtificialAiming, who are mentioned and seemingly linked to on multiple occasions].

 

[Oersted]

Few days late on this, but want to chip in. The thing that actually started to annoy me the last few months are some people at gaming websites and magazines that actively distance themselves from the term journalist, and then for some reason think they aren't responsible when they write wrong stuff. I know I don't do earth shattering reporting and write about videogames and fun stuff, but I sure as hell am a journalist when doing that. If you are a film or music journalist when writing about those fields, then you are a game journalist when writing about games. Whether you are a good one is a seperate issue of course.

The decreasing quality is something you see in every field. Not an excuse, but it comes with the internet. People demand their updates instantly and when you are competing with stuff like Twitter and forums like here to get a story out, fact checking tends to go out the window or just put in a later update. Now when you are in the business for some time, you get used to it and can seperate the fakes from the trues a lot of times, but other times you mess up. Again, not an excuse, but I can see why it happens. It's a difficult issue, since the (active) reader demands the stories quickly but also wants quality, but it is impossible to always offer both.

And no, I haven't studied journalism also. From my colleagues I do see it helps in the early months with better writing quality, structure in the stories, etc, but more important is the overall atmosphere at the website/magazine. If everyone thinks it is acceptable to deliver bad quality, the guys who studied journalism will also slack off, while it is also true the other way around.

Good points and interesting background knowledge, thank you for that. I want to add one point. Websites want clicks. Not really a news. First of all, still not news, they want to release the news first. With the Internet, there is a huge pool of competitors for that. But there is a different way to generate clicks. A way, that is troubling me.
Recently, The Museum of Modern Art in NYC announced the first 14 video games are added to its permanent collection, something that generated discussions. I created for example this thread because of this. Part of this thread, the reaction by Jonathan Jones, the art critic of the Guardian. Kotaku covered this piece also with the following headline:

This Art Critic Thinks Video Games Have No Place in the Museum of Modern Art

Close to modern day witch hunting what is Kotaku doing there, is part of a trend: Evoke emotions with your headlines and writing overall to gain clicks. You gotta sell a story, no need to deliver facts alone. We care for clicks, no real responsibility whatsoever.

This paragraph in particular jumped out at me:



It's spot on, I think.

That said, is there any line that Kotaku would draw?

 

[atheistium]

https://twitter.com/atheistium
So her twitter account is public now. Anyone of you, who has a twitter account, care to ask her about this thing and this thread?

I'm probably not the person you lot want to see around here but hello and happy new year.

I've not read all this thread yet so forgive me if I've missed any major questions.

As you can imagine, I've been hit with a lot of abuse and the only way to deal with it is to shut down. It's not the ideal solution but it's hard to speak out when people are shouting over you.

I do want to answer questions though and I'd rather it be to people who are interested in the topic than to random angry anon guy on Twitter. Though I think my statement from the Kotaku article was already posted here.

Please feel free to ask me anything.

On the topic of corruption in the media: I think you need to look way above individual critics to find corruption.

 

[Fistwell]

Plot twist.

 

[papersleeves]

I'm probably not the person you lot want to see around here but hello and happy new year.

I've not read all this thread yet so forgive me if I've missed any major questions.

As you can imagine, I've been hit with a lot of abuse and the only way to deal with it is to shut down. It's not the ideal solution but it's hard to speak out when people are shouting over you.

I do want to answer questions though and I'd rather it be to people who are interested in the topic than to random angry anon guy on Twitter. Though I think my statement from the Kotaku article was already posted here.

Please feel free to ask me anything.

On the topic of corruption in the media: I think you need to look way above individual critics to find corruption.

Thanks for stopping by.

 

[Lactose_Intolerant]

Glad to get this topic back on track.

 

[eternalb]

Please feel free to ask me anything.

What is your definition of "libel?"

 

[8bit]

Looks like Rab's been lurking recently too.

 

[funkystudent]

Oh wow. TWIST.

My advice for you is to just move on and stay out of this thread and ignore anything anyone says here or over twitter/fb in the future.

Everything has been said that needs to be said, everyone who needed to say sorry said sorry already and NOTHING good will come from talking about it more with random forum posters.


You will eventually post something that looks angry and BOOM. CVG or some rag will run it with some sensational headline and that wont do anyone any good.

You made a GIANT error in judgement. Bad stuff happened as a result, hopefully you saw the error of your ways and lets all just move on.

 

[kafiend]

On the topic of corruption in the media: I think you need to look way above individual critics to find corruption.

...if ever a prayer was needed, it was needed then for Florence Nightingale. For dark as had been the picture of the state of affairs at Scutari, revealed to the English public in the despatches of the Times correspondent and in a multitude of private letters, yet the reality turned out to be darker still.
What had occurred was, in brief, the complete break-down of our medical arrangements at the seat of war. The origins of this awful failure were complex and manifold; they stretched back through long years of peace and carelessness in England; they could be traced through endless ramifications of administrative incapacity—from the inherent faults of confused systems to the petty bunglings of minor officials, from the inevitable ignorance of Cabinet Ministers to the fatal exactitudes of narrow routine.
In the inquiries which followed it was clearly shown that the evil was in reality that worst of all evils—one which has been caused by nothing in particular and for which no one in particular is to blame.

The quote fits but Florence Nightingale you are not.

 

[Harlock]

I'm probably not the person you lot want to see around here but hello and happy new year.

I've not read all this thread yet so forgive me if I've missed any major questions.

As you can imagine, I've been hit with a lot of abuse and the only way to deal with it is to shut down. It's not the ideal solution but it's hard to speak out when people are shouting over you.

I do want to answer questions though and I'd rather it be to people who are interested in the topic than to random angry anon guy on Twitter. Though I think my statement from the Kotaku article was already posted here.

Please feel free to ask me anything.

On the topic of corruption in the media: I think you need to look way above individual critics to find corruption.

Why you threatened legal actions against the article? Was your idea or suggestion from someone else?

 

[Gentleman Jack]

On the topic of corruption in the media: I think you need to look way above individual critics to find corruption.

We would if things weren't embargoed all the time.

 

[atheistium]

What is your definition of "libel?"

How long is a piece of string?

Libel laws change from country to country. Here in the UK what was posted can be seen as libel. A number of people have said as much to me (prior to contacting EG), form what I've studied it's seen as that BUT shouting about it/mentioning it was a mistake I honestly wish I could take back. Lots of lessons learned.

Oh wow. TWIST.

My advice for you is to just move on and stay out of this thread and ignore anything anyone says here or over twitter/fb in the future.

Everything has been said that needs to be said, everyone who needed to say sorry said sorry already and NOTHING good will come from talking about it more with random forum posters.


You will eventually post something that looks angry and BOOM. CVG or some rag will run it with some sensational headline and that wont do anyone any good.

You're most likely right but it's difficult because it's my livelihood that's been affected. I'm the only one out of the job here. Sadly Rab stepped away from a monthly (?) column but he's not lost his FT job.

Also getting daily attacks for not talking about it is getting frustrating.

 

[Lactose_Intolerant]

Honestly, I would stop talking about it. You realize you made a mistake, lived up to it, and lost your job. No one is going to hire you from what you say in here. If you still want to work in the video game press, get back to writing interesting stories.

 

[dreamfall]

On the topic of corruption in the media: I think you need to look way above individual critics to find corruption.

Hey, thanks for having the courage to stop by. I think this is going to get interesting, but it's worth a discussion- you've mentioned corruption.

While I don't doubt that it's usually more than the critic that is at fault, don't you think that it should be the individual to uphold some standard?

Was there a certain number of articles you were asked to print specifically in promotion with upcoming titles?

 

[atheistium]

Why you threatened legal actions against the article? Was your idea or suggestion from someone else?

A lot of people contacted me prior to EG. All sorts of advice was given. It was a huge clusterfuck.

First of all, I wouldn't have reacted if I wasn't getting abuse after that article went up (pre-edit). A lot of people take what they read online as gospel and suggesting I was in the "pocket of the Tomb Raider PR team" saw a whole horde of angry people go for me.

"Legal threats" are a weird thing. Two emails were exchanged between me and the editor late that night. One requesting the sentence about the TR PR team be removed as I felt it was unfair and defamatory and also that I felt that mentioning both me and Dave Cook was ultimately unfair. The second to argue my case again. I should never have emailed I was an emotional wreck.

In the second I mentioned that I'd need to seek advice as I felt it was ultimately unfair. That was my fuck up. Again lessons learned and all that.

Though to be realistic, EG shouldn't have ever felt threatened by me. I've never spoken to a solicitor and (in the UK at least) it's very expensive to do so. They know I don't have that kind of money. From what I can guess, they sought legal help themselves who told them to remove it.

 

[Syriel]

Libel laws change from country to country. Here in the UK what was posted can be seen as libel. A number of people have said as much to me (prior to contacting EG), form what I've studied it's seen as that BUT shouting about it/mentioning it was a mistake I honestly wish I could take back. Lots of lessons learned.

To be honest, from an admittedly American perspective, it was the libel threat which turned this from a random one-off piece into a major story.

While local laws do differ, the Internet is global and if there's one thing that will set off American writers it's the threat (real or perceived) of censorship.

No matter what you say, someone will disagree with it at some point. If you've said it publicly on the Internet it's fair game for quoting. As individuals our natural response is to fight fire with fire, but often the best course of action is simply to let the original fire burn itself out. As a point of example, I present GK's lack of comment on the whole Doritos thing.

Going forward, that's probably the best piece of advice anyone can offer you. If someone criticizes something you've said, unless it's a blatant falsehood, just let it lie.

 

[Cerebral Assassin]

Honestly, I would stop talking about it. You realize you made a mistake, lived up to it, and lost your job. No one is going to hire you from what you say in here. If you still want to work in the video game press, get back to writing interesting stories.

I would hardly consider editing entries on various websites to obscure the links to certain publishers to be "living up to a mistake" (especially considering the terrible advice giving to aspiring reviewers). The amusing thing is if a: she didn't try to justify poor journalistic practice or b: blatantly attempt to mislead people, she would still have a job

 

[TheSeks]

First of all, I wouldn't have reacted if I wasn't getting abuse after that article went up (pre-edit). A lot of people take what they read online as gospel and suggesting I was in the "pocket of the Tomb Raider PR team" saw a whole horde of angry people go for me.

So, you were paid specifically to write positive Square-Enidos articles on a majority of websites when you weren't a paid PR rep... how? Are all freelance writers really that easily told to do that to get paid? Because if so my opinion on doing freelance work has just been shattered.

 

[JABEE]

I'm probably not the person you lot want to see around here but hello and happy new year.

I've not read all this thread yet so forgive me if I've missed any major questions.

As you can imagine, I've been hit with a lot of abuse and the only way to deal with it is to shut down. It's not the ideal solution but it's hard to speak out when people are shouting over you.

I do want to answer questions though and I'd rather it be to people who are interested in the topic than to random angry anon guy on Twitter. Though I think my statement from the Kotaku article was already posted here.

Please feel free to ask me anything.

On the topic of corruption in the media: I think you need to look way above individual critics to find corruption.

What kind of corruption do you see from your spot as an individual critic? Do you ever feel there is pressure from internal and external sources that shape the tone of your articles?

Do you believe that there is enough space between journalists and the industry? Do you think it is possible for journalists to achieve a "Lester Bangs" level of separation from the people who make and market games?

Why did you get into writing about games? Do you believe that writing about games is a career or a path that leads to a career in making and marketing games?