Support NeoGAF

[28 Posts Later]

GAF gets accused of witch hunting plenty, but this is one of the odd occasions where it's actually happening.

I'm quite unsure how you can implicate 'GAF' as an entity in this 'witch-hunt'. The majority of posters are defending Kotaku, whilst those with complaints have a variety of reasons; whether one feels the title is 'click-bait', to the general humour, to the tone of the piece. Furthermore, it's not really about this article specifically; it's being used to criticize Kotaku's style of games journalism [rightly or wrongly] as a whole.

 

[jschreier]

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.

I just thought it was funny. Of course journalistic integrity is not about being mean (not that I think I was that mean in the first place). I'm not even criticizing THQ here. Mostly because I don't have a problem with THQ doing this, as I noted in the comments. Cheaper games are always a good thing!

 

[PedroLumpy]

I just thought it was funny. Of course journalistic integrity is not about being mean (not that I think I was that mean in the first place). I'm not even criticizing THQ here. Mostly because I don't have a problem with THQ doing this, as I noted in the comments. Cheaper games are always a good thing!

Well look, what should I think, you make a comment associating journalistic integrity with 'being mean' to companies, but then you say journalistic integrity isn't about being mean. Saying the second thing doesn't make the first thing disappear.

And I never felt you were criticizing THQ, just being.... callous.

 

[MYeager]

I just thought it was funny. Of course journalistic integrity is not about being mean (not that I think I was that mean in the first place). I'm not even criticizing THQ here. Mostly because I don't have a problem with THQ doing this, as I noted in the comments. Cheaper games are always a good thing!

After seeing your responses throughout this entire thread, I applaud your desire to try to communicate with a hostile audience and question your sanity at your continuance to do so. I'm not a fan of your website, but I admire your tenacity at defending it.

 

[v0yce]

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?

Not to pile on or anything, but this sounds like the way a Fox news anchor would defend his/her network.

 

[Ledsen]

After seeing your responses throughout this entire thread, I applaud your desire to try to communicate with a hostile audience and question your sanity at your continuance to do so. I'm not a fan of your website, but I admire your tenacity at defending it.

Most of the people he's replying to aren't hostile at all, merely critical. And those that are hostile mostly get ignored. Why don't you yourself discuss the many legimitate points people have instead of casually dismissing the entire thread with a snarky comment?

 

[jschreier]

Well look, what should I think, you make a comment associating journalistic integrity with 'being mean' to companies, but then you say journalistic integrity isn't about being mean. Saying the second thing doesn't make the first thing disappear.

And I never felt you were criticizing THQ, just being.... callous.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. My point is that it's funny to see people complaining about a journalist being too mean to a company he covers in a thread started because game journalists are too cozy with the companies they cover. I'm not trying to make any large, sweeping statements here. It's just funny.

Not to pile on or anything, but this sounds like the way a Fox news anchor would defend his/her network.

And I'm sure most of the folks at Fox News are proud of what they do! But I think their big issue (a heavy, acknowledged, proven bias in favor of the Republican party) is significantly more problematic for a journalistic network than the critiques you folks have been levying at Kotaku in this thread.

In other words, we might be snarky, but I don't think we're ever unfair or dishonest.

 

[Castor Krieg]

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.

Sorry to burst your bubble - "professionalism" has little to do with game industry, not the way it works right now. You possibly could make such a case about features like "Final Hours of..." by Geoff, or "Post-Mortem" by Gamasutra, or "Hardcore Gaming 101", all of which are made not by Kotaku, but by others. Your articles are mostly non-news, since you take them from official press releases.

Let me know when you will be running an original feature that is not Ashcraft creepy or a simple review.

 

[jschreier]

Sorry to burst your bubble - "professionalism" has little to do with game industry, not the way it works right now. You possibly could make such a case about features like "Final Hours of..." by Geoff, or "Post-Mortem" by Gamasutra, or "Hardcore Gaming 101", all of which are made not by Kotaku, but by others. Your articles are mostly non-news, since you take them from official press releases.

Let me know when you will be running an original feature that is not Ashcraft creepy or a simple review.

You clearly don't read Kotaku, or you'd see that we run original features every single day. I've posted plenty in this thread already, but I guess I have to show you some more.

Here are a few links from yesterday alone:

Stephen interviews a man who made it through ZombiU without dying: http://kotaku.com/5964335/meet-a-ma...zombiu-without-dying-he-has-some-tips-for-you

My story about a guy who makes game videos on YouTube and says he was unfairly banned from Google AdSense: http://kotaku.com/5964312/youtuber-i-was-banned-from-making-money-because-of-an-over+zealous-fan

We examine a Wii U sizzle reel and note that only one of the ten people featured hasn't made or announced any Wii U games yet: http://kotaku.com/5964249/9-out-of-10-game-creators-who-praised-the-wii-u-made-a-wii-u-launch-game

Next time you feel like criticizing Kotaku, start by reading Kotaku.

 

[MYeager]

Most of the people he's replying to aren't hostile at all, merely critical. And those that are hostile mostly get ignored. Why don't you yourself discuss the many legimitate points people have instead of casually dismissing the entire thread with a snarky comment?

It wasn't my intent to casually dismiss any of the legitimate points with a snarky comment, I didn't even think my comment was very snarky towards the entire thread in particular. If that's the way it comes across, I'm sorry. As I said, I'm not a fan of the site myself, for reasons some of the people in this very thread have expressed. I'm just surprised at his attempts to continue to keep going with the conversation with a large group of people, who either hostile or with legit complaints, aren't going to be Kotaku fans anytime soon. That's all, no deeper sarcastic meaning intended.

 

[Ledsen]

It wasn't my intent to casually dismiss any of the legitimate points with a snarky comment, I didn't even think my comment was very snarky towards the entire thread in particular. If that's the way it comes across, I'm sorry. As I said, I'm not a fan of the site myself, for reasons some of the people in this very thread have expressed. I'm just surprised at his attempts to continue to keep going with the conversation with a large group of people, who either hostile or with legit complaints, aren't going to be Kotaku fans anytime soon. That's all, no deeper sarcastic meaning intended.

Seeing your clarification, I apologize. I agree that it's commendable that Jason keeps coming back to the discussion when most have let it fall by the wayside by now.

 

[Lime]

Sorry if I wasn't clear. My point is that it's funny to see people complaining about a journalist being too mean to a company he covers in a thread started because game journalists are too cozy with the companies they cover. I'm not trying to make any large, sweeping statements here. It's just funny.

.

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.

 

[NintendoGal]

I'm kinda annoyed that people are ragging on places like Kotaku for silly things like the THQ thing, but when I mention certain FTC guidelines and the fact they say they don't need to follow them for some reason or another gets forgotten quickly. :|

 

[Gilgamesh]

Why's everyone hating on Jason? There were like a million comments to that effect in the bundle thread.

I mean it's not like the guy fell for a bunch of obvious fake game photoshops and reported it as news.

 

[JABEE]

Why's everyone hating on Jason? There were like a million comments to that effect in the bundle thread.

I mean it's not like the guy fell for a bunch of obvious fake game photoshops and reported it as news.

The first part has no place in a news piece that is being published on a site that is striving for professionalism. Writers shouldn't be as influenced by message boards as they are. You can tell that it is what a lot of writers spend their day doing when you see headlines that follow the same narrative seen here.

Yes, this is true. I don't think Kotaku is ever going to be able to prevent falling for these fakes either. There is too much incentive to not following certain procedures when evaluating something that brings in hits like these kinds of leaks do. All you have to do is slap a "RUMOR" on the craziest of leaks and just wash your hands of any kind of journalistic responsibility.

There has never been any kind of response to that story about changing the guards they have in place to run a story. No other site appears to have it either. The competition between these sites is about who can get a story first. These things can always be edited later. Kotaku's competition is NeoGaf, Twitter, and other blog sites. The quota-based news stories are purely a business decision. The snarkier the headline the better. They are a necessary evil that allows Kotaku and its editors to run stories that they actually care about.

The rest of it is just vomiting out what someone else reported on or some message board discovered.

 

[PedroLumpy]

Sorry if I wasn't clear. My point is that it's funny to see people complaining about a journalist being too mean to a company he covers in a thread started because game journalists are too cozy with the companies they cover. I'm not trying to make any large, sweeping statements here. It's just funny.

But for that statement to be considered funny, it hinges on the supposed irony of someone being criticized for journalistic integrity, and then being criticized for 'being mean' to a company. So you say that's not what you meant, but then you say you think your joke is funny. You can't have it both ways.

It's not that you're not being clear, you're just saying two things that are mutually exclusive.

 

[Ledsen]

I'm kinda annoyed that people are ragging on places like Kotaku for silly things like the THQ thing, but when I mention certain FTC guidelines and the fact they say they don't need to follow them for some reason or another gets forgotten quickly. :|

Yeah I have to agree that people seem to be focusing on the wrong thing here.

 

[JDSN]

I was the one that took the screencap of the Kotaku headline and put it in the bundle thread, I wasnt even aware that the writer was jschreier. The reason I found the headline embarrasing to certain degree is lack of point about it, Jason says in this thread that is about posting a good deal. Thats a good reason as any, but then why the little article that follows implies that he is not happy with this?

He seems to be bothered at something at this, maybe its the fact that the Humble people agreed in the first place to this, maybe he thinks its a callous move on THQ's part to get marketing, there are many ways to see this; but I find weird that guy tells himself "I am a journalist" but limits himself a couple of sentences of pointless snark when he could have posted his actual thoughts on what he obviously considered an issue. Maybe he thought it was not worth it, maybe he went all Totilo on us and though it wasnt worth discussing, even tho Keplek and Penny Arcade did.

Also Jason, if you think its ironic that we are giving you a hard time for giving a hard time to THQ after all the dimissive shit posted by Kotaku during the Wainwright issue; you missed the damn point, basically, you have interesting things to say most of the time, if you express your distate at something, use your journalist mojo to tell us why. I think that was inky's point.

And im not saying that you shouldnt post funny/weird shit, hell, I laughed a this too:

 

[jschreier]

But THQ's Humble Bundle doesn't bother me. I think I've said that a few times. The post is short and snarky because I was spending my time on more interesting things, like that fascinating YouTube article that you guys like ignoring.

The THQ headline is silly and snarky and tongue-in-cheek, as is the article. If you don't like it, OK. If you don't like that style, OK. I don't know what else there is to argue about. I certainly don't think I came across as angry about the bundle, and I'll take short and silly over dry and samey any day of the week. If you prefer your news drier and less entertaining, there are plenty of sites out there for you!

And like it or not, not everything on Kotaku is an in-depth, original story. We run plenty of those, but we also owe it to our readers to cover a lot of other news in a lot of other ways. And I love that we're different than every other site on the web. That's one of the reasons I love working here.

 

[SoulPlaya]

These "journalists" are trying to shit on THQ for that incredible bundle?

Fucking idiots!

 

[Oersted]

Since you asked for it...

Do you think a lot of Kotaku readers are that interested in this story? I think a lot of GAF posters are, because a lot of GAF posters are fascinated by this sort of inside baseball stuff, but I think that makes up a rather small chunk of our audience, to be honest.

So Kotaku readers haven´t been interested in the following story:

- Geoff Keighley, most famous face of "gaming journalism", does an ad for Halo- Ingame swag available via junk-food,

- Robert Florence, commentator on Eurogamer writes about the incident,

- He also covers that a Square Enix spokesperson writes reviews about Square Enix games for big sites like IGN, and journalists are advertizing via Twitter for PS3,

- Florence receives a libel threat, gets messages like " he will get a hard time at press preview events", steps down


This kind of story, according to you "might not fit the website that employs [you]" "We [ Kotaku] don't often cover media issues like this".

Contrary, that thing Emily Rogers did, gets a article-response under 5 hours.

What happened?

 

[Dennis]

Since you asked for it...



So Kotaku readers haven´t been interested in the following story:

- Geoff Keighley, most famous face of "gaming journalism", does an ad for Halo- Ingame swag available via junk-food,

- Robert Florence, commentator on Eurogamer writes about the incident,

- He also covers that a Square Enix spokesperson writes reviews about Square Enix games for big sites like IGN, and journalists are advertizing via Twitter for PS3,

- Florence receives a libel threat, gets messages like " he will get a hard time at press preview events", steps down


This kind of story, according to you "might not fit the website that employs [you]" "We [ Kotaku] don't often cover media issues like this".

Contrary, that thing Emily Rogers did, gets a article-response under 5 hours.

What happened?

You sly dog.

 

[Dina]

But THQ's Humble Bundle doesn't bother me. I think I've said that a few times. The post is short and snarky because I was spending my time on more interesting things, like that fascinating YouTube article that you guys like ignoring.

The THQ headline is silly and snarky and tongue-in-cheek, as is the article. If you don't like it, OK. If you don't like that style, OK. I don't know what else there is to argue about. I certainly don't think I came across as angry about the bundle, and I'll take short and silly over dry and samey any day of the week. If you prefer your news drier and less entertaining, there are plenty of sites out there for you!

And like it or not, not everything on Kotaku is an in-depth, original story. We run plenty of those, but we also owe it to our readers to cover a lot of other news in a lot of other ways. And I love that we're different than every other site on the web. That's one of the reasons I love working here.

The thing is, for every good kotaku piece there are several other pieces lining up that are awful. And I get that, I used to work at an online news agency that was publishing one news story every 15 minutes. And those stories were short. The generalness of news helped, but it was still hell trying to find something good four times in an hour. Kotaku thinks that every 20 minutes something cool happens in gaming, but that really is not the case. It's hardly once per hour. Also, there's stories that just take a lot longer to write. So you get quick filler thrown together within minutes or a embedded youtube link with a short paragraph so people can work on the longer articles.

And that filler news might pull viewers in just the same as the longer stuff, so it might make sense when viewed through economical glasses. However, every 'funny' piece alters the way I view the serious articles on the same website. And thus Kotaku becomes - to me - a website with 75% filler material, some being just okay and a gem here and there. The gems are quickly snowed under with nonsensical articles about the new, hot K-Pop star, the new trend in cosplaying, up and coming stars in the new Madden game or how many Whoppers THQ is worth.

Same goes for the weight your reviews carry. Not much at all. It's ok to kid around on your website, don't get me wrong. But don't post news for news' sake with the danger, because there lurks a danger that the reputation for the entire website gets tarnished by all the filler news that finds it way on there.

 

[jschreier]

Since you asked for it...



So Kotaku readers haven´t been interested in the following story:

- Geoff Keighley, most famous face of "gaming journalism", does an ad for Halo- Ingame swag available via junk-food,

- Robert Florence, commentator on Eurogamer writes about the incident,

- He also covers that a Square Enix spokesperson writes reviews about Square Enix games for big sites like IGN, and journalists are advertizing via Twitter for PS3,

- Florence receives a libel threat, gets messages like " he will get a hard time at press preview events", steps down


This kind of story, according to you "might not fit the website that employs [you]" "We [ Kotaku] don't often cover media issues like this".

Contrary, that thing Emily Rogers did, gets a article-response under 5 hours.

What happened?

This story? http://kotaku.com/5957810/the-conte...e-gaming-press-and-why-theyre-sometimes-wrong

 

[jschreier]

The thing is, for every good kotaku piece there are several other pieces lining up that are awful. And I get that, I used to work at an online news agency that was publishing one news story every 15 minutes. And those stories were short. The generalness of news helped, but it was still hell trying to find something good four times in an hour. Kotaku things that every 20 minutes something cool happens in gaming, but that really is not the case. There's stories that just take a lot longer to write. So you get quick filler so people can work on the longer articles.

And those filler things might pull viewers in just the same as the longer stuff, so it might make sense when viewed through economical glasses. However, every 'funny' piece alters the way I view the serious articles on the same website. And thus Kotaku becomes - to me - a website with 75% filler material and a gem here and there. The gems are quickly snowed under with nonsensical articles about the new K-Pop star, up and coming stars in the new Madden or how many Whoppers THQ is worth.

Same goes for the weight your reviews carry. Not much at all. It's ok to kid around on your website, don't get me wrong. But don't post news for news' sake.

You make some good points, and one of our goals is to cut down on what we consider filler. That Halo 4/Pizza Hut story, for example, I'd consider filler. (I don't think we posted about it, IIRC.)

But I don't think "short and funny" necessarily equates to filler. We've always had a healthy balance of long and short stories, and as far as I know that's not changing any time soon. We're always looking to improve ourselves and write better stories, that's for sure, but I don't agree with the idea that long, in-depth reporting is the only type of quality content there is.

 

[Puppet Shadow]

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?

Pretty much this. Some may not like the tone of the article, but come on... this story doesn't deserve to be in this thread.

 

[Lancehead]

Pretty much this. Some may not like the tone of the article, but come on... this story doesn't deserve to be in this thread.

If anything, that story should've been longer and a lot more satirical in nature. As it is, it's... nothing.

 

[jschreier]

If anything, that story should've been longer and a lot more satirical in nature. As it is, it's... nothing.

No offense intended, but who the hell are you to tell me what my stories should have been? Constructive criticism is more than welcome, but please don't tell me how to do my job. You don't get to decide how long Kotaku articles are or whether they should be "more satirical," whatever the hell that means.

Maybe some of you are starting to see why I'm feeling like posting here is a no-win situation.

 

[Lancehead]

I'm talking about how I'd have liked that type of story. Note the difference between "the story should've been" and "you should've".

 

[Puppet Shadow]

Maybe some of you are starting to see why I'm feeling like posting here is a no-win situation.

Well, I wasn't your biggest fan but you did score a ton of points for toughing it out earlier in the thread addressing the real issue. But you may be better off not trying to defend single articles that you write as you just won't win.

Even on a forum that has a thread titled THQ Humble Bundle is up (THQ needs your money lol)

 

[Oersted]

This story? http://kotaku.com/5957810/the-conte...e-gaming-press-and-why-theyre-sometimes-wrong

Read it and honestly kinda liked it. But I didn´t asked for that. Let me put it in a different way. For days, you tried to convince us, that such a big story is not interesting for Kotaku readers(who are we by that definition?), this kind of story is normally not something that Kotaku covers, Kotaku only did this back in 2011, but this doesn´t count because the guy responsible for this has gone .... yadda, yadda, yadda.


But the Emily Rogers thing... immediate response.

 

[jschreier]

Read it and honestly kinda liked it. But I didn´t asked for that. Let me put it in a different way. For days, you tried to convince us, that such a big story is not interesting for Kotaku readers(who are we by that definition?), this kind of story is normally not something that Kotaku covers, Kotaku only did this back in 2011, but this doesn´t count because the guy responsible for this has gone .... yadda, yadda, yadda.


But the Emily Rogers thing... immediate response.

Emily Rogers directly attacked me, so I'm sure you can understand why I wanted to cover that story right away.

As for media matters in general, well, I've talked a lot about this with Stephen, and I think both of our thoughts have changed as a direct result of this thread and this incident. I still don't think stories about game journalism are ever going to have the type of widespread appeal that would make them our #1 priority, but I think there are media stories that maybe we should be covering more often. I have a few in the pipeline as we speak.

 

[Jake Tower]

You clearly don't read Kotaku, or you'd see that we run original features every single day. I've posted plenty in this thread already, but I guess I have to show you some more.

Here are a few links from yesterday alone:

Stephen interviews a man who made it through ZombiU without dying: http://kotaku.com/5964335/meet-a-ma...zombiu-without-dying-he-has-some-tips-for-you

My story about a guy who makes game videos on YouTube and says he was unfairly banned from Google AdSense: http://kotaku.com/5964312/youtuber-i-was-banned-from-making-money-because-of-an-over+zealous-fan

We examine a Wii U sizzle reel and note that only one of the ten people featured hasn't made or announced any Wii U games yet: http://kotaku.com/5964249/9-out-of-10-game-creators-who-praised-the-wii-u-made-a-wii-u-launch-game

Next time you feel like criticizing Kotaku, start by reading Kotaku.

Is there a filter I can turn on to just get these stories and none of the 'baby-dick' stuff? I'd visit Kotaku if there is.

 

[Dennis]

But the Emily Rogers thing... immediate response.

What is this Emily Rogers thing?

Link?

 

[jschreier]

Is there a filter I can turn on to just get these stories and none of the 'baby-dick' stuff? I'd visit Kotaku if there is.

Well you can check out kotakucore (http://kotaku.com/kotakucore) but that's not all original stuff - it's just all games-related stuff (as opposed to the blend of games, Asian culture, and other random things on Kotaku proper).

I can also tell you that in early 2013, all Gawker Media sites are getting a major re-design, so we might have entirely different sorts of filters then. I'm not 100% sure.

 

[jschreier]

What is this Emily Rogers thing?

Link?

http://kotaku.com/5963341/first-cam...-unusual-wii-u-indie-game-then-came-the-drama

 

[CambriaRising]

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.

It's not a big deal though.

 

[Oersted]

Emily Rogers directly attacked me, so I'm sure you can understand why I wanted to cover that story right away.

As for media matters in general, well, I've talked a lot about this with Stephen, and I think both of our thoughts have changed as a direct result of this thread and this incident. I still don't think stories about game journalism are ever going to have the type of widespread appeal that would make them our #1 priority, but I think there are media stories that maybe we should be covering more often. I have a few in the pipeline as we speak.

I see. Well despite the fact, for outsiders she was only suggesting... i certainly agree that for most people, games journalism is a topic not relevant enough on its own. Stories like

There’s No Shame in Imagining Comic-Con as a First-Person Shooter

have (obviously?) more widespread appeal. But you know, there is maybe a audience for both things. Reports about the game industry and tabloidish articles with yellow-press headlines like

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

. There is room for both. 2011-Kotaku proved this. As a matter of fact, if you act like nothing happened in the industry, you are losing trust. You can´t afford that. That obviously doesn´t apply only to Kotaku.

 

[Puppet Shadow]

http://kotaku.com/5963341/first-cam...-unusual-wii-u-indie-game-then-came-the-drama

Jesus, when will people learn that when you start trying to cover your tracks by deleting articles or twitter posts, your credibility flies out the window. She should have left it all up, and added an apology or retraction along with it.

 

[Jake Tower]

Well you can check out kotakucore (http://kotaku.com/kotakucore) but that's not all original stuff - it's just all games-related stuff (as opposed to the blend of games, Asian culture, and other random things on Kotaku proper).

I can also tell you that in early 2013, all Gawker Media sites are getting a major re-design, so we might have entirely different sorts of filters then. I'm not 100% sure.

I'll keep an eye on it.

The stuff you linked is the kind of thing 'games journalism' means to me. I think in this discussion (spanning several sites, podcasts), some games media people have said their job isn't 'journalism' because the type of investigation that it requires is precluded by the nature of their access to information, and that type of story isn't what their audience is looking for. That's taking the very 'heavy' side of journalism as the whole of it.

What I think of as "games journalism" can be as light as almost anything that did not come off a press release or the talking points of a PR/marketing contact and requiring the journalist do some follow-up, analysis, or issue commentary. Each of the stories you linked seemed to fit the bill, and I like that.

There's a story out there that I don't think has been covered (and if it has please point me to it): Gabe Newell said there's a kid in Kansas making six figures making items for TF2. I'd like a journalist to follow up on this. Is this true? Who is he? What items has he made? What's the process for submitting items? What's the typical monetary return? etc. I usually point to this as example of how "games journalism" fails to be journalism; this story doesn't exist because the information doesn't come in a neat little press release and no one seems to find it interesting or worthwhile to follow up on it.

 

[Dennis]

http://kotaku.com/5963341/first-cam...-unusual-wii-u-indie-game-then-came-the-drama

Thank you.

 

[2San]

http://kotaku.com/5963341/first-cam...-unusual-wii-u-indie-game-then-came-the-drama

Looking at the ks vid of the two brothers. The sounds effects and some graphics looks awfully familiar. While it says it inspired by some games, seems like some things are straight rips. I'm not sure though, since it's more of a gut feeling.

 

[WrenchNinja]

Just listened to side mission briefing 31 at gametrailers, and jschrier was on the episode.

Want to say thanks for defending the people who do want to discuss the whole debate about what game journalism is and its relationship with publishers. I was rolling my eyes when the host said the conversation was boring but I am glad that you made a shout out to those who do care.

 

[jdl]

I like the fact that Kotaku plays to the universal trait of mean-spiritedness and shitting on less fortunate people in the industry. It catches my attention and makes me think.

 

[Uno Venova]

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.

Kind of how I feel reading the last couple pages.

 

[Ledsen]

Just listened to side mission briefing 31 at gametrailers, and jschrier was on the episode.

Want to say thanks for defending the people who do want to discuss the whole debate about what game journalism is and its relationship with publishers. I was rolling my eyes when the host said the conversation was boring but I am glad that you made a shout out to those who do care.

Haven't listened to it, but again, major props to Jason for taking this issue seriously and realizing that this merits discussion and not just casual dismissal. That's a pretty unique mindset for a games writer, and no matter what I think of Kotaku or your work (honestly don't know much about either) it's commendable and important to us, your audience. I'm sure that even the people who heavily dislike Kotaku and criticize you in this very thread would agree.

 

[jschreier]

I'll keep an eye on it.

The stuff you linked is the kind of thing 'games journalism' means to me. I think in this discussion (spanning several sites, podcasts), some games media people have said their job isn't 'journalism' because the type of investigation that it requires is precluded by the nature of their access to information, and that type of story isn't what their audience is looking for. That's taking the very 'heavy' side of journalism as the whole of it.

My mentality is, if some writers don't want to be journalists, that's totally their prerogative. Who am I to decide how other people should approach their jobs? I'm more concerned with my own, and my mandate every day is to find and report interesting stories. (Interesting stories, by the way, don't often require "access," in my experience.)

What I think of as "games journalism" can be as light as almost anything that did not come off a press release or the talking points of a PR/marketing contact and requiring the journalist do some follow-up, analysis, or issue commentary. Each of the stories you linked seemed to fit the bill, and I like that.

Kotaku does a great deal of original analysis, feature reporting, and commentary. One of the reasons I've been posting in this thread so much is that I'm passionate about my job, and I certainly wouldn't be passionate about my job if all I did was re-write press releases or aggregate other peoples' stories.

There's a story out there that I don't think has been covered (and if it has please point me to it): Gabe Newell said there's a kid in Kansas making six figures making items for TF2. I'd like a journalist to follow up on this. Is this true? Who is he? What items has he made? What's the process for submitting items? What's the typical monetary return? etc. I usually point to this as example of how "games journalism" fails to be journalism; this story doesn't exist because the information doesn't come in a neat little press release and no one seems to find it interesting or worthwhile to follow up on it.

This is where you jump the shark. Because a single story hasn't been told yet, game journalism fails to be journalism? Jumping to the conclusion that nobody has reported on this kid because it's not in a press release -- as opposed to because maybe no reporter has thought of it yet, or been interested enough, or asked the same questions you're asking -- is simply asinine.

Your idea is good, and maybe someone reading this thread will decide to pursue it. Maybe I will! I certainly haven't thought to look into that story. And I would certainly hope that doesn't mean I fail at my job.

 

[jschreier]

Haven't listened to it, but again, major props to Jason for taking this issue seriously and realizing that this merits discussion and not just casual dismissal. That's a pretty unique mindset for a games writer, and no matter what I think of Kotaku or your work (honestly don't know much about either) it's commendable and important to us, your audience. I'm sure that even the people who heavily dislike Kotaku and criticize you in this very thread would agree.

I think it's a good conversation to have. I think it's good that folks are keeping a close eye on reporters. Helps keep us honest. And I think it's great for reporters to be constantly evaluating and re-evaluating how they think about ethical issues.

That said, I'd bet more writers would be willing to talk if there weren't so much hateful invective surrounding this conversation.

 

[Ledsen]

I think it's a good conversation to have. I think it's good that folks are keeping a close eye on reporters. Helps keep us honest. And I think it's great for reporters to be constantly evaluating and re-evaluating how they think about ethical issues.

That said, I'd bet more writers would be willing to talk if there weren't so much hateful invective surrounding this conversation.

Well, there's nothing you or the many sensible, intelligent commenters here can do about that. It's the internet, that's how it works, and it's sort of pointless to complain about. All you can do is ignore that segment of the critics and focus on the ones with coherent and well-thought out arguments.

 

[Jake Tower]

This is where you jump the shark. Because a single story hasn't been told yet, game journalism fails to be journalism?

I see it as an example of similar stories that aren't reported on. I gave you credit for doing journalist in the kotaku stories you linked to, so there *is* journalism being done out there. My personal issue with kotaku is wading through the voluminous 'trashy' posts on 'baby dicks,' etc that drowns out the good stuff.

Jumping to the conclusion that nobody has reported on this kid because it's not in a press release -- as opposed to because maybe no reporter has thought of it yet, or been interested enough, or asked the same questions you're asking -- is simply asinine.

It's my interpretation based on what I've seen. In other words, I am asserting it is because the information isn't in a press release that no reporter has thought of it yet, been interested enough, or asked these questions; games journalists are conditioned to only 'report' on things in the PR cycle. I think it's a very reasonable conclusion to reach based on the current state of the medium.

Your idea is good, and maybe someone reading this thread will decide to pursue it. Maybe I will! I certainly haven't thought to look into that story. And I would certainly hope that doesn't mean I fail at my job.

Thank you. I certainly think it's a story worth reporting on and would be of interest to a large audience. I see it as a jumping off point for a look at successful monetization of F2P games, with the slant that Valve is doing it wholly with purely cosmetic items in contrast to other companies.

Some advice Jason: stop being so defensive or taking this so personally. I only want you (and all journalists) to be the best you can be.