Disclaimer: I work in the publishing world in a non-editorial job, but I am a published writer.
stephentotilo said:
In instances like this, ignoring a story -- one that was already on the Internet before we posted -- is not an option. What is an option is striving to get comment from the people involved. We held off publication until we did. It doesn't matter if I like Scribblenauts, like the folks from 5th Cell, visited their studio a couple of weeks ago, or any of that. If there's news, the reporter's obligation is to look into it.
No one in this thread or elsewhere has complained about Joystiq covering the allegation. Everyone in this thread is complaining about you guys covering the allegation. What do you think the difference is between the coverage that causes a difference in our reaction? Clearly that can't be chaulked up to people being defensive about the allegation or people being angry that you didn't ignore the story.
A reader who is thinking critically and whose heart and gut tell them that people at the development studio didn't intend any wrong will find plenty of facts in the story to support that.
You know when people insulted your move to Kotaku, and you said "What tabloid journalism? What Kotaku pieces do people have a problem with?" ... It's fine that you don't agree with that assessment of this story, but I hope in the future you won't seem flabbergasted that people call Kotaku sleazy. This is what they're talking about.
This isn't a matter of what I want the story to include, but what we think the story needs to include, to be responsible and dispassionate, to focus on what we know and what we can back up. That was the goal and the service we hope to continue to provide to our readers.
Responsible and dispassionate?
Well, the title explicitly frames the story as being racial, rather than the more neutral "Controversial". This will cause people who tend to be progressive on racial sensitivity issues to immediately accept the validity of the charge, and people who tend to feel "PC has gone wild" to immediately dismiss the issue.
The lede does not summarize both sides of the stories, it's more of an exercise in creative writing that sets the tone for a scandal. "Nintendo DS title Scribblenauts has players solve puzzles by writing words. The game has a database of tens of thousands of words writing words causes objects to appear on screen. So what happens when you write "sambo"?" could be rewritten more neutrally as "Nintendo DS title Scribblenauts has players solve puzzles by writing words. The game has a database of tens of thousands of words writing words causes objects to appear on screen. Now, a controversy has erupted over the alleged meaning of one word in the game's dictionary--'sambo'". See how I've shifted the tone from a writer supporting an allegation to a writer reporting an allegation? By externalizing the controversy ("a controversy has erupted") , the writer is no longer a part of the forces making the allegation.
Including the dictionary definition is a joke. The paragraph before the definition adequately establishes the negative connotation of the word and the paragraph before that adequately establishes 5th Cell's intent. Using the dictionary afterward is sleazy because after contrasting two opposing views on the issue, a "neutral" source is cited to justify one of the two views. Everything after the dictionary definition is pure editorializing and condemning the word's inclusion and basically making a mockery of 5th Cell, with no attempt to be anything resembling dispassionate.
The article's "dispassionate conclusion"?
'Both "sambo" and the image of a watermelon carry the baggage of the American experience regarding racism. There is a connection between them. A long, painful and oppressive one.'
The final sentence fragment especially reads like a poor man's impression of Keith Olbermann's impression of Edward Murrow rooting out corruption.
This is not a dispassionate article.