Well put, this was the impression the article left me with too.Emily clearly has a passion for this stuff and her heart is in the right place. It's very interesting to read an interview with someone who worked for NOA, which in and of itself is a very rare thing.
That being said, the guy's narrative has him in a room full of obvious idiots, the lone voice standing up for what is clearly true--and then he follows it up with a second stroke of genius. Especially with the lurid detail on Reggie's expressions. It's the kind of blustery story that someone tells. I have no doubt that this guy had a role to play in Nintendo, and quite possibly that he made those suggestions to Reggie. And certainly the allegations of myopia and blindness register true based on the external evidence we have. But the story reads like one guy's boasting.
Like when the junior staffer of the political campaign quits and writes a book about how close he was and all the meetings he was in on and all the great ideas he has and then the candidate and the actual inner circle say "Who? Oh yeah, that guy. He seemed okay, I guess?". I'm not saying that these events did not occur... it's possible they occurred exactly how he said them... but typically when presenting one person's personal narrative, especially one that self-elevates, it's important to be critical and skeptical of it. Maybe there were multiple meetings. Maybe the marketing idiots weren't quite so uniform as they expected. Maybe multiple people had suggestions.
That's also why journalists typically don't run single-source interviews as history or descriptive pieces. If you keep it in interview format, you're saying "that is what he said". If you make it the basis for your story--which this clearly is, given that it has a history piece preceding it--you're endorsing it. Obviously it is labeled as an interview, so there is that, but still I think distance is a good thing. Typically a journalist gets a second source to confirm, corroborate, extend, or refute the first source in order to construct a more holistic picture. I'm sure any of the journalists on GAF would be happy to tell what industry best practices are for handling single-source information like this.
And basically everything post-his departure is just "asking a guy what he thinks". Which is common for interviews, but not super productive. There are a lot more people who want to play inside baseball than those who are actually on the inside
also thisEmily clearly has a passion for this stuff and her heart is in the right place. It's very interesting to read an interview with someone who worked for NOA, which in and of itself is a very rare thing.
That being said, the guy's narrative has him in a room full of obvious idiots, the lone voice standing up for what is clearly true--and then he follows it up with a second stroke of genius. Especially with the lurid detail on Reggie's expressions. It's the kind of blustery story that someone tells. I have no doubt that this guy had a role to play in Nintendo, and quite possibly that he made those suggestions to Reggie. And certainly the allegations of myopia and blindness register true based on the external evidence we have. But the story reads like one guy's boasting.
Like when the junior staffer of the political campaign quits and writes a book about how close he was and all the meetings he was in on and all the great ideas he has and then the candidate and the actual inner circle say "Who? Oh yeah, that guy. He seemed okay, I guess?". I'm not saying that these events did not occur... it's possible they occurred exactly how he said them... but typically when presenting one person's personal narrative, especially one that self-elevates, it's important to be critical and skeptical of it. Maybe there were multiple meetings. Maybe the marketing idiots weren't quite so uniform as they expected. Maybe multiple people had suggestions.
That's also why journalists typically don't run single-source interviews as history or descriptive pieces. If you keep it in interview format, you're saying "that is what he said". If you make it the basis for your story--which this clearly is, given that it has a history piece preceding it--you're endorsing it. Obviously it is labeled as an interview, so there is that, but still I think distance is a good thing. Typically a journalist gets a second source to confirm, corroborate, extend, or refute the first source in order to construct a more holistic picture. I'm sure any of the journalists on GAF would be happy to tell what industry best practices are for handling single-source information like this.
And basically everything post-his departure is just "asking a guy what he thinks". Which is common for interviews, but not super productive. There are a lot more people who want to play inside baseball than those who are actually on the inside
Emily clearly has a passion for this stuff and her heart is in the right place. It's very interesting to read an interview with someone who worked for NOA, which in and of itself is a very rare thing.
That being said, the guy's narrative has him in a room full of obvious idiots, the lone voice standing up for what is clearly true--and then he follows it up with a second stroke of genius. Especially with the lurid detail on Reggie's expressions. It's the kind of blustery story that someone tells. I have no doubt that this guy had a role to play in Nintendo, and quite possibly that he made those suggestions to Reggie. And certainly the allegations of myopia and blindness register true based on the external evidence we have. But the story reads like one guy's boasting.
Like when the junior staffer of the political campaign quits and writes a book about how close he was and all the meetings he was in on and all the great ideas he has and then the candidate and the actual inner circle say "Who? Oh yeah, that guy. He seemed okay, I guess?". I'm not saying that these events did not occur... it's possible they occurred exactly how he said them... but typically when presenting one person's personal narrative, especially one that self-elevates, it's important to be critical and skeptical of it. Maybe there were multiple meetings. Maybe the marketing idiots weren't quite so uniform as they expected. Maybe multiple people had suggestions.
That's also why journalists typically don't run single-source interviews as history or descriptive pieces. If you keep it in interview format, you're saying "that is what he said". If you make it the basis for your story--which this clearly is, given that it has a history piece preceding it--you're endorsing it. Obviously it is labeled as an interview, so there is that, but still I think distance is a good thing. Typically a journalist gets a second source to confirm, corroborate, extend, or refute the first source in order to construct a more holistic picture. I'm sure any of the journalists on GAF would be happy to tell what industry best practices are for handling single-source information like this.
And basically everything post-his departure is just "asking a guy what he thinks". Which is common for interviews, but not super productive. There are a lot more people who want to play inside baseball than those who are actually on the inside