You guys think Joe Buck has a problem announcing Free Tacos for America? Fuck no.
Edit: Wrong thread. Oh, maybe not.
I think the reason the game press is so hesitant to report on it, is that you guys are much to chummy with each other and much to chummy with the game industry. Many of you guys hang out, go out, and are friends with each other. I think that the games press often want to have it both ways that you're journalists and that "hey man, it's just video games".
I think that not reporting on this story isn't OMG!!! worthy. I get more annoyed when I hear game writers say that they are in the video game industry, when they are not.
Nope. It wasn't because we were worried about upsetting fellow reporters. It came down entirely to what our decision to do any story that requires a decent amount or reporting entails: a sense of how many people will find the story interesting vs. the amount of time and effort it will take to report it well vs. other demands on our time. I can't speak for others, but that's how it came down at Kotaku.
Folks here are clearly extremely interested in the topic. If Kotaku was the NeoGAF Times and I was EiC of it, I'd be negligent in my job if I didn't have us cover this whole affair. But stories about the media, while interesting to those who care about the media, are often rather small-fry and just not that compelling to a lot of people. I fully admit that the interest in the story here is intense, so I'm sure it seems strange that we didn't cover it. But given the aforementioned formulation and my sense that there wasn't a whole lot of new revelations to be gleaned from reporting the story, we held off. As I've said before, the nice thing about journalism is you can look into something just about any given day and do something new at any moment. So, given the passion about this topic I'm seeing here, I'm reconsidering whether maybe we should revisit the old "problems with games journalism" story. If we do, it seems to me that it should include the seemingly unshakable disdain and suspicion that some gamers, including some folks here, have for and of the gaming press.
I've appreciated the back and forth and glad some of my zingers hit the mark! I gotta go, though.
Um, because I just had a drink? I don't know. It's almost as weird as people having amnesia about the good journalism done on Kotaku just so they can selectively bash us. People can be unpredictable and occasionally inconsistent.
Why isn't the thread about our Silicon Knights story this long, NeoGAF? Sweeping that one under the rug?
Imagine a world where good games journalism doesn't generate really long threads on NeoGAF, but threads about games journalism and the alleged lack of good games journalism does. I guess everyone, not just Nick Denton, loves the whiff of scandal.
If we do, it seems to me that it should include the seemingly unshakable disdain and suspicion that some gamers, including some folks here, have for and of the gaming press.
I don't think anyone should be bashing Kotaku or Stephen about this, if they don't want to write about it that's their choice.
I think the complaints belong to Schreier personally for mocking Florence's position on Twitter then claiming he isn't interested.
This is the front page of Kotaku right now. Lol. I'm sure this is an issue that many many gamers care deeply about.
Maybe this is what you consider being a watchdog? Way to keep MS in line!
No time to even print a reader response about this mess - but hey we have time to clarify the relationship between 2 stoners popular when most of the Kotaku audience were zygotes!
Nope. It wasn't because we were worried about upsetting fellow reporters. It came down entirely to what our decision to do any story that requires a decent amount or reporting entails: a sense of how many people will find the story interesting vs. the amount of time and effort it will take to report it well vs. other demands on our time. I can't speak for others, but that's how it came down at Kotaku.
Folks here are clearly extremely interested in the topic. If Kotaku was the NeoGAF Times and I was EiC of it, I'd be negligent in my job if I didn't have us cover this whole affair. But stories about the media, while interesting to those who care about the media, are often rather small-fry and just not that compelling to a lot of people. I fully admit that the interest in the story here is intense, so I'm sure it seems strange that we didn't cover it. But given the aforementioned formulation and my sense that there wasn't a whole lot of new revelations to be gleaned from reporting the story, we held off. As I've said before, the nice thing about journalism is you can look into something just about any given day and do something new at any moment. So, given the passion about this topic I'm seeing here, I'm reconsidering whether maybe we should revisit the old "problems with games journalism" story. If we do, it seems to me that it should include the seemingly unshakable disdain and suspicion that some gamers, including some folks here, have for and of the gaming press.
I've appreciated the back and forth and glad some of my zingers hit the mark! I gotta go, though.
Why isn't the thread about our Silicon Knights story this long, NeoGAF? Sweeping that one under the rug?
I never mocked Florence's position on Twitter. Please don't put words in my mouth or levy accusations based on your misinterpretations of things I've said.
jschreier said:I've made it quite clear that I take these issues seriously, and I think I've addressed everyone in this thread with a great deal of respect.
Do you think the story would have been covered more extensively if it had been a publisher that had sued a journalist rather than another journalist?
I seriously have a hard time understanding why this story isn't even mentioned on many sites.
Nope. It wasn't because we were worried about upsetting fellow reporters. It came down entirely to what our decision to do any story that requires a decent amount or reporting entails: a sense of how many people will find the story interesting vs. the amount of time and effort it will take to report it well vs. other demands on our time. I can't speak for others, but that's how it came down at Kotaku.
Folks here are clearly extremely interested in the topic. If Kotaku was the NeoGAF Times and I was EiC of it, I'd be negligent in my job if I didn't have us cover this whole affair. But stories about the media, while interesting to those who care about the media, are often rather small-fry and just not that compelling to a lot of people. I fully admit that the interest in the story here is intense, so I'm sure it seems strange that we didn't cover it. But given the aforementioned formulation and my sense that there wasn't a whole lot of new revelations to be gleaned from reporting the story, we held off. As I've said before, the nice thing about journalism is you can look into something just about any given day and do something new at any moment. So, given the passion about this topic I'm seeing here, I'm reconsidering whether maybe we should revisit the old "problems with games journalism" story. If we do, it seems to me that it should include the seemingly unshakable disdain and suspicion that some gamers, including some folks here, have for and of the gaming press.
I've appreciated the back and forth and glad some of my zingers hit the mark! I gotta go, though.
You could probably pursue a libel case.
I do remember when Kotaku completely leaked a whole bunch of stuff about Modern Warfare 3, like all the levels, maps and the plot (lol). Activision must have been pretty pissed.It was a good article.
Now go after a target that isn't harmless.
Say, EA or Activision. Must be a lot of juicy stuff about the big guys out there........
Kurt Kalata of Hardcoregaming101.net is also one of the best because he just talks about games, pure and simple. The importance of a series, or interviews with translators and voice cast directors. People who were/are important to games you might not know about due to the kind of dialogue you find in aggregate game blogs which are usually bloated with cosplay/ top 10 lists/unboxing fluff pieces.
I believe that journalists should have that same suspicion for other journalists. There should be an ethical standard for all journalists who work for major publications should agree to. That's a cooperation that would help prevent the awkward relationships that do exist between PR and press.
I'd say you were pandering if you were telling the truth. That seems doubtful, though, as no one is clamoring for X-Men: Destiny coverage by any metric.Nope. It wasn't because we were worried about upsetting fellow reporters. It came down entirely to what our decision to do any story that requires a decent amount or reporting entails: a sense of how many people will find the story interesting vs. the amount of time and effort it will take to report it well vs. other demands on our time. I can't speak for others, but that's how it came down at Kotaku.
Ha. I don't see any of this "unshakable disdain and suspicion" in regards to plenty of games websites.Folks here are clearly extremely interested in the topic. If Kotaku was the NeoGAF Times and I was EiC of it, I'd be negligent in my job if I didn't have us cover this whole affair. But stories about the media, while interesting to those who care about the media, are often rather small-fry and just not that compelling to a lot of people. I fully admit that the interest in the story here is intense, so I'm sure it seems strange that we didn't cover it. But given the aforementioned formulation and my sense that there wasn't a whole lot of new revelations to be gleaned from reporting the story, we held off. As I've said before, the nice thing about journalism is you can look into something just about any given day and do something new at any moment. So, given the passion about this topic I'm seeing here, I'm reconsidering whether maybe we should revisit the old "provlems with games journalism" story. If we do, it seems to me that it should include the seemingly unshakable disdain and suspicion that some gamers, including some folks here, have for and of the gaming press.
The implication or explicit statement that we didn't cover the latest games journalism scandal because it would have cost us money is bullshit. That's the strange turn this has taken. We did not refrain from reporting this story last week because we were afraid of upsetting PR people.
Smaller outlets might be more dependent on access than we are, but that's not a factor here. I'm not sure what I can say or do to convince anyone of that If the only way to convince anyone that we're not afraid of PR is to write about this exact story, then there's no point of convincing said person. I'm sure it would be news to PR people across the gaming industry that we're afraid of them.
Thank you to those in this thread who said some kind words about Andrew McMillen's Silicon Knights story. He spent over a year chasing down a lot of that.
The problem with jschreier and many other enthusiast writers posting in this thread is that while they've *said* in this thread they take these issues seriously (what else would they say here - to say anything else would be suicide) their actions say something very different.
Outside of Neogaf jschreier has only minimized and mocked these sorts of issues, been completely dismissive of them, and engaged in a circle-wagon-jerk with people who didn't even read the original piece and don't even know what the discussion is about.
If you compare the reaction of jschreier to say John Walker I think it's fairly obvious which one takes this seriously and which one is just saying so in a thread on Neogaf.
I don't really see the point of repeatedly claiming to the point of tedium that an issue is near and dear to your heart when in the age of the internet we can all see you in other places laughing about it dismissively.
.I don't think I said anything like that latter line. What I said was that I made a joke because the concept seemed distant and absurd to me. As I've clarified in this thread, I think it's a topic worth discussing and thinking about and re-examining constantly. I would be neglecting my job if I didn't take the time to think about this sort of thing.
Anyways, heading off for at least the next hour or two, but thanks again to everyone who took the time to chat.
Very well put. It's unfortunate that so many of you are viewing things with such cold cynicism. One solution might be for people like me to be as transparent as possible and be willing to engage in conversation on these issues, which is one of the reasons I'm posting in this thread. But it's tough to talk about that when the conversation keeps swinging back to the fact that Kotaku is doing something evil because we took 10 minutes to show people what's in the Halo collectors edition but we're not interested in putting a great deal of time into a story about media issues.
Regardless, to address what you said: I had no idea that people were reacting so extremely to those silly tweets until I saw this thread hours after I made them. I can see your perspective to be sure. But the major reason I'm joking about the idea of someone advertising to win a PS3 is because it's so absurd in the first place that anybody would think it's OK to advertise to win a PS3. I am completely detached both mentally and geographically from these incidents, as are many other reporters I've spoken to.
On that same level, the idea that PR people are pulling the strings behind every outlet is also absurd and so at odds with everything I do every day that joking about it is a natural response. But you're right: I can see exactly why it feels like a slap in the face to see me joking about something like that if you actually believe that me and my colleagues are corrupt or shady or unethical or whatever else. I get that.
I'd say you were pandering if you were telling the truth. That seems doubtful, though, as no one is clamoring for X-Men: Destiny coverage by any metric.
Ha. I don't see any of this "unshakable disdain and suspicion" in regards to plenty of games websites.
It's a slap in the face because the major concern people have in this thread isn't conscious "pulling of strings." And you know this: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=43665898&postcount=4095. For you to shift the blame to NeoGAF's supposed gullibility is shameful.You understand that there's a wide range of possibilities between squeaky clean and "pulling the strings," right? The idea of PR people pulling the strings seems absurd to me, but that doesn't mean I should never stop thinking about these issues and constantly scrutinizing how I do my job.
Why isn't the thread about our Silicon Knights story this long, NeoGAF? Sweeping that one under the rug?
worldrevolution said:It took a year..to snoop out.. Silicon Knights?
Dwaynejohnsonclapping.gifAlso, I love how every journalist has dismissed this story because the facts are too unclear or because it's "inside baseball" or just industry drama. THAT COMPLETELY MISSES THE POINT.
When Florence wrote his piece, it wasn't about Geoff's dumb picture, he merely used that as a starting point for a larger discussion.
This story isn't about Florence/Wainright, that's merely the starting point for a larger discussion.
The problem is that journalists don't want to have that larger discussion because it's painful. No one wants to talk about how to alleviate climate change, for example, because every solution is painful. People have to make sacrifices. Give up things that have made them very comfortable. So instead of arguing about the solution, opponents stall the discussion at whether climate change is even occurring, disregarding all of the evidence, because if people have to fight about Step 1 (admitting the problem) then they'll never get to Step 2 (fixing the problem).
THIS IS WHAT TOTILO ET AL ARE DOING. We have 100 pages of arguing that this should be a story (when all facts show that it is!), not 100 pages of what Jason and Stephen are going to do to fix it.
Totilo is telling us that there is no climate change (this isn't a story, no one's interested, there is no pervasive symbiosis, we do lots of other 'real' stories) while the jungles burn and the ice caps melt around him. He'll grow gills and recycle his own urine long before he ever admits anything is wrong, because admitting that something's wrong is the easy part. Fixing it is the awful, painful process.
And why should he even bother to try? Just like global warming, no one person can fix the problem--if Totilo doesn't unbox that X-Box, someone else will.
He asked why the other thread isn't as long as this one.
jasonschreier said:Regardless, using my Twitter feed as a metric for my feelings on a serious issue is misguided and silly. Twitter is not a good platform for this sort of thing.
There is nothing more boring than video game journalism drama. Instead, read some actual journalism about games
Can all the games journalists go back to writing about games instead of other journalists now please?
26 Oct Jason Schreier ‏@jasonschreier
@TriggerRedd it's just the worst isn't it?
If interviews were more like Shoe's interview of Peter Moore after the 360 launch, I'd actually have respect for games journalism.
Note: That doesn't mean games journalism needs to be bitter old fucks like me, but you should be calling out bullshit and getting the heads to squirm a little.
You used Twitter to share your feelings on a serious issue. Nobody forced you do that. And if we're supposed to just ignore your Tweets because Twitter is a poor forum for communication then why are you Tweeting about it in the first place?No I certainly did not. I used Twitter to joke around, as many people use Twitter. Nowhere on my Twitter feed have I shared my feelings on this issue.
You shouldn't ignore my tweets. Judge them however you'd like. But don't jump to the conclusion that Twitter is the sole barometer for my opinions or feelings on any issue. That's insane.
So here you are on Neogaf saying this topic is very serious, and on Twitter you are saying that it is LITERALLY THE MOST BORING TOPIC IN EXISTENCE. The topic that interests you absolutely the least out of every topic in the universe.
So forgive me when I find it hard to believe your Neogaf posts about constantly ruminating on this subject.
As I've said multiple times already in this thread, I find the drama to be very boring. The larger conversation here, the conversation about ethics and limits and the relationship between press and PR, is what I find interesting. Do you see what I'm saying? The conversation about reporters advertising for a PS3 is boring because it's black-and-white. No, they should not be doing that. End of story. The other things we've discussed here are far more interesting and far more important to me.
Everything else aside, isn't this newsworthy in and of itself? The fact that you take this "hierarchy of access" in stride as a matter of course speaks volumes. You're well aware that PR does in fact strong arm the "little guys." And, of course, the "smaller outlets" make up the bulk of the gaming press (many of whom appear on Metacritic BTW). You've as much as acknowledged that this does in fact happen, and that you're aware that it happens, just not to you. Therefore, it's not news.Smaller outlets might be more dependent on access than we are, but that's not a factor here.
"I find it more interesting to write about games. Journalists aren't the story!"
"There is nothing more boring than video game journalism drama. Instead, read some actual journalism about games"
What hilarious jokes.
I've watched a few of TB's opinion segments, but this was really excellent. Took him up on his advice and subscribed.TotalBiscuit's (Youtube personality, commentator, whatever you want to call it) views on this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2keHyS_Ooo&feature=plcp
John Davison (1UP, What They Play, CBS whatever it was, something mobile) smelled the bacon a while ago, too, when he noticed how huge Machinima is on Youtube.
The larger conversation here, the conversation about ethics and limits and the relationship between press and PR, is what I find interesting.
It's Saturday night, folks.I wonder if the well of gentle responses to selectively reply to has run dry. Have we seen the last of jschreier?
It's Saturday night, folks.